Home/BlogThis is an update of my CO2 budget model that explains yearly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959 with three main processes:
- an anthropogenic source term, primarily from burning of fossil fuels
- a constant yearly CO2 sink (removal) rate of 2.05% of the atmospheric “excess” over 295 ppm
- an ENSO term that increases atmospheric CO2 during El Nino years and decreases it during La Nina years
The CO2 Budget Model
I described the CO2 budget model here. The most important new insight gained was that the model showed that the CO2 sink rate has not been declining as has been claimed by carbon cycle modelers after one adjusts for the history of El Nino and La Nina activity.
If the sink rate was really declining, that means the climate system is becoming less able to remove “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere, and future climate change will be (of course) worse than we thought. But I showed the declining sink rate was just an artifact of the history of El Nino and La Nina activity, as shown in the following figure (updated through 2022).
The model also showed how the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a large increase in rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (not a new finding) due to enhanced photosynthesis from more diffuse sunlight. This contradicts the popular perception that volcanoes are a major source of atmospheric CO2.
I attempted to get the results published in Geophysical Research Letters, and was conditionally accepted after one review. But the editor wanted more reviewers, which he found, who then rejected the paper. The model is straightforward, physically consistent, and agrees with the observed Mauna Loa CO2 record, as shown in the following plot.
2022 Update: CO2 continues to Rise Despite Renewable Energy Transition
As I have pointed out before, the global economic downturn from COVID had no measurable impact on the Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2, and that is not surprising given the large year-to-year variations in natural sources and sinks of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, mainly due to emissions from China and India whose economies are rapidly growing.
The following plot zooms in on the 2010-2035 period and shows the Mauna Loa CO2 rise compared to my budget model forced with 3 scenarios from the Energy Information Administration (blue lines), and also compared to the RCP scenarios used by the IPCC in the CMIP5 climate model intercomparison project.
The observations are tracking below the RCP8.5 scenario, which assumes unrealistically high CO2 emissions, yet remains the basis for widespread claims of a “climate crisis”. The observations are running a little above my model for the last 2 years, and only time will tell if this trend continues.
But clearly the international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are having no obvious impact. This is unsurprising since global energy demand continues to grow faster than new sources of renewable energy can make up the difference.
Newsflash: The economic shutdown of COVID did nothing to alter the trend in atmospheric CO2. If man is the cause of increased CO2, how is that possible?
because (1) the shutdown was not nearly severe enough, and (2) year-to-year natural fluctuations in CO2 are large. So, the signal-to-noise wasn’t large enough to measure the effect.
Dr. Spencer if the COVID shutdown wasn’t nearly enough to even show a minimal impact of atmospheric CO2, just what kind of economic shutdown and human suffering would be required to impact CO2? Isn’t the cure worse than the illness?
If I was looking for a reason for the CO2 trend I would look to the major sources of CO2. Those are the oceans by far, the variability of the ocean CO2 flux is greater than the entire production by man. Henry’s law relates the temperature of a fluid and gas solubility. Have the oceans been warming? Yes. Does LWIR between 13 and 18 warm water? No. Have there been fewer clouds blocking incoming high-energy visible radiation over the oceans? No.
Simply look at the cloud cover over the oceans over the past few decades. It has been decreasing allowing more visible radiation to warm the oceans, which in turn degasses CO2. Man can’t change any of that, and no matter what we do, as COVID proved, we can’t stop the oceans from warming, and therefore we can’t change the level of atmospheric CO2.
More CO2 is Life nonsense
The year over year increases of atmospheric CO2 are entirely from manmade CO2 emissions.
Seasonal (within one year) CO2 flows do not increase the year over year atmospheric CO2 level.
Nature is a net C2 absorber.
Nature includes oceans.
Oceans are a net CO2 absorber
Oceans will absorb slightly less CO2 as they warm, but they are still absorbing some of the added manmade CO2.
A one degree C. warming of the oceans, with NO manmade CO2 emissions in that period, might have caused outgassing of 10ppm to 20ppm of CO2.
May I remind you that the last +1 degree change of the global average temperature took 172+ years, from 1850 to 2023.
.Assuming the oceans also warmed by +1 degree C,, in those 172 years, they would have absorbed 10ppm to 20ppm less CO2 than if the oceans had not warmed in that 172 year period.
The atmospheric CO2 level increased by +140ppm since 1850
In comparison, 10ppm to 20ppm of CO2 is very small.
“Assuming the oceans also warmed by +1 degree C,, in those 172 years”
There is no way you will find any measurements to support this assumption. Is way off. Reality is more on the order of less than 0.1C
Richard,
You’ll need to show what Physics-based model you use to make your claims. If you use dL/dt=I-O, how do you get to your assertions? Dr. Spencer’s model has no physical basis in the real world. However, I do appreciate the point he is trying to make. Even using the convoluted model that output is proportional to some level over a baseline level, there still is no problem.
The ocean warming from about 20000 to about 5000 years ago, in the +5 to +6 degree C, range per climate reconstructions
Ice core climate reconstructions show the CO2 level increased from 180 to 290ppm in that period.
If a +5 to +6 degree C. ocean warming caused a +100ppm CO2 increase, from outgassing, then a +1 degree ocean temperature increase since 1850, in the absence of any manmade CO2 emissions, would cause a + 16.7ppm to +20ppm ocean outgassing of CO2.
C3 plants would absorb some of that outgassed CO2.
If the outgassing was +20ppm CO2, and plants absorbed half, the net outgassing would be +10ppm CO2.
I used+10ppm to +20ppm to cover a wide range f possibilities.
There are more precise ways to calculate the effect of Henry’s Law. that have siiilat results for +1 degree C, of ocean warming.
ken…by the same token, you’ll find little evidence the land surface has increased by 1C or that CO2 has increased from 270 ppmv to over 400 ppmv.
The surface record is in no way global until recently. The CO2 levels are based on ice core sample from Antarctica that have been disputed by experts like Jaworowski.
I am not claiming in any way that the planet has not warmed by 1C in 170 years, only that the proof is not exactly well documented. In fact, the IPCC rejects the proof that the Little Ice Age was global in effect, reducing global temps 1C to 2C. Yet they have no problem using ice core samples to infer CO2 levels were exactly 270 ppmv in the mid 18th century. Or inferring the global average was 1 C cooler in 1850 based on scanty evidence.
“Assuming the oceans also warmed by +1 degree C,, in those 172 years
There is no way you will find any measurements to support this assumption. Is way off. Reality is more on the order of less than 0.1C”
Ken is weirdly saying there is no way to find measurements that agree with all the measurements that show the ocean has in fact warmed ~ that much.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Since 1980
“I would look to the major sources of CO2. Those are the oceans by far…”
***
Not so sure about that. I read somewhere that the jungles in equatorial regions are the leading emitter.
At any rate, human contribute a pithy 4%, if that.
Hmmans contributed all of the +50% of CO2 increase from 1850 to 2023
That makes humans responsible for +140ppm, or 1/3, of the cueent 420ppm CO2 level
\You have no idea what you are talking about with your claptrap 4% number.
Richard,
If today, humans are roughly 3-4% of the emissions and nature is 96-97% of the emissions, then how did humans create all the increase? You’ll need to show what physics-based model you used to develop it. Are you saying human CO2 and natural CO2 have different e-times? Prove it.
“If today, humans are roughly 3-4% of the emissions and nature is 96-97% of the emissions, then how did humans create all the increase? ”
Nature’s emissions are cyclic on a daily or annual basis. That means what is emitted is fully re-abs.orbed.
Whereas human emissions from FF are only an ADDITION to this cycle. The FF carbon never goes back in the well or mine.
Not sure why people have trouble with this.
In the penultimate paragraph you wrote “Have there been fewer clouds blocking incoming high-energy visible radiation over the oceans? No.”
And then below that, in the final paragraph you wrote “Simply look at the cloud cover over the oceans over the past few decades. It has been decreasing allowing more visible radiation to warm the oceans,”
Did you mean to say “yes” instead of “no” at the end of that penultimate paragraph?
Dr. Spencer, your temperature graphics clearly relate temperature to El Ninos and La Ninas, explain the ocean cycles and you explain CO2 and temperature. Those oceans cycles have existed long before coal burning power plants, and the quantum mechanics of the CO2 and H2O molecules haven’t changed. Unless you can explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron can warm water, you can’t blame CO2 for any climate change.
Simply look at your data for just the S Pole, it shows no warming, and some months even show cooling. How is that possible unless the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole and most dry and or cold deserts? There is no on-off switch for the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule.
CO2 impedes cooling
The result is a warmer average temperature than would have existed in the absence of CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 does not directly heat — it impedes cooling.
Most of Antarctica has a temperature inversion so that added CO2 causes global cooling there, offset by some local warming near underseas volcanoes.
If CO2 impedes cooling, why does CO2 follow temperature in both short and long scales? What percent of the 33K “GHE” is caused by CO2?
Stephen Anderson
“If CO2 impedes cooling, why does CO2 follow temperature in both short and long scales? ”
Depends on what’s happening.
Carbon sinks are usually temperature sensitive. The current glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital cycles which raise and lower temperature. CO2 then follows.
Shield volcanoes release large quantities of CO2. Once the dust settles the temperature increases following the increased CO2. Examples include three eruption events in the Permian and the PETM.
In this article Dr. Spencer describes the pulse of particles and CO2 released by Pinatubo, which caused initial cooling followed by increased warming.
AGWis another example in which the artificial increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm since 1880 has led to 1.2C of warming.
Particles released from the eruption of volcanoes have nothing to do with the increase of CO2 from 1880 until now. There is no correlation and no physics model that describes it.
“Particles released from the eruption of volcanoes have nothing to do with the increase of CO2 from 1880 until now. There is no correlation and no physics model that describes it. ”
Agreed. The particulates cause short term cooling. It happened with Pinatubo in 1991 and Tambora in 1816. The latter caused the Year without a Summer, with worldwide crop failures.
The idea that diffused sunlight increases photosynthesis is mistaken. The drop in temperature is the main dampener of photosynthesis.
The effect of particulates on CO2 is negligible. They don’t stay in the atmosphere long enough to have a measurable effect.
You do understand that CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules don’t you? Just how much energy to you think can be contained in 1 out of every 2,500 molecules vibrating at the energy of a -80 C black body? H2O absorbs most of the IR spectrum and it is far more abundant yet no one focuses on H2O. Why?
To Stephen Anderson
Any cause of the ocean temperatures changes will alter the ratio of atmospheric CO2 versus ocean CO2. That process has a long lag due to the ocean’s very high thermal inertia, The change in the atmospheric CO2 level is a delayed RESULT of any natural or manmade cause of change to the ocean temperature.
Humans adding CO2 directly to the atmosphere is a different process with the short term effect of impeded cooling DIRECTLY from the added CO2 — not a side effect of some other climate change variable.
These are two DIFFERENT climate change processes that happen at the SAME time. That confuses many people.
Richard,
A CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule, whether it is emitted by an automobile or the ocean. The sum of all emissions is the input to the atmosphere. The sum of all sinks is the output from the atmosphere. The change in atmospheric level of CO2 with respect to time is a first-order linear differential equation. (conservation of mass) When a tank drains liquid out from multiple drains (e-times) the rate is not limited by the smallest drain, the rate is faster than the largest drain. You’ll need to prove that fossil fuel CO2 has a very long e-time and how nature accomplished this feat.
“You do understand that CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules dont you? Just how much energy to you think can be contained in 1 out of every 2,500 molecules vibrating at the energy of a -80 C black body? H2O absorbs most of the IR spectrum and it is far more abundant yet no one focuses on H2O. Why?”
First of all strawman. Climate science is not ignoring H2O, but unlike CO2 it is a condensable vapor, whose concentration depends on air temperature.
You do understand that what makes a Ruby red and able to abs.orb ALL blue light is one out every million or so of its atoms.
The one out of 2500 molecules will block all the IR in certain wavelength bands.
“vibrating at the energy of a -80 C black body?”
Nah, that aint science.
“You do understand that CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules dont you? Just how much energy to you think can be contained in 1 out of every 2,500 molecules vibrating at the energy of a -80 C black body? ”
When they abzorb that energy, they give it up pretty quickly to the O2 and N2 and other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere.
And they get it back just a quickly so
CO2 gives off that -80 C blackbody energy no matter what temperature the parcel of air the CO2 molecule is in.
“When a tank drains liquid out from multiple drains (e-times) the rate is not limited by the smallest drain, the rate is faster than the largest drain.”
Drains to where?
Some of these are drained to places that can return the favor and can drain CO2 back to the atmosphere in a short time: the land, the biosphere, and the surface ocean.
CO2 drained to these places is still in circulation. Thus FF CO2 drained to these places has increased the amount in circulation.
Only one, the deep ocean, is actually a drain that doesnt return the carbon for a long long time.
And it is the smallest drain.
First of all strawman. Climate science is not ignoring H2O, but unlike CO2 it is a condensable vapor, whose concentration depends on air temperature.
Strawman? Simply stand outside during the summer when a cloud passes over. Condensable? Big deal, it is the concentration that matters and CO2 in one area can be 4 parts per hundred and in another 4 parts per million and you don’t get monstrous temperature differentials and CO2 absorbs far more LWIR. This “condensible” argument is pure nonsense, GHGs react at the speed of light and over the oceans H2O is present near the surface 100% of the time.
You do understand that what makes a Ruby red and able to abs.orb ALL blue light is one out every million or so of its atoms.
Point being? I’ve already said CO2 absorbs 100% of the LWIR at about 11 cm above the surface. More CO2 may lower that level to 10 CM. Care to explain how adding more CO2 can somehow absorb more than 100% of the available energy? If CO2 can create energy then we have a totally new energy source and we need to rewrite Newton’s Laws.
The one out of 2500 molecules will block all the IR in certain wavelength bands.
I’m pretty sure no one disagrees that CO2 abrorbs 15 micron LWIR with the energy of a -80 Degree C. That is why the stratosphere never drops below -80 C. The can test this with an IR Gun.
vibrating at the energy of a -80 C black body?
Nah, that aint science.
Simply go to SpectralCalc and and look up what temperature 15 microns is associated with. Here is a hint earth emits around 10 Micron, Ice emits around 12 Micron, Dry Ice sublimates at you guessed it -80C. Funny how all those stars seem to align and you ignore them.
As I said, nobody is ignoring water vapor. End of story.
The ruby could abso.orb blue light and warm. It doesnt matter that only 1 out of a million atoms are responsible. Their heat gets transferred to all the other atoms.
So the small fraction of Co2 in the atmosphere doesnt prevent it from warming the atmosphere when OLR is abs.orbed.
A CO2 laser can burn a hole in you, so CO2 emitted photons have enough energy to heat things to thousands of degrees, given enough of them.
So the low energy of CO2 emitted photons don’t prevent them from warming surfaces that they hit.
Nate,
Now you sound like Eman, horse poop. The sum of the inputs minus the sum of the outputs is a First Order linear differential equation, no less, no more.
We’re going with no answers just insults, Stephen?
Drains to where?
As the current co2 sink flow is approximately 20 GtCO2/y, current emissions need to be reduced with 30% to to 20 GtCO2/y to stabilize atmospheric co2 level. Net zero is also not required to stabilize atmospheric co2.
I’m afraid not.
Before we started dumping CO2, the atmosphere and carbon sinks were in equilibrium. CO2 flowed between them but the net flow was zero.
Since we increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 50% the equilibrium has been disrupted. Because of the excess in the atmosphere CO2 flows into the other sinks as the whole system seeks equilibrium.
If we cut emissions to match the current sink flow, then after a while the sink flow would reduce in proportion. Atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase, but at a slower rate.
It is worth reducing emissions to slow the CO2 increase and the warming rate. That would give us more time to get our act together but to stop the warming completely we need to go all the way to net zero.
If we would reduce emissions to 20 GtCO2/y then atmospheric CO2 level would stabilize. There is no sign of sonk saturation.
Your 20 GtCO2/y is not a constant. It varies as the concentration gradient between the atmosphere and the two main sinks varies. If you vary the amount of CO2 we are to the atmosphere, then the flow into the sinks will also vary.
To illustrate this, consider a simple physical model.
Take three aquarium tanks.
One is 2ft by 1ft. Label it “Atmosphere”.
The others are 1ft by 1 ft. Label them “Biosphere” and Oceans”. These represent the two main carbon sinks.
Connect the three tanks with siphons and fill them about half full with water. After a short time the water levels will be the same in all three tanks, in equilibrium.
To represent a year’s addition of CO2 add 500ml to the Atmosphere tank. 125ml will flow into the Biosphere tank and 125ml into the Oceans tank. 250ml will remain in the Atmosphere tank.
Now represent a reduction in emissions to 20 GtCO2/y. Add 200ml to the Atmosphere tank. 50ml flows into the Biosphere tank and 50ml into the Oceans tank. 100ml stays in the atmosphere tank.
Note that the flow into the sink tanks decreases as the simulated emissions decreases. This happens in the tank model and in Earth’s carbon budget.
The sink is proportional to the atmospheric concentration, and is only indirect related to emissions. Compare it with the outflow of a conic coffee filter, which is only related to the water level in the filter. Emissions and sinks are decoupled, as can be observed in the Mauna Loa observations.
A graph which shows the linear relationship between sink and atmospheric concentration
https://klimaathype.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/sink_per_ppm.png
As Roy noted the sink rate has stayed constant. And as a result, the concentration keeps rising.
“It is worth reducing emissions to slow the CO2 increase and the warming rate. That would give us more time to get our act together but to stop the warming completely we need to go all the way to net zero.”
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, when using modern pollution controls, was inadvertently the BEST thing humans have ever done to improve their planet’s ecology.
Your CO2 is a boogeyman claptrap needs to meet reality. And you need a lobotomy, Intropic.
Earth’s atmosphere currently has about 3,300 gigatonnes of CO2. 2019 and 2021 manmade CO2 emissions were about 37.1 gigatonnes, enough to increase 3,300 gigatonnes by a little over 1.1%, or 420 PPMV by about 4.7 PPMV (minus annual removal by nature). 2020 had emissions of 35.26 gigatonnes, close enough to 1.85 gigatonnes less than in 2019 and 2021. This is an annual emissions decrease from 37.1 gigatonnes by close enough to 5%. This means 2020’s decrease of manmade emissions were equivalent to about .235 PPMV of atmospheric CO2, which is around 10% of average annual increase of atmospheric CO2 in recent years.
With CO2 greening our planet, i would imagine that plants culd absorb more CO2 than in past decades.
***********************************************************************
Where did the term “energy budget” come from?
There’s no money involved — so why a “budget”?
**********************************************************************
I predict that the climate confusers will start using a new CO2 growth rate scenario: RCP12.5. We already know RCP8.5 is not realistic, so a new scenario doesn’t have to be realistic either. However, it must follow the first law of modern climate science: The new CO2 growth rate scenario must be “Worse than we thought”.
And I’m sure RCP12.5 will be worse than RCP8.5.
Now let’s consider the climate confuser games:
If the CMIP6 models are used for a TCS (CO2 Transient Climate Sensitivity estimate) in 70 years, using the reasonable RCP4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, they predict a warming rate of about the same as the 1975 to 2015 global warming rate. A number the IPCC never mentions to the public. They publicized ECS (CO2 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) in 400 years, using the RCP8.5 CO2 growth rate scenario.
That would be a “more of the same” type of TCS / RCP4.5 prediction for the next 70 years. What does that mean?
(1) A “more of the same: extrapolation does not need a computer program — it can be done on the back of an envelope.
(2) Have “more of the same” predictions in the past proved accurate? The easy answer is NO.
1910 to 1940 warming did NOT predict 1940 to 1975 cooling
1940 to 1975 cooling did not predict 1975 to 2014 warming
1975 to 2014 warming did not predict the lack of warming so far since 2014 (UAH data).
The Obvious Conclusion:
Humans can not make accurate climate predictions.
Therefore, climate confuser models developed by humans can’t make accurate climate predictions. They should not be considered to be actual models of the climate on this planet. The so-called models are really climate astrology, that can be “right” only by chance.
The climate science knowledge to build a climate model that might be able to predict the future climate does not exist. And if detailed knowledge of EVERY climate change variable did exist, there is no logical reason to believe a long term climate prediction would be possible.
With the one exception of my own 1997 climate prediction: (Nobel Prize pending):
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”.
A budget describes the flow of something into, around and then out of a system. In accountancy a budget describes the flow of money, but other flows can also be described by budgets.
In biology you can describe many processes by budgets. Cycles for minerals such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous are described by budgets. The flow of energy through your body or an ecosystem can be described by a budget, as can the energy flow through the climate system.
Your eccentric friend Ed Berry tried unsuccessfully to propose an alternative carbon budget.
Ed Berry is not my friend
I consider him to be a science fraud
In ACCOUNTING, cash flow and income statements describe money flows. They are dynamic. Budgets define spending limits agreed to by the spenders, or at least by The Big Cheese CEO. They are static.
I’m a biologist. We quantify the dynamic flow of energy through an ecosystem as an energy budget. “Budget” describes the flow as well as the limits. Climate researchers use the same term to describe the flow of energy through the climate system.
I’ve noticed this often in the climate debate. Someone unfamiliar with the science uses a term from their own field which is used in a different way and becomes confused.
A classic example is Gordon Robertson’s use of feedback in the limited sense applied to electronics, rather than as biologists and climate researchers use it.
That comment made so much sense, Intropic, that I am hereby deleting my prior recommendation that you need a lobotomy. You just need CO2 hatred deprogramming.
Ent, your cult does NOT have an energy budget/balance for Earth. Your cult tries to balance radiative flux, which has NO requirement to balance. Flux-in does NOT have to balance with flux-out. Your cult continues to confuse energy with flux.
That aint science.
You can convert everything in joules, Pupman.
See how that works for you.
Richard,
You’ll need to falsify Berry’s model and not just resort to calling him a fraud. You can’t falsify him with your beliefs. You will need to use math.
Berry ignores stuff like Revelle Factor which is understood by everyone to be the bottleneck for carbon removal from the atmosphere.
In the past, science revolutionaries had to falsify the mainstream view.
Why isnt that Berry’s burden?
For 800000 years in the ice core reconstructions, the CO2 level never increased above about 280ppm or decreased below 180ppm. the variations were natural most likely related to large changes in ocean temperatures.
After 1850 at about 280ppm, humas added about +250ppm +/-50ppm of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 from burning wood is a guess. The production of oil, gas and coal should be reasonably accurate. I use +/-50ppmonly because I don’t want anyone to think this is a very accurate measurement.
A person with common sense would immediately realize that adding +250ppm of CO2 emissions should increase the atmospheric CO2 level. And it did. Up +140ppm by 2023. What happened to the +250ppm added minus the 140ppm left in the atmosphere? That portion of manmade CO2 emissions must have been absorbed by nature.
There is NO OTHER LOGICAL explanation of how the atmospheric CO2 level rise +50% in the 172 years since 1850. There is also no logical explanation for where the +250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions went to, if 94% to 97% of them allegedly did NOT stay in the troposphere.
The +140ppm of CO2 from manmade emissions is 33%
140ppm / 420ppm) of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
Not 3%
Not4%
Not5%
Ed Berry is a science fraud
The late Murray Salby was a science fraud too
There nay a few others.
People who believe them are deluded or stupid on te subh ject of climate science.
You appear to believe Ed Berry, M,, Sanderson
Therefore, you are deluded of stupid on the subject of climate science. I recommend a lobotomy (Note: I am not a doctor)
Have a nice day
I have falsified it.
Berry’s model requires CO2 to move against the concentration gradient with no energy input to drive the work being done. This is thermodynamically impossible.
The Revelle Factor is a red herring proffered by you because you have nothing. (1)Show me where the Revelle Factor fits in dL/dt=Input-Output. (2) Why doesn’t the Revelle Factor affect natural CO2? (3) How does the Revelle Factor differentiate between natural and human CO2?
It requires CO2 to move against a concentration gradient? What gradient? He’s already shown that e-times are short in his first paper.
Richard,
That’s very nice circular reasoning. The increase in CO2 from 1880 is 140 ppm. Man caused all the increase. Therefore man’s contribution is 33% or 140ppm.
Eman,
You still haven’t explained how human CO2 got into the deep ocean from the IPCC carbon cycle model. When are you going to do that?
“how me where the Revelle Factor fits ”
Ive explained it all before Stephen, with links. You just ignore it and don’t get it.
The real problem is that when I asked Berry about it, he had no idea and assumes it doesnt matter, and ignores it. It does matter.
Real science revolutionaries like Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, had to show what the flaws in mainstream science were.
Berry thinks he doesnt need to.
Stephen you ignored the rest of RGs points, which required common sense. Do you have any?
In accounting interest yield is determined by day to day bank balance, not by cash flow.
In the co2 balance the sink flow is determined by atmospheric concentration, not by emission.
Yield returns are computed by periods, which can vary from day to years and beyond depending on the period the capital is lent. The longer the term, the longer the returns. At least when the yield curve is not inverted.
Someone who does not understand the flow of money should not talk about money.
You are correct that neither english nor economy is my forte, yours probably is, but then you are not good at geophysics and resort to language games.
You are very good at language games Willard.
As for “With CO2 greening our planet, i would imagine that plants culd absorb more CO2 than in past decades.”: This is true. Also, this means more plant matter being eaten and decomposed by non-plants, and increase of seasonal variation of the amount of plant biomass on northern hemisphere land. The annual ripple in the Keeling curve (Mauna Loa CO2) has been increasing.
A tropical storm along with a cold front from the south will bring a lot of rain to Western Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/QrSWF6T/pobrane.png
A tropical storm along with a cold front from the south will bring a lot of rain to Western Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/QrSWF6T/pobrane.png
Sorry.
This year probably saw a significant increase in photosynthesis in Australia.
Is Australia a green land?
https://i.ibb.co/N1v5bv0/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-13-181636.png
Photosynthesis has also increased in California.
https://youtu.be/xJSsWLGIrwA
As always with your work, well thought out, well written, well illustrated.
I laughed when I saw that you couldn’t get it published. The “peers” in the modern “peer-review” system basically act as gatekeepers to prevent opposing views from appearing in the journals.
And this fits with my own calculation of the sink rates that I’ve done over the last couple of decades, which I also found to be stable and not declining.
I never thought of a model that adjusts for El Nino, although the effect of the El Nino on the CO2 levels is well known.
Well done, that man! Now I gotta go replicate your model and see what I can find out.
My ver best to you and yours, thanks for all the good work,
w.
“The peers in the modern peer-review system basically act as gatekeepers to prevent opposing views from appearing in the journals”.
***
Which is returning much of science to the pre-Newton days.
I relate it to a form of mental illness. I studied 4 years of psychology as a minor subject while studying engineering. I am not an expert in psychology by any means but I learned during my studies that psychological issues break down roughly into neuroses and psychoses. The former is usually manageable whereas the latter often requires medical and or institutional intervention.
Neurosis is basically an inability to deal with reality. Everyone falls prey to that, even the well adjusted. We all tend to have moments where we tend to drift into a world of fantasy but most of us can tell the difference and we are able to get back to the issues with reality.
I am beginning to notice a trend these days, however, in which people, including scientists, tend to lose touch with reality altogether. They immerse themselves in a fairy tale world which they justify based on belief alone. Worse still, meany of them become cruel, trying to discredit and dismiss the work of other scientists. When it reaches a stage where one scientist is willing to ruin the career of another scientist simply out of disagreement, that person has crossed the line between reality and fantasy.
Peer review as practiced by many these days is about those who have crossed over. They have lost touch with any semblance of reality, integrity, and/or decency.
Testing
It would be informative to see the rational given for the rejection of the paper before passing judgement on the merits of it being rejected.
Mark, it’s a cult.
A cult doesn’t want ANY challenges to its beliefs. No science. No reality. No honesty. None of the time.
mark…Australian scientist, Barry Marshall discovered that duodenal ulcers were caused by H. Pylori, a bacterium that can survive in stomach acid. When he submitted his paper, the journal editor did not even pass it on for peer review. His justification was that Marshall’s paper was one of the ten worst scientific papers he had ever read.
This is what goes on with modern peer review. You have arrogant SOBs acting as editors and reviewers who have forgotten the purpose of peer review. That purpose is not to act as judge and jury as to whether a paper has veracity it is solely to ensure that the paper meets the basic of science.
Peers are not the editors or reviewers, thy are the scientists who should be reading the papers. The decision as to whether the paper has merit should be left up to scientists who can verify it, not stuffed shirts in a journal.
> The observations are tracking below the RCP8.5 scenario
The observations are also tracking above RCP4.5 scenarios, so I would take them luckwarmingly.
Besides, if one does not like 8.5, just add a decade or two:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
I believe 8.5 is wrong in terms of global emission and wrong in regards to global CO2 levels.
Also in terms energy, humans tend to become more energy efficient
over time. Which also true of nature, crops get more efficient, and
nature also, do, as human do in terms of engineering crops.
Also China emits most CO2, and it’s going to run out of coal in a decade of two. And/or could be like US, find better energy sources than coal. And maybe human can stop naturally burning coal deposits, and/or they end burning by themselves.
And in 10 years, we could mining lunar water on the Moon. And/or we could in 10 years be mining ocean methane hydrates [or far more than are doing now].
And in terms, less speculative, the global satellite market should continue increasingly doing stuff using less energy.
Your irrelevant beliefs are duly noted, gb.
But, not notable.
Everyone believes it.
Where are the diatoms thriving now? In the southern oceans.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/04/13/0300Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular=-326.65,-0.67,179
“But clearly the international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are having no obvious impact. This is unsurprising since global energy demand continues to grow faster than new sources of renewable energy can make up the difference. ”
So the fossil fuel lobby has won and damaging climate change has become inevitable.
Ent, only cults fear reality: I attempted to get the results published in Geophysical Research Letters, and was conditionally accepted after one review. But the editor wanted more reviewers, which he found, who then rejected the paper.
Boo!
Common sense has won.
That was aimed at Ent not Clint. You won’t find common sense in peer review.
I believe there is a crisis, but it is a crisis of public perception. The federal government has set new standards (requirements) for electric cars and many local governments have various restrictions on new natural gas appliances. Where is all of the new electricity going to be generated? The answer seems to be more power plants burning natural gas. What is accomplished if new electric load is added to the grid faster than renewable sources are coming on line? I need to ask how many solar panels it takes to power a solar panel factory, or a battery factory for that matter? If one assumes a 25 year life cycle for solar panels, that means the 4% of all panels need to be replaced every year forever.
It is difficult to replace fossil fuel generated energy with renewables. When the fossil fuels run out or, more likely, become uneconomic, the final solution will have to be reduced energy consumption.
Since the only way in which past civilizations have reduced their energy consumption was by collapsing, I am not optimistic about our current efforts.
Last news I heard we still have at least 200 years of fossil fuel remaining. That is an adequate amout of time to find alternate solutions.
” I need to ask how many solar panels it takes to power a solar panel factory, or…”
If Moon has mineable water and it’s mined, we will find out.
Though making solar cells on the Moon will be far more efficient.
Though possible we turn natural lunar terrain into “solar panels”-
it this point, it’s not thought to be very efficient, but given time
advancements could be made.
I read about it decades ago, what are saying today?:
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-alchemist-powers-our-lunar-future/
An old reference:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050110155/downloads/20050110155.pdf
Most google hits are relate blue origin:
https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/building-solar-cells-on-the-moon/
This is easier to read:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576504003686
A different one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576504003686
But this would be done later, and/or something lunar bases to could
work on.
With lunar water mining, to be profitable, you need to mine a lot
water: 100 tons and getting to thousands of tons within few years
and need a lot electrical power to split a 100 tons of water in short enough time period.
As general idea, but enough from Earth to split 100 tons of water within 1 year. ISS power is about 20 tons per year
From Earth bring solar array or nuclear reactor, you can also bring lots solar cells [not much mass], make wire, framework or simple stuff.
You try lots of stuff- and good chance you go bankrupt. And you going get competition- which is always biggest risk of going bankrupt.
Anyways you bring a large amount of mass from Earth, in order to quickly get to point of needing to bring less mass from Earth.
You will various lunar companies competing with Earth shipped priced products.
In terms large Earth company, they focus on electrical power production, and have a lot small start up focused various parts
of lunar market- tourism, lunar sample return, going from lunar polar region to other spots on Moon, etc. Though general thing with start up, is that if successful they are acquired by bigger companies.
You to say they doing experiments for the larger companies.
But if no mineable water, maybe it just slow paced governmental lunar stuff, though NASA would focused on Mars exploration. At some point launch costs could be low enough, that you don’t need to have mineable lunar water to do stuff on the Moon.
Anyways hopeful in 5 years, more will be known.
Yes, the Ralf Kramden method — to the moon!
I get more of a kick out of how Alice handles him with the fat jokes. Mind you, you have to credit Gleason for allowing himself to be the but of such jokes.
The appearance of a is also due to lagging response to concentration increases.
Biosphere uptake lags emissions/concentrations substantially. The land biosphere takes in an increasing portion of emissions every year. Soil and microbial effects lag, also epigenetic responses. Every year the biosphere takes in more. In the 90s it was about 25% of emissions, today its close to 30%, even as emissions went up substantially. This also makes the land better at handling water.
See full 🧵 https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891477857198081
aaron…from your Twitter account…
“So, CO2 and warming increase water availibility (w/o generally increasing flooding)
And, increases soil resiliance:”
***
I am not following your reasoning. Care to elaborate?
There is a consensus that precipitation has increased, but there is no corresponding increase in flooding. If anything, there is a slight decrease in flooding.
Also, gravimetric data shows land capturing about 77km^3 of water per year. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20716
CO2 uptake by the biosphere implies at least 25km^3 of water retained by the biosphere from un respired photosynthesis and corresponding dry biomass increase.
Increasing soils carbon makes soil both better at absorbing water and retaining it when hot/dry.
https://www.noaa.gov/media/image_download/840f2e84-f67f-4200-89a8-763acc37738e
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/29/10/jtech-d-12-00001_1.xml
IPCC finds no trends in flooding globally
https://twitter.com/rogerpielkejr/status/1625531512069435392?s=46&t=uaJknHY-4wDA2Gpdpl6pbw
As CO2 gets higher, plants share more resources with symbiotes and soil, making nutrients more available and adding bio carbon matter to soil. This makes soil better at absorbing and retaining water.
Just a thought, how much metal oxide (CaO, Na2O, etc) are released during a volcanic explosion? They would neutralize CO2 releases.
An atmosphere, and anything it constrains – gases, particulate matter etc., reduces the amount of sunshine reaching the Earth’s surface. NASA’s measurements are close to Tyndall’s 150 years ago.
Some people believe that reducing radiation input causes temperatures to rise. I don’t.
The atmosphere also impedes the rate of energy loss at night, resulting in temperatures not falling as fast as they otherwise wood – say, in absence of said atmosphere. Tyndall pointed out that life would short without food – all plants having died due to intense freezing each night, and boiling during the day.
Without an atmosphere terrestrial temperatures would be much the same as the Moon – about 125C in the daytime, -130 C at night.
Burning fossil fuels is CO2 neutral. All the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere in the first place. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere just allows plants to grow more.
The atmosphere also serves to dissipate heat by gathering it from the surface through direct contact and dissipating the heat naturally at higher altitudes. In the Tropics, it also transports heat poleward, distributing heat within the atmosphere.
Operation Hymn-Sheet: identifying points on which skeptics agree
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/13/operation-hymn-sheet-identifying-points-on-which-skeptics-agree/
“The following are the suggested criteria for including a proposition in our Hymn-Sheet:
First, each proposition should be of sufficient importance that, if it were generally known about and understood, it would materially influence the climate-change debate.
Secondly, each proposition should be clear enough and simple enough to be expressed, explained and justified in not more than 100 words. Complex theories have no place here.
…”
And two more.
It’s a known fact that we in icehouse global climate, it’s been ongoing for 33.9 million and the last couple million years has coldest time period of this icehouse global climate [which can also be called, an Ice Age {one of five known Ice Age that Earth has had].
And if anyone knows anything about human evolution, then they know this.
Next, global warming is not “about” more extreme temperatures, rather it is about getting a more uniform global temperature- a higher average global temperature.
And 15 C or 59 F is cold.
My problem with Monckton is his theories that are not backed by science. For example, he talks about the feedbacks in control systems which have nothing to do with the positive feedbacks claimed by climate alarmists. Those feedbacks require an amplifier and there is absolutely no way to get around that. Monckton seems to have a problem with advice in that regard.
He talks about control system feedbacks which are nothing more than direct current feedbacks that have no amplification. All they do is tell a controller how to respond. For example, feedback from an RPM sensor on a motor shaft will tell the controller if the motor is running in a correct RPM range and whether to increase rotor current to speed the motor up, or decrease the current to slow it down.
There is no possibility of a runaway effects in such a system. It is not possible to amplify any signals unless that is desired over a long transmission line to make up forline losses. However, that amplification has nothing to do with the controller or has it any effect on the motor speed.
I tend to imagine, Monckton is not very interested in global climate- but maybe I am projecting.
I tend to imagine he weird interests, and I would want to know why he not interested in space exploration.
Gordon Robertson
You are still using “feedback ” in the very limited context of an electronic amplifier with a power source, and misapplied it in the larger context of complex multivariable systems such as ecologies and climate systems.
In the context of climate feedback refers to the amplification or damping of a change due the effect of other processes.
For example, at the start of the current interglacial the global average temperature was 9C, the CO2 content was 200ppm and ice sheets covered all the land above 50N latitude.
Changes in orbital cycles raised the Northern Hemisphere light input enough to raise the global temperature by 1.2C. Melting ice sheets reduced the albedo, absorbing more light and CO2 released from carbon sinks retained more energy.
The feedback effects of reduced ice albedo and increased CO2 amplified the temperature rise from 1.2C to 5.0C. Until the Industrial Revolution the Holocene had stabilised at 14.2C and 280ppm CO2. Of that 5C increase, 1.2C was due to orbital cycles and the other 3.8C due to amplifying feedbacks as biologists and climate researchers understand them.
If you and I are using the term feedback in the same way, perhaps you can describe the warming at the start of the Holocene using the mathematics of electronic feedback.
ent…” You are still using feedback in the very limited context of an electronic amplifier with a power source, and misapplied it in the larger context of complex multivariable systems such as ecologies and climate systems.
In the context of climate feedback refers to the amplification or damping of a change due the effect of other processes”.
***
I have the notion that you are Irish, and if I’m correct, that might explain your stubbornness.
Positive feedback using an electronic amplifier is not a limited case, it is one of the only practical examples of positive feedback. The only other genuine PF coming to mind is an oscillator, which depends on an amplifier. There is no such thing as a positive feedback in a climate system. In fact, there are very few examples of a positive feedback in nature without an amplifier.
Of course, I am excluding servo system PF which is nothing more than a D.C signal with a sign and does not apply to what we are talking about. Unfortunately, Monckton is under the delusion it does.
Positive feedback is described by the equation…
G = A/(1 + AB)
G = overall gain
A = amplifier gain
B = feedback
Show me the equation for your alleged positive feedback in the atmosphere. Gavin Schmidt of GISS couldn’t even write an equation to describe PF and he has a degree in math.
If you pluck a string on an electric guitar that is plugged into an amplifier, you can achieve positive feedback (sustain) which can last for lengthy periods, provided the gain is high enough and your guitar strings are close to the speakers. Under ideal conditions with the right note being struck, a positive feedback can be set up that lasts for several minutes or longer.
You can get a limited feedback effect on an acoustic guitar that is not fed to an amplifier through a microphone. It comes from the natural resonance of the hollow body and is very frequency dependent. However, the sustain lasts a very limited time, if any.
BTW, longer sustain can be achieved in a solid body electric guitar by designing the body to resonate better with the strings. Many guitars have bolt-on necks and the joint tends to kill sustain. Therefore, modern guitars are often uni-body to give a better sustain. However, the longer sustain still comes via the amplifier.
Natural resonance is possible. The Seattle-Tacoma Bridge was a perfect example. It was a suspension bridge designed before engineers knew about that kind of feedback. The key to the bridge collapse was the sustained winds causing the steel suspension cables to vibrate, the frequency with which they vibrated set up a resonance effect with the bridge deck and it began vibrating with a clear sine wave pattern. The bridge ultimately collapsed.
There is absolutely nothing in the atmosphere that can replicate such a resonant condition. It is possible to naturally amplify a signal in a resonant chamber. However, it requires an amplifying device like a resonant chamber and the amount of amplification is limited in such a case.
By continuing to spread this pseudo-science about positive feedbacks in the atmosphere, especially those than can run away, alarmists are perpetuating a lie.
Roy put it best several years ago. He claimed that a positive feedback in climate is a ‘not-so-negative’ negative feedback. In electronics, a signal that is negative can be claimed to be positive, wrt a signal that is more negative.
BTW…this feedback argument is like the Moon rotation argument. I keep asking spinners for a step by step explanation of how the Moon can keep the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating on a local axis at the same time. Not one spinner has offered such an explanation.
By the same token, I have asked alarmists to explain, step by step how positive feedback works in the atmosphere and not one has offered such an explanation. Even the head of GISS cannot explain it.
There are certain ideas/beliefs maintained by scientists through nothing more than consensus. That goes straight to the top, to the level of Einstein. He glibly offered that time is the hands on a clock, one of the more stupid descriptions of time I have ever encountered. Problem is, all the Einstein worshippers accept his word without question. When someone like me comes along and questions him, I am told I can’t do that, he’s Einstein.
> Not one spinner has offered such an explanation.
C’mon, Bordo.
Wanna bet?
I await your explanation, Wee willy. How does the Moon keep the same side pointed at Earth and rotate on a local axis at the same time?
Come on, Bordo.
This has been explained to you many times already.
No bet, no work from me.
Come on, bet something.
” I keep asking spinners for a step by step explanation”
And you have received many lengthy explanations, facts, and links.
Did you forget? Go back and look.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“They immerse themselves in a fairy tale world which they justify based on belief alone.”
You do a lot of that.
ent…you are welcome to your delusions, the point is trying to prove I live in a fairy tale world. I have yet to see you offer one scientific proof of your claim, opinion doesn’t count.
Your daily musings have yet to disprove EM’s hypothesis, Bordo.
Perhaps another ten years?
Willard,
Speculation remains speculation, until the speculator can come up with a disprovable hypothesis. The hypothesis proposed has to be framed in such a way so that its proposer can demonstrate that experiment supports the hypothesis.
Delusional CO2 induced warming fanatics can’t even provide a description of their bizarre “greenhouse effect” that agrees with observations!
So what’s EM’s hypothesis? Does experiment support it?
Don’t be more stupid than you have to – unless you enjoy looking like a witless SkyDragon cultist, of course!
Carry on.
The hypothesis is that you are a crank who lives in a fantasy world, Mike Flynn.
Keep braying.
Willard,
No, you are confusing your fantasy with the scientific method. Look up the use of “hypothesis” in a scientific context, if you don’t believe me.
Just like the rest of the retarded cultists who believe there is a “greenhouse theory” – which the retards can’t actually describe in words because they are, well, retards! They prefer their demented fantasies to science.
Keep trying, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
The scientific method is a myth.
Hence why you appeal to it without really describe it.
Cheers.
Willard,
You are confusing your fantasy with the scientific method. Look up the use of hypothesis in a scientific context, if you dont believe me.
Just like the rest of the retarded cultists who believe there is a greenhouse theory which the retards cant actually describe in words because they are, well, retards! They prefer their demented fantasies to science.
Keep trying, Willard.
Keep copy-pasting your empty assertions, Mike.
That’s because Ent doesn’t have a hypothesis, he’s groping in the dark.
The hypothesis is that you are a crank who lives in a fantasy world, Bordo.
Every day your comments reinforce it.
Willard, you obviously don’t know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Find a description of the scientific method, if you have the guts to do it.
The fantasies of retarded SkyDragon cultists, who believe in a “greenhouse effect” which they cannot even describe, do not figure in any version of the scientific method.
Carry on trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You usually have a Feynman quote to refute the idea that science works with proofs.
But you are too much of a wuss to contradict Bordo.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, you obviously dont know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Find a description of the scientific method, if you have the guts to do it.
The fantasies of retarded SkyDragon cultists, who believe in a greenhouse effect which they cannot even describe, do not figure in any version of the scientific method.
Carry on trolling.
Too lazy to recall your Dick quote, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Someone weirdly posting in a moldy thread?
…Willy, please stop trolling.
stephen…”The Revelle Factor is a red herring proffered by you because you have nothing”.
***
Revelle indicated in a paper co-authored by Fred Singer, circa 1990, that people should not read too much into global warming theory. Revelle was obviously skeptical of AGW.
C’mon, Bordo:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/roger-revelle-was-right-eli-because-he.html
Boy, you got’em Wiltard. LOL.
wee willy…I no longer read propaganda from sites like eli rabbet, realclimate, sks, etc.
Come on, Bordo.
That was a court transcript.
C’mon Waldo, did you read the entire deposition of which neither Singer nor Revelle was there?
33 years ago, Revelle agreed we needed more evidence on the link between the observed GW, weak up to that point, and anthro CO2.
Not a controversial opinion at that time. Then he died.
We have gotten what he wanted in those 33 years, much more evidence that his Revelle Factor is enabling the continued rise in anthro CO2 and much more evidence linking it to the non-stop GW.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Really? In a week old thread?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Obviously satisfying his OCD.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
SpaceX Starship Launch License Secured!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzuIn-bDRpc
Assuming weather is good, will get launch attempt next Monday in morning.
After this launch, we could have another Starship launch in summer and could have a total of 3 to 4 launches in 2023.
In 2024 could have 1 every month or 12 per year. And in 2025 could a crazy amount of Starship launches- twice or 4 times as much.
But in terms of the year 2024, could have 9 to 10 of 12 doing starlink satellite launches- which change the starlink satellite constellation, a lot.
In beginning of 2024, Starships should be launching from KSC.
KSC will have incorporated all that has been learned for Boca Chica,
And Boca Chica will probably continuing testing out further future upgrades- probably mostly related to increasing the launch cadence.
2023 could have 1 or 2 starlink launches, but without including such
possible launches, Starlink should double it’s subscriber, and in 2024 more the double it’s subscribers, again.
But also got consider what happening other what SpaceX is doing.
China wants increase it’s launches. And got a lot happening with the rest of US launch business, and have few competitors related to Starlink. Both Europe and India and Japan [and others] going to continue to step it up.
Before 2024, starship will change everything about planetary exploration and space telescopes.
And in 2024, you going to getting serious attempts do things related
to Space Power satellites- likely mostly chinese, it could be related to more collaboration with what UK is trying to do. Or could have to do with Musk and/or Bezos as separate or working with China or Europe/UK. You not going get SPS in 2024- but it seems it will have more focus on it. Or in terms dollar spent, it could exceed 10 billions dollars spent in 2024- or more than being spent on Lunar exploration. Or more than what has been spent per year on ISS and the Chinese space station.
In 2023 we going a few attempts to land robot missions on the Moon, and we get more in 2024.
This coming starship test launch, will probably keep US on schedule in terms of lunar crew exploration.
The next robotic lunar robotic is supposed to launch on May 4 2023, and success of this attempt should related to future New Glenn launches, but United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket by itself
is also quite important. But if successful on May 4 2023 launch, we should New Glenn rocket launching late 2023 or early 2024.
It launched. Engines out. Engines exploding. Got thru Q- max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI
It will take another month or two before next test launch
Earlier EM wrote –
” . . . perhaps you can describe the warming at the start of the Holocene using the mathematics of electronic feedback.”
What warming? Where? Global? Local?
Why would a cooling body like the Earth suddenly start to heat up? EM can’t even think of a reason. Just more delusional SkyDragon cult beliefs passed off as fact.
ent…”If you and I are using the term feedback in the same way, perhaps you can describe the warming at the start of the Holocene using the mathematics of electronic feedback”.
***
Give me an example of positive feedback in the atmosphere that leads to more heat. Gavin Schmidt of GISS couldn’t do it, maybe you’ll have more luck.
The word feedback itself suggests that something has been established from which something is fed back. And for positive feedback whatever is fed back must somehow increase the something that has been established. Any climate theory I have seen involving claims of PF fail to explain how that is accomplished.
The closest the alarmists can come is using control feedback which can amplify nothing. That’s where Monckton is hung up, he doesn’t understand that servo control feedback has no ability to amplify anything.
ps. why would I want to explain warming in the holocene using a feedback equation. Obviously the warming is related to solar input, or a re-warming from a long term blockage of solar input. Nothing to do with feedback.
“Give me an example of positive feedback in the atmosphere that leads to more heat. ”
I just did. If you do the maths the solar insolation change which led to the Holocene was enough to warm the planet by 1.2C. Yet the proxies tell us that the global temperature temperature increased from 9C to 14C.
Something amplified the solar insolation induced temperature change fourfold.
Similarly the radiative physics calculates that the CO2 released since 1880 would warm the climate by 0.4C. We’ve actually measured 1.2C.
Something has amplified the direct effect of increased CO2 threefold.
Ent, obviously your *calculations* are invalid.
Always remember, your beliefs ain’t science.
ent…” Something amplified the solar insolation induced temperature change fourfold.
Similarly the radiative physics calculates that the CO2 released since 1880 would warm the climate by 0.4C. Weve actually measured 1.2C”.
***
You have not revealed your system, of which your claimed feedback is a part. The only thing that could affect solar input is a variation in solar output. How could anything control solar output via a feedback system?
CO2 has nothing to do with this process. Alarmists are bypassing solar input, which heats the surface and atmosphere, and using the surface as the source of heat. Even at that, there is no feedback system other than the incorrect assumption that CO2 can feed back radiation that is converted to surplus heat to warm the system beyond what it is heated by solar input.
Ent…the system is fraudulent and you are defending fraudulent science. There is no feedback from GHGs in the atmosphere, all there is available is an isotropic radiation from those molecules. The fraud is in the claim that such radiation, from cooler GHGs, can warming the surface. It is especially fraudulent to claim that radiation can raise the surface temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
That’s your positive feedback and it is describing perpetual motion while contradicting the 2nd law. In case that escapes you, you cannot take heat from the surface, that came from the Sun, and recycle it to increase the temperature of the surface, especially to increase its temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy.
Fraudulent science!!!
EM,
You wrote –
“If you do the maths the solar insolation change which led to the Holocene was enough to warm the planet by 1.2C. Yet the proxies tell us that the global temperature temperature increased from 9C to 14C.”
Solar insolation change? Really? What proxies showed that the Sun’s output suddenly increased?
Your proxies are just fantasy. You have a pack of delusional nitwits claiming the Earth heats up and cools down for no apparent reason. You seem to believe that some “greenhouse effect” changes the Sun’s output of energy. If I misunderstand, maybe you could describe the “greenhouse effect” for me.
Make sure you describe how the “greenhouse effect” changes the “solar insolation” (a tautology – insolation is solar radiation, after all), sometimes increasing the Sun’s output, sometimes making it less.
Talking about “the maths” is just a stupid diversion, and won’t make people think that you actually know what you are talking about.
“Talking about the maths is just a stupid diversion, and wont make people think that you actually know what you are talking about”
***
Heck, Gavin Schmidt, who has a degree in math, couldn’t even do the math.
Scroll down to ‘GAVIN SCHMIDT ON POSITIVE FEEDBACK’…
https://web.archive.org/web/20180113001329/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
This is what the alarmists count on, that their fraudulent science cannot be understood or explained.
From link above…
Gavin Schmidt on positive feedback as critiqued by engineer, Jeffrey Glassman…
“[N]or [does the author understand] the concept of positive feedback,
urges Gavin. For this position, Schmidt refers readers to his 7/5/06 tome, “Runaway tipping points of no return”. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/. Here he says,
The idea is that in many non-linear systems (of which the climate is certainly one), a small push away from one state only has small effects at first but at some ‘tipping point’ the system can flip and go rapidly into another state. This is fundamentally tied to the existence of positive feedbacks . However, [tipping point] is currently being used interchangeably a number of potentially confusing ways and so I thought I’d try and make it a little clearer”.
Then Gavin offers this illumination…
“A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.
This is the head of NASA GISS speaking. He does not even begin to explain how this works, obviously because he can’t.
Then he offers…
“A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc.”
The author, Glassman, replies…
“This explanation and Schmidt’s understanding of positive feedback, or even feedback, are fatally flawed.
First, Schmidt’s equation expresses a change in the parameter value, not the value of the amplified, closed loop output in his definition, or anything related to it. By reference to “in an additional rD”, and by the plus signs in the series, Gavin reveals that he is thinking of the change as an additive amount. By his definition, the feedback is to cause an amplification of the original parameter. Amplification is multiplicative, not additive. If the original parameter value was P, after positive feedback the value would be rP, with r greater than one, or it might be written as (1+g)P, where g is now the feedback gain, and is greater than zero for positive feedback. Schmidt’s algebraic example does not represent his verbal definition.
Second, Schmidt’s change formulation converges to a constant, D/(1-r), for |r| less than 1. This he urges is to demonstrate a positive feedback which does not run away, or in scientific terms, diverge. In fact, what he has demonstrated is a kind of feedback which converges to zero as the number of iterations increases. What he calls feedback is only a transient, and its steady state value is neither positive nor negative, but is arbitrarily close to zero. This example briefly resembles a positive feedback, but in the long run Schmidt’s example has no feedback at all”.
***
The crux of Schmidt’s argument seems to be this…
“The idea is that in many non-linear systems (of which the climate is certainly one), a small push away from one state only has small effects at first but at some ‘tipping point’ the system can flip and go rapidly into another state. This is fundamentally tied to the existence of positive feedbacks…”
He neither explains how this tipping point [originated by Hansen] is reached or how a positive feedback is involved. When he talks about climate as a on-linear system he is obviously thinking of it as having a built-in amplifier wherein part of it can be fed back to increase the amplification.
Alarmists are a load of gasbags who have not the slightest idea how their alarmist theories work. They are obviously applying their erroneous idea that back-radiation from GHGs can somehow amplify heat. If that works, why can’t they demonstrate it in a lab?
I’m sure home owners would find it wonderful, all they’d have to do is install containers of CO2 with transparent windows to IR, which would absorb IR from the room and send some of it back to keep raising the temperature of the room. When the room got too warm, an opaque window would be lowered to cut off the IR.
Every time I see Gavins name mentioned, I remember the time he showed his true character by running from a debate with Spencer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw
I shut it off as soon as Schmidt started talking. It suddenly came back to me that certain Englishmen exist who are stubborn clowns. You say ‘black’, they’ll say ‘white’. Schmidt fills that persona perfectly. Seen it far too often.
A few years earlier he ran out on a debate with Lindzen.
But that’s good as fast as skeptics are concerned. Roy comes across as an elegant, well-spoken scientist and Schmidt as a fast-talking buffoon.
Gavin is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. He seems to be convinced that he possesses superpowers, and can predict future states of the atmosphere. If he turns round and admits that he cannot, his paymasters should immediately demand a refund of all money wasted due to Schmidt’s bizarre belief that his “models” could predict the future of a chaotic system.
Even the IPCC, that hotbed of self-serving SkyDragon cultists, admitted that it is not possible to predict future climate states! In the past, in interviews, Schmidt has blamed his fortune-telling failures on “people”, who refuse to behave as the models require.
Here’s Gavin very recently –
“One final caveat, Ive been rather lazy in plotting these ensembles so that I can show the impact of both forced changes and the spread due to internal variability and structural uncertainty.”
A good excuse – laziness. Who pays this buffoon to be lazy? Can’t the US Government find somebody who doesn’t boast about being lazy, as an excuse for being unable to peer into the future?
I guess not, otherwise they would have.
Too lazy to post a link, Mike Flynn?
Witless Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about, retard?
Mike,
Lazy sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Back on topic: CO2 Budget Model Update Through 2022: Humans Keep Emitting, Nature Keeps Removing
UAH satellite record is taking place during a warming trend. It will be interesting to see how CO2 does with the next cooling trend.
That is a great reminder. I still have to do an article on RCP models I downloaded a couple of years ago from the Potsdam Institute. Essentially they treated CO2 sinks as a secondary resservoir with only twice(!) the size of the atmosphere. It would soon be filled..
> Give me an example of positive feedback in the atmosphere
Bordo trolled this website for more than ten years and does not know about albedo.
Ok, Mr. Rocket Scientist, explain how albedo amplifies heat via a feedback. If anything it would be negative feedback that dissipates potential heating.
However, albedo is not part of a system, it’s a percentage of EM reflected from the surface. I don’t think it qualifies as a feedback.
A feedback, in the context of an amplifying system, must be part of that system. If the system amplifies a signal, the feedback must take part of the signal from the output and transfer it back to the input, to accomplish something.
Why else would you call it a feedback?
Albedo does not meet that requirement, nor does anything else in climate passed off as a feedback.
As far as the atmosphere is concerned, there is no signal of which part can be fed back. This is another one of those conundrums like the alleged rotation of the Moon. People talk about it as if it exists but no one can describe it let alone explain it.
Come on, Bordo –
https://climatefeedback.org/
You are not very bright
Willard, another pointless and irrelevant link?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It controls nothing. You are apparently too stupid or retarded to accept this fact.
Appealing to the authority of other retards is just silly.
Another braying comment, Mike?
Willard. Retard.
I know you are, Mike, but what am I?
Willard demonstrates the stupidity of a SkyDragon cultist who doesn’t realise that “climate feedback” is just a meaningless nonsense term.
He refuses to accept that there is a maximum amount of energy from the Sun which can reach the surface, and that occurs when there is no obstruction such as an atmosphere, which reduces the maximum by around 35%.
Albedo can never increase the available energy from the Sun – just reduce the amount absorbed by the surface.
Willard is just ignorant – and probably stupid, as well.
“Willard is just ignorant and probably stupid, as well”.
***
Not to forget that he is a recently arrived troll whose sole purpose here is to disrupt and denigrate. I have yet to see one scientific post from Wee Willy, anything he posts is based on an appeal to authority.
Other than that, he’s not a bad sort, for a troll.
Come on, Bordo.
You are the Dragon crank troll. I am the slayer.
Willard,
No, you’re just a dim witted troll, with nothing to offer except an ineffective dollop or two of spleen.
Please stop projecting, Mike.
You are not very good at it, and it embarrasses good projectors.
Willard,
Youre just a dim witted troll, with nothing to offer except an ineffective dollop or two of spleen.
Keep projecting, Mike.
Willard,
Youre just a dim witted troll, with nothing to offer except an ineffective dollop or two of spleen.
Hey, Mike –
Have you forgotten to ask for your silly sammich or have you learned your lesson?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re just not very good at it. You are embarrassing competent trolls.
These are not the magic words, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Youre just not very good at it. You are embarrassing competent trolls.
Not the magic words, Mike.
Keep braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Youre just not very good at it. You are embarrassing competent trolls.
These are not the magic words, Mike.
Silly sock puppet.
#2
And now, the dumb stalker Flynnson again starts repeating his utter nonsense
Hoe can absolutely incompetent idiots like Robertson or Flynnson discredit people they are unable to scientifically contradict?
Freedom of speech everywhere for the dumb stalkers!
Albedo is not a feedback, neither positive or negative; its a reflection of radiation directly back into space.
Thank you for proving once again that you are not far from being a crank, Kennui:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback
Willard, the Wikipedia article is complete nonsense.
There is no “greenhouse effect of clouds”, and you are either delusional or stupid if you claim belief in something neither you notarize anybody else can describe.
Parroting silly stuff, “cloud radiative forcing”, for example, makes you look like the retarded SkyDragon cultist that you are.
There is no “feedback”, you dill. That’s as delusional as believing that Gavin Schmidt is a “world famous climate scientist”.
Mike Flynn,
Climate feedbacks exist.
Deal with it.
Willard, don’t be stupid. Appealing to your own authority is a mark of delusional desperation.
“Climate feedbacks”? Next thing you’ll be claiming that Gavin Schmidt is a “climate scientist”!
Go on, tell me he is!
Retard.
Keep denying, Mike.
See if I care.
Willard, dont be stupid. Appealing to your own authority is a mark of delusional desperation.
Climate feedbacks? Next thing youll be claiming that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist!
Go on, tell me he is!
Retard.
Mike, Mike,
I cite sources. You spew crap.
Guess who appeals to his own authority all the time here.
Silly sock puppet.
And now, the dumb stalker Flynnson again starts repeating his utter nonsense…
Hoe can absolutely incompetent idiots like Robertson or Flynnson discredit people they are unable to scientifically contradict?
Freedom of speech everywhere for the dumb stalkers!
wee willy…before rushing off to authority figures for quotes, you might try to understand what feedback means? If you get that understanding, I think you ill find it very difficult to find anything in the atmosphere that matches the description.
C’mon, Bordo.
Dragon cranks don’t get to redefine the meaning of words.
What goes for “heat,” “warming,” and “spin” applies to “feedback.”
Think of it this way –
Dragon cranks troll. Scientifically-minded commenters slay them. Dragon cranks get crankier and crankier.
Positive feedback mechanism.
Definitions from alarmist liars don’t count.
C’mon, Bordo.
Who died and made you King of Definitions?
Language is a social art.
Weary Wee Willy,
If language is a social art, you obviously haven’t got past smearing ashes on a cave wall.
You can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”, much less define it.
In this regard, you are slightly less influential than Willard Van Orman Quine, whose philosophical contributions are widely acknowledged to be negligible.
I hope you are not just parroting some of Willard’s gobbledegook – that would be completely pointless and irrelevant, wouldn’t it?
You might believe you are a great artist, as it is possible that Willard believed he was a great philosopher. A triumph of fantasy over fact?
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
You are stuck on stupid once again.
How language works does not depend on me. Definitions are not convened by online cranks like you. Bigger groups of people do that.
When you will reach a thousand times the *two digits* Gaslighting Graham was proudly bragging about the other day, you might have a chance.
Good luck!
Arctic amplification of GW is caused by the warming-ice-albedo feedback. It is well documented.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More anomalous last wording in long dead threads…
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The model also showed how the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a large increase in rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (not a new finding)” …..for whatever reason
Given the above, why do people argue that unlike water vapor, CO2 is a long-term greenhouse gas. I personally think that irrigation in arid regions (including building manmade reservoirs with large surface areas…Lake Nasser, Lake Meade) is more likely to be a manmade contribution to global warming than combustion of fossil fuels. Arid regions by definition have low atmospheric humidity and introduction of irrigation MUST block “earth shine” radiation to space in an area that was formerly a geographic window through which heat was radiated to space. Ironically, combustion of methane releases water vapor while combustion of coal only releases CO2.
George Parris
” Roy Spencer: The model also showed how the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a large increase in rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (not a new finding) … for whatever reason ”
*
Yes, but don’t tell me you would think that, like Robertson’s heat, this CO2 simply gets dissipated :–)
It is simply absorbed by the oceans which, one day in the future, might be willing to throw it back up.
*
” GP: Given the above, why do people argue that unlike water vapor, CO2 is a long-term greenhouse gas. ”
You hardly could post here a link to a scientifically reliable source confirming this.
No one argues that H2O wouldn’t be ‘a long-term greenhouse gas’. H2O precipitates above the tropopause, but that doesn’t change anything of its behavior below that altitude.
You will find such nonsense only in unscientific, contrarian blogs trying to discredit the GHE.
*
Finally, let me add that you ‘forgot’ to mention a major brick in Roy Spencer’s argumentation:
” This contradicts the popular perception that volcanoes are a major source of atmospheric CO2. ”
He in fact didn’t need to mention it: everybody well-informed person knows that volcanoes are responsible for at best 3 % of it.
binny…”Yes, but dont tell me you would think that, like Robertsons heat, this CO2 simply gets dissipated :)”
***
You should refrain from commenting on matters you don’t understand. However, the Teuton in you cannot seem to help it.
CO2 is made up of two oxygen atoms and one carbon. Those are real particles with mass. Heat has no mass and no one knows what it is or for that fact, no one knows what energy is in actuality.
If you have an aggregation of atoms with a temperature, T, the aggregation has so much heat. T is a measure of the heat content based on a scale with two set points, the boiling and freezing points of water.
If you disperse the atoms into space, so there is significant distance between them, the heat related to the whole simply dissipates.
Of course, you rely on authority figures and such reasoning is beyond you. Still, you persist in making an ass of yourself.
george…appreciate your point. We already have a good scientific reason for warming since 1850….rewarming from the 400+ year Little Ice Age. There is simply no solid proof that anthropogenic warming is a factor.
There is ample anecdotal and proxy evidence to prove the planet was immersed in seriously cold weather that peaked twice in the 400+ year LIA.
The anecdotal evidence began with the Vikings vacating Greenland, where they had farmed during the Medieval Warm Period. That’s not enough evidence by itself but when we fast-forward to the 1600s, when Europeans, especially the British, were searching for the NW Passage, and some were exploring further south, we began to get solid anecdotal evidence about the climate.
The Arctic Ocean and all passages related to the NW Passage were choked with ice even in summer. There were famines in North America and cold weather extended as far south as present day Florida and Texas. Glaciers expanded massively in the Alps and there is no reason to think that was not happening over the entire planet. There is proxy evidence that suggests the LIA was global.
Yet, the IPCC has rejected all the good evidence presented anecdotally and proxy-wise, and claimed the LIA affected only Europe. Hogwash!!! It’s not possible for the average to drop 1C to 2C only in Europe.
ent…re your math and positive feedback….
G = A/(1 + AB)
G = overall gain
A = amplifier gain
B = feedback
is the only equation that can accurately describe a feedback of the type claimed by climate alarmists leading to an amplification. The equation describes a system with an amplifier in which the input signal, Ei, is multiplied by a feedback, B, each cycle, then re-amplified.
A, with an amplifier, = Eo/Ei, where Ei in the input voltage signal and Eo is the output voltage signal. So…
G = (Eo/Ei) / (1 + Eo/Ei[B])
It is plain that you have an input, an output, a feedback and a loop to keep it going. It’s a system.
Show me the same for the atmosphere.
Your equation G=A/1+AB does not work for the atmosphere.
The direct warming observed due to the addition of 50% extra CO2 (A)is 0.4C and climate sensitivity (B)is about 3.0. This should increase the temperature change (G) to 1.2C.
Plug these into your feedback equation and you get G=0.4/1+04*3.0 =0.4/2.4=0.16.
Please explain how an amplifying feedback B of 3.0 is predicting a reduction in the output temperature G instead of an increase.
testing….
G = A/(1 + AB) applies to a real, physical system with a real amplifier and an actual physical connection from its output to its input via a feedback network. All you have provided is highly theoretical mathematics with no explanation of how it works.
In an electronic amplifier with feedback, it is represented by a circuit with an input running into an amplifier block and an output coming out of the block. From the output lead there is a circuit running through a feedback block that runs back to the amplifier input. I want to see a similar schematic for the atmosphere that describes feedback.
test…Internal Server error.
The equation I provided is not a mathematical relationship that can operate independently of the physical reality.
What you don’t seem to understand is that heat cannot be arbitrarily amplified using a hypothesis or an equation. Even in an electronics amplifier, electric current is not arbitrarily amplified. A BJT transistor acts only to match impedances between an input stage and an output stage. The transistor does not amplify current, it acts only as a variable impedance to allow a small input signal to control a much larger output current supplied by a power supply.
The message is that you don’t get something for nothing. Electric currents cannot magically amplify, and neither can thermal energy. The only way to amplify heat is to control the output of the Sun. Messing with trace gases like CO2 has no effect on the amplification of heat.
C’mon, Bordo.
Would you mind restating that?
You’re not making any sense right now.
come on wee willy, how could you expect yourself to understand anything about science?
Gordon states: What you don’t seem to understand is that heat cannot be arbitrarily amplified using a hypothesis or an equation.
That comes from 2LoT. Heat transfer is a thermodynamic irreversible process. It leads to energy dissipation, as in, an increase in entropy.
When Pup wears his sock puppet, his hand CANNOT be warmer for that would break the Sky Dragon Cranks’ second law fantasy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The coming days will see a drastic drop in temperature in the Great Lakes region and the Northeast of the US.
Temperatures can drop as much as 20 degrees C within 24 hours.
https://i.ibb.co/VjQZtXQ/gfs-T2ma-us-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/qx21vvn/gfs-T2ma-us-12.png
CO2 has an annual variation of about 3 to 5% due to the seasons. If CO2 was the driver of temperature you would find similar variations in the temperatures. Has anyone bothered to see is the annual CO2 variation causes any identifiable variation in the annual temperature cycle? I’m 100% sure you will find that the annual variation in CO2 has absolutely no impact on temperatures.
The variation is due to the northern hemisphere having more land mass. Each year the change is plus 8 and minus 6 ppmv for a net increase of 2 ppmv. It is about 1.5% of the current level of 420 which is well below the monthly variability of UAH. Dr Spencer says he does not see seasonal variability in the data.
Bingo!!! Dr Spencer says he does not see seasonal variability in the data.
Then how can you possibly claim CO2 impacts temperatures? As I’ve said all along, CO2 can only put in a temp floor at -80 C, it won’t impact temperatures above that.
There is the matter that while atmospheric CO2 above whatever equilibrium point and net annual emissions are increasing similarly to each other and as describable as close to an exponential rate, a math property of this is consistency of these with a wide range of decay curves of short term injections / pulses of CO2 into the atmosphere, including exponential decay as well as other decay curve shapes including Bern model decay curves.
donald…would you mind restating that? It’s not clear to me what you are getting at.
Come on Bordo.
How could you expect yourself to understand anything about science?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
re feedback…a couple of quotes from Merriam-Webster that come close…
1)the transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the original or controlling source…
2) the return to the input of a part of the output of a machine, system, or process ….
***
1)refers to the servo system feedback to which I referred earlier. It is nothing more than a signed voltage or code that tells a controller how to act. There can be no amplification of system parameter with this type of control.
2)is closer to what we are talking about but note that it requires a machine, system, or process.
Can anyone explain how that might work in the atmosphere? For example, what is it we are feeding back in order to control a system or process in such a manner it can increase the heat in the atmosphere or surface beyond what it is heated by solar energy.
The feedback must be independent of the system as far as it’s existence. It cannot be the amplification itself as has been suggested by some alarmists. Something else must produce the amplification and the feedback has to control it or influence it to create heat.
Obviously, that means controlling the output of the Sun. What might do that? Perhaps anomalies in the orbital motion, or sun spot cycles.
> Can anyone explain how that might work in the atmosphere?
C’mon, Bordo.
Are you really that dumb?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy referred me to a site https://climatefeedback.org/ that is supposed to rebut my claims about feedback. Let’s be clear, this site is a who’s-who of uber-alarmist weenies.
However, Wee Willy is so stupid he can’t distinguish between the feedbacks claimed by climate scientists in the atmosphere and this kind of feedback which is verbal/written feedback to an article. Nowhere on the site do they define the former.
However, they offer there opinion on the latter…
“These are the types of questions our feedbacks are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information youre reading is of high credibility. If its negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science”.
These clowns are claiming essentially, if you agree with us, your feedback is good, but if you disagree, you missed something. They are essentially re-defining science as pseudo-science. That kind of arrogant opinion comes with the territory as a climate alarmist. They are not only wrong, they are arrogant and stupid to boot.
What else would one expect from a load of loonies who have as authority figures, some of the leading uber-climate alarmists on the planet: Dessler, Rahmstorf Emmanuel, Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth and several other climate clowns?
The more Wee Willy posts, the more stupid he seems to become. I guess that might come from the stress of continually getting his butt kicked when offering authority figure drivel as science.
Good grief, Bordo.
Your rants sound more and more like Mike Flynn’s.
A feedback is just a recursive function. When it increases, it’s positive. When it decreases, it’s negative. When it stays the same, it’s a fixed point.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You donkey, a recursive function of the statistics of historical weather observations? How would that work?
You do realise that statistics are just derived numbers, don’t you?
Silly question – of course you don’t. Retarded or delusional, Willard? The world wonders.
Off you go, and have a think – if you can.
Playing dumb again, Mike?
Wee Willy Wanker,
You donkey, a recursive function of the statistics of historical weather observations? How would that work?
You do realise that statistics are just derived numbers, dont you?
Silly question of course you dont. Retarded or delusional, Willard? The world wonders.
Off you go, and have a think if you can.
Playing dumb again, Mike?
Play dumb again.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You donkey, a recursive function of the statistics of historical weather observations? How would that work?
You do realise that statistics are just derived numbers, dont you?
Silly question of course you dont. Retarded or delusional, Willard? The world wonders.
Off you go, and have a think if you can.
Mike, Mike,
You are working too hard.
Climate is the state of the components of the climate system, including the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere and biosphere and the interactions between them.
Feedback happens in these interactions.
Play dumb once again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“And now, the dumb stalker Flynnson again starts repeating his utter nonsense
Hoe can absolutely incompetent idiots like Robertson or Flynnson discredit people they are unable to scientifically contradict?
Freedom of speech everywhere for the dumb stalkers!”
Unfortunately, Bindidon cannot bring himself to name the mysterious “people”, nor is he able to describe how they are being “discredited”. Just more vague, unsupported veiled accusations. Luckily, retards like Bindidon wield no power, and have little to no influence outside their deranged circle of fellow retards.
Possibly Binny was upset because I had the temerity to ask if he thought that Gavin Schmidt was a world famous climate scientist. Maybe I should have asked what he thought of the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann. A world famous climate scientist, or just another delusional GHE cultist who is probably suffering from a delusionally psychotic affliction.
Normal people don’t print up their own Nobel Prize award certificate, and then claim in court documents to be Nobel Laureates! If pointing out facts is “discrediting” “people”, then I am guilty of expressing a view based on facts. If retards like Bindidon and his ilk don’t like it, maybe they should take a spoonful of cement and harden up.
There’s nothing at all they can do about it, except whine and moan.
ent…”Please explain how an amplifying feedback B of 3.0 is predicting a reduction in the output temperature G instead of an increase”.
***
Please explain first, what you mean by an ‘amplifying feedback’. There is no such thing, a feedback cannot amplify. A feedback is a fraction of the output of a system that is fed back to the input to diminish or increase the input signal. Without the input and output signals, and an amplifier, feedback simply will not work in that configuration.
This all began with Monckton’s claim that a control feedback is in operation. That’s not possible either because the signal fed back is an error signal to give a controller the information required to correct the error.
I realize you are trying to apply what you know from biology to this problem but it won’t work. I don’t blame you for verifying your theories and I would do the same. However, this has been part of my field of expertise for a long time and I am trying to make you aware of how feedback system must work.
You are using flawed science as the basis of your reasoning. The flaw is in the assumption that the effect of a trace gas like CO2 in the atmosphere is known.
> a feedback cannot amplify
God this is dumb.
All this not to read the freaking first sentence of thy Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback
You can’t be that dumb, Bordo.
C’mon.
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no “outputs” from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
The idea that the Earth only receives inputs might not cohere with your molten Earth theory!
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Why do you keep repeating another irrelevant factoid, Mike?
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
See, Mike?
That’s a fixed point.
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
Mike, Mike,
Statistics of weather – I bet you do not know what it means.
Right?
Mikes posts are statistically indistinguishable from noise.
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
So you don’t know what “statistics of weather” means, Moron Mike.
Where does the wiki article say the feedback loop amplifies? Anyone who claims feedback amplifies is an idiot.
You have penchant for making a fool of yourself by insisting on talking about things you know nothing about.
Come on, Bordo.
A negative feedback system.
Does not amplify.
A positive feedback system.
Amplifies.
You are just confused again.
Unconfuse yourself.
Enough of your trolling.
Come on, Bordo.
You are the one trolling with your half baked grasp of two equations with three terms.
A gain lower than one is called atttenuation.
“Please explain first, what you mean by an amplifying feedback. ”
In the scientific circles in which I moved (biology and a bit of climate research) feedback is a response by the system to a change.
If the response moves the state of the system back towards its original state by reducing the change, it is a negative feedback.
If the response moves the state of the system further from the original state by increasing the change, it is a positive feedback or an amplifying feedback.
I have been asking you to explain how that works. What is the feedback route and how does it create warming?I’m looking for details.
More cold fronts from the north are reaching the west of North America. There will be more snow in California.
https://i.ibb.co/ZTt2F1Z/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-17-075315.png
Look at the bright side, think off all the light bulbs you can power by the exstra ice,
well maybe you can’t but Bindiclown can
A rapid drop in temperatures in the eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/c24F2JZ/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Let’s cut to the chase.
Bordo is stuck on negative feedback:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative-feedback_amplifier
Even his equation is there.
But of course positive feedback exists:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/semiconductors/chpt-8/positive-feedback/
It’s really that dumb.
One thing is sure – Bordo can’t have done any engineering in his life. At least not without endangering his. And otters’.
C’mon.
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
Mike, Mike,
Systems such as the climate can be modeled with inputs and outputs.
Energy in, energy out.
Systems such as Sky Dragons like are different.
Nothing ever reaches in.
Like a dev/null.
Cheers.
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no physical “outputs” from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
There is no “system” called “climate”. Climate is just a name for statistics of historical weather observations. Saying silly things like “Energy in, energy out” makes you look about as irrelevant and mentally challenged as you are.
Go on, try and explain why the surface cools when the Sun goes down. Be sure to say “energy in, energy out” a few times in your explanation.
Dimwitted retard.
Mike, Mike,
Do you think that copy-pasting your spit amplifies it?
Silly sock puppet.
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no physical outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
There is no system called climate. Climate is just a name for statistics of historical weather observations. Saying silly things like Energy in, energy out makes you look about as irrelevant and mentally challenged as you are.
Go on, try and explain why the surface cools when the Sun goes down. Be sure to say energy in, energy out a few times in your explanation.
Dimwitted retard.
Mike, Mike,
If there’s no energy input to the climate, how come you’re typing in your boxers right now?
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no physical outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
There is no system called climate. Climate is just a name for statistics of historical weather observations. Saying silly things like Energy in, energy out makes you look about as irrelevant and mentally challenged as you are.
Go on, try and explain why the surface cools when the Sun goes down. Be sure to say energy in, energy out a few times in your explanation.
Dimwitted retard.
Moron Mike,
If theres no energy input to the climate, how come youre typing in your boxers right now?
Dim witted and confused Willard,
There are no physical outputs from the statistics of weather, dummy.
If you believed otherwise, you would no doubt show examples to put me in my place.
Plucking irrelevant and meaningless quotes from the internet is making you look dumb, dummy.
Are you retarded, or just delusional?
There is no system called climate. Climate is just a name for statistics of historical weather observations. Saying silly things like Energy in, energy out makes you look about as irrelevant and mentally challenged as you are.
Go on, try and explain why the surface cools when the Sun goes down. Be sure to say energy in, energy out a few times in your explanation.
Dimwitted retard.
If theres no energy input to the climate, how come youre typing in your boxers right now, Moron Mike?
Are you really that stupid Wee Willy? I have never said positive feedback does not exist I said it cannot exist in the atmosphere. I have posted several explanations of how positive feedback works in an amplifier. I have described the positive feedback induced collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge several times.
There is no amplification in the feedback leg of any amplification system. The feedback loop is a passive network with no means of amplifying a signal.
Come on, Bordo.
You used the formula for a negative amplifier.
That was silly.
Of course positive feedback in the atmosphere exists.
Albedo feedback is positive.
Leave playing dumb to Mike Flynn.
You cannot compete with him.
Willard,
“Albedo feedback is positive.”
You are quite retarded, aren’t you? Just stringing a few meaningless words together doesn’t make you look normal, you know.
Maybe you are even retarded enough to believe that objects with different albedos have different temperatures?
Retard.
Still here, Moron Mike?
Willard,
“Albedo feedback is positive.”
You are quite retarded, arent you? Just stringing a few meaningless words together doesn’t make you look normal, you know.
Maybe you are even retarded enough to believe that objects with different albedos have different temperatures?
Retard.
Still here, Moron Mike?
Willard,
Albedo feedback is positive.
You are quite retarded, arent you? Just stringing a few meaningless words together doesnt make you look normal, you know.
Maybe you are even retarded enough to believe that objects with different albedos have different temperatures?
Retard.
Moron Mike,
What makes you such a moronic moron?
wee willy is in full troll mode. I have answered his questions and either he is brain-dead or he is intentionally asking the same question to provoke. Fortunately I have dealt with trolls for years and I am not about to bite.
Bordo hand waves in the hope to hide his ignorance.
Since he never learns anything, it should soon be on display.
Again, again, and again.
Becoming a Sky Dragon crank works by feed forward frenzy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”A feedback is just a recursive function. When it increases, its positive. When it decreases, its negative. When it stays the same, its a fixed point”.
***
Surely no one is as stupid as you, to take on someone who has studied this and applied it. You look up an authority figure like Wiki then blether on about something you don’t even begin to understand.
A feedback is not a recursive function, it is a totally linear, passive function when studied mathematically. Of course, math does not apply in a circuit. A feedback circuit is usually a straight resistor, but in more complicated wide band amps, it will have passive components like a coil and/or capacitor.
The sign of the feedback has nothing to do with its amplitude, it depends entirely on the the phase. If it is in phase with the input signal it is positive and adds to the input signal and if out of phase it subtracts from the input signal. There is no feedback circuit that uses both positive and negative feedback.
In simple negative feedback circuits its a straight 180 degree phase shift so the feedback signal subtracts from the i/p signal. However, in amplifiers where the frequency varies, say from 20 hz to 20Khz, the phase varies and the amount of feedback varies with the signal frequency. They use that phenomenon to flatten the bandwidth of audio amplifiers.
They use simple positive feedback in oscillators which operate at one frequency. They control the signal amplitude so it doesn’t run away by injecting only a small pulse of feedback into an oscillation tank circuit every cycle. As a result, you get a nice, flat sign wave with a constant amplitude.
Does it explain any of that in your Wiki article?
Very simply. The climate system has a set point at which incoming wattage from space equals outgoing wattage to space. The input signal is the difference between them. The gain is the strength of the changes returning the system to the set point. The output is the wattage leaving the surface.
Wrong set point, Ent. Earth’s set point is temperature. Energy in/out is an end result. Typically, energy in/out does NOT balance for Earth, as there are too many storage capabilities.
And as discussed before, Earth’s flux in/out doesnt balance at all.
You need to start trying to understand, rather than making up nonsense.
Pup, Pup,
In an energy balance model, balances at ALL TIMES. It is a STATE. There is NO end state.
You know NOTHING about this.
Here is a model with an end state – go in your garden, take the hose, direct it toward your face, open the faucet. Wait.
At some point you will reach the end point. Hopefully.
“Earths set point is temperature. Energy in/out is an end result. ”
Wrong way round.
In a stable climate Earth’s set point is a balance between total energy inward from space and total energy out. Surface temperature is a secondary effect of whatever surface energy output maintains that balance.
Sorry Ent, but that’s wrong. Youre STILL believing your cult nonsense.
Energy in can raise a system’s temperature, but ONLY if it’s the right kind of energy. You can add ice to a 288K system but the ice won’t raise the system temp. You’ve added energy to the system, but the temperature can NOT go up.
You haven’t learned a thing in over two years. THAT is what *braindead* looks like.
> Energy in can raise a systems temperature, but ONLY if its the right kind of energy.
Let me guess, Pupman – it must have *energetic* properties?
🤦
Remember, this “energy balance/budget” nonsense comes from the GHE cult. It tries to balance radiative flux, which does NOT balance. Even if they tried to actually balance Earth’s energy, they would find it doesn’t balance. Earth is a dynamic system. Earth is NOT in a stable state of equilibrium. The cult doesn’t even account for energy dissipation or photosynthesis! They don’t have a clue about the relevant science.
Here’s a mystery for cult idiots: Solar input to Earth varies about 9% annually, yet Earth’s annual temperature varies less than 2%. It’s almost as if Earth is not much concerned with so much solar variance, huh?
But, it gets worse.
When Earth is farthest from Sun (apogee), it has its warmest temperature. When it is closest to Sun (perigee), it has its coldest temperature. It’s almost as if Earth is not much concerned with so much solar variance, huh?
Facts mean NOTHING to the cult. That’s why this is so much fun.
(As per my new policy, trolls will not get a response.)
There is NOTHING in that wall of words, Pupman.
You rediscovered the dormitive principle –
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle
Well played!
Clint R
For the 10,000 time and counting…
YOU: “You can add ice to a 288K system but the ice wont raise the system temp. Youve added energy to the system, but the temperature can NOT go up.”
At the same time you added energy (from the ice) you have added mass so no you will not increase temperature. If the mass remains the same and you add energy you will increase temperature if you are not at a melting or boiling point of a substance.
You have not understood this yet but you keep bringing it up. Talk about trolling. Bringing up things over and over that have been explained many times to you is a form of trolling. You have never been able to understand that if you change mass or area you no longer have the same system. With the Earth the mass or geometry ARE NOT CHANGING so any example you present with changing mass or geometry DOES NOT APPLY TO THE EARTH SYSTEM. Not sure if even word “shouting” will help you understand this. Again you are one of the dumbest posters on this blog. Only Swenson and Gordon Robertson rival your ignorance and arrogance.
The three of you are the most ignorant posters but seem by far the most arrogant at the same time.
I don’t think you have ever heard of Dunning-Kruger effect. You three are classical examples. Totally ignorant of science but most arrogant with your posts. You can’t even conceive of the possibility that you are wrong and haven’t got a clue what you are talking about (it has not stopped any of you three from endless repetition of points).
Sorry Norman, but all that rambling is just your usual trolling. I only answer because your incompetence is so amusing. You don’t understand the physics, yet you falsely accuse me of D-K!
Maybe it’s the ice that has you confused. Let’s try bricks. Surely you know what a brick is?
A large brick at 350K is added to a small system that is at 288K. The system will warm.
The same brick at 250K added to the same small 288K system will NOT raise the temperature of the system.
In both cases, energy is added, but only one raises the temperature.
It’s NOT about mass, it’s about the kind of energy needed to raise temperature.
This is all WAY over your head, but please keep stalking me. Your meltdown makes it even more fun.
(Now if you’re going to continue with this, be sure to use more of your D-K “fissiks”. I no longer respond to lame troll tactics. Entertain me with your incompetence.)
Clint R
Your brick example is one of no additional energy input just a simplistic example of heat flow.
You try to isolate one system but when you add the brick to each the 288 system is no longer an isolated system. You need to include the total mass as what would happen.
Example: If the 350 K brick has a total of 100,000 stored joules of energy and the 288 K system was storing 1000 joules, when combined you would increase the mass and the energy would distribute between this increased mass. In your second example you have less energy but he same mass so the overall energy of that system will be lower.
What you are trying to explain has nothing to do with a “heated” Earth. You and Joe Postma are not able to process the difference between a “heated” and non-heated hot object. They are not the same.
A non-heated hot object will lose heat at a rate determined by the surroundings. The cooler surroundings will not increase the temperature.
If the object is heated by an external source (like the Earth is by the Sun) then the cooler surroundings, by slowing the heat loss, can cause the heated object to reach a higher temperature.
Do you understand the concept of insulation? If you slow down the rate of heat loss of a heated object, it will increase in temperature above the previous state. Let me know if you understand the concept of insulation. It may be possible for you to learn.
Norman, now you’re just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Both brick examples introduced additional energy. So your nonsense is clearly wrong.
But you went on rambling — a “heated” Earth, Joe Postma, non-heated hot object, external source, insulation. All distracting nonsense because you can’t stay with the issue.
And all boring.
Go troll someone else. I no longer get in typing contests with idiots.
Clint R
Sorry I keep forgetting how really stupid you actually are. Sometimes your arrogant attitude fools me into thinking you have a mind that can think. I learn quickly you are just a trolling idiot.
I thought you might understand the concept of total energy and mass but I guess I give you too much credit. Sorry for thinking incorrectly that you can reason.
I notice you could not answer the question if you understood insulation. I do not think you do.
Anyway you always promise to be done with me but you can’t help to interject in my posts to other posters.
Entropic man,
Within the context of these trolls, you have the closest description, but the concept of a cascade process control system is much more appropriate. The earth is generally in an energy balance over time, but the output part of the equation is controlled by the overall temperature of the surface, ocean, and atmosphere system which is extremely complex. So it is a sun energy input, to earth total system temperature, to long wave energy output, cascade system. The temperature of the earth total system is dependent on the sun’s energy which is fairly constant, and the long wave energy output is dependent on the earth total system temperature. There are transient storage and release states, but the long term average is in balance. Heat is not trapped.
“Earths set point is temperature.”
Is there a big knob for that? That God turns or something?
Guess she turned it down for awhile in the -20,000s..then turned it up in the -10,000s, and again in the 1900s, for some reason?
Weird..
Yeah, so, 20,000 years ago, Earth average global temperature was the coldest temperature within last 500,000 years and it had about 180 ppm of CO2 and then there was a massive warming event in which sea levels quickly rose more than 100 meter.
Actually unusual for an interglacial period, the Holocene interglacial period, rapidly warmed, rapidly cooled, then rapidly warmed and reached highest sea level and highest global temperature of the Holocene. And over next 10,000 years, there much smaller global warming and cooling events which occurred over centuries of year. Very small global warming and cooling periods of few degrees of global temperature change within the last 10,000 year period, and the last 5000 years has had gradual long period of cooling which reached coldest period called the Little Ice Age, and we presently have recovered from the Little Ice Age, but have probably have not recovered from the more than 5000 years of cooling. Or in terms of sea level, we are 1 to 2 meters lower than peak warming period of the Holocene. A period which had Sahara desert much wetter than it is right now.
Or if Sahara desert was as wet now, global temperature would at least .5 C warmer than our current average temperature of about 15 C or Earth would have a much higher level of global water vapor.
ent…too vague. For one, you are using ‘gain’ incorrectly. Gain, as related to an amplifier, is the ratio of the output signal wrt to the input signal.
A = gain = Vo/Vi
If Vi – 1 volt and Vo = 10 volts, A = 10/1 = 10
A typical gain in a transistor amplifier is about 100.
There is no gain in your statement above. The input signal has to be solar energy and the output would be energy radiated to space. Since output < input (some is retained), you have no gain.
What would be your feedback and ho would it affect your system?
Come on, Bordo.
Your amplifier does not produce more energy than it receives either. A gain button only means you can increase the amplification process. It comes at a cost.
Your ears will make you feel closer to the instruments, but you will hear distortion.
Sometimes that cost is fun. Ask Bob.
Come on, Bordo.
You are still confused because you keep writing words instead of understanding a simple equation.
In the equation you used, you *divide* the output by the input. Then you ask how it could be positive. It cannot – you used a formula for negative feedback.
But that is the equation for *negative* feedback systems. For *positive* amplifiers, you need another equation. Another resource among many:
https://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/eu/semiconductor/knowledge/e-learning/basics-of-op-amps/chap2/chap2-2.html
Notice where is the Vout. All you needed was to isolate the variable. You preferred to gloat and pontificate once again.
Now that you got caught, you play dumb.
You do this every day.
And now that you warmed up to your talking point, you will repeat it, oblivious to the fact that you may be the only person in the universe appearing to be confused by this.
Like the silly crank that you are.
No wonder you kept trolling this website for more than ten years now.
Come on.
Whining Wee Willy,
The surface cools every night. Also in winter, during solar eclipses, when it’s cloudy . . .
You are confusing sunlight with retarded SkyDragon cult jargon.
No “amplification” or “feedbacks”. No GHE, either.
By that logic, Moron Mike, 1 + 2 = 3 therefore 2 + 3 can’t equal 5.
Bray a little more.
Whining Wee Willy,
The surface cools every night. Also in winter, during solar eclipses, when its cloudy . . .
You are confusing sunlight with retarded SkyDragon cult jargon.
No .”amplification” or “feedbacks”. No GHE, either.
By your logic, Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist!
Moron Mike,
Nights cool slowlier with clouds.
Clouds amplify the warmth of your nights.
Just like your comments amplify the level of idiocy of this website.
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
The surface cools every night. Also in winter, during solar eclipses, when its cloudy . . .
You are confusing sunlight with retarded SkyDragon cult jargon.
No .amplification or feedbacks. No GHE, either.
By your logic, Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist!
By the way, you agree that clouds or no, the surface cools at night. Do retards generally think that cooling results in raised temperatures?
Moron Mike,
Nights are warmer now than they were.
Climate changed,
You changed too.
The more climate changes, the more moronic you get.
Willard,
If heat produced by humans is affecting thermometers, nighttime minima should rise.
Are you confirming this?
Gee. No GHE needed, either.
Maybe you are starting to accept reality.
Does the concept of slowliness escape you, Mike?
For a moron you are quite slow.
wee willy…”In the equation you used, you *divide* the output by the input. Then you ask how it could be positive”.
***
You are confusing two concepts. You can have an amplifier without feedback or you can have one with feedback.
With no feedback, A = Vo/Vi
With feedback…G = A/(1 + AB) = (Eo/Ei)/[1 + (Eo/Ei).B]
The + sign should not be taken literally since the type of feedback is determined by the feedback network. Remember, these are alternating currents/voltages, and the + sign is not about addition, the governing factor is the phase of the signal.
The point is, if (1 + AB) 1, G decreases each cycle.
Of course, it’s far more complicated in the circuit re how that comes about.
C’mon, Bordo.
You are confusing two concepts, gain and amplification.
If you want to compare A with G, isolate G, or isolate A.
Don’t mix them up.
Willard,
You are talking gibberish again. There is no GHE.
Are you retarded, delusional, or quite mad?
Why don’t you explain again why putting a thermometer in the shade (under a blanket) makes it hotter?
Maybe you could tell me why, when clouds get between the sun and the ground, the temperature falls?
Rather odd, if you believe in a magical GHE, don’t you think?
Questions, questions! Pity you have no answers, answers!
Mike, Mike,
Not your Sky Dragon pet crap.
Amplifier gain.
Do you know that is?
Willard,
You are talking gibberish again. There is no GHE.
Are you retarded, delusional, or quite mad?
Why dont you explain again why putting a thermometer in the shade (under a blanket) makes it hotter?
Maybe you could tell me why, when clouds get between the sun and the ground, the temperature falls?
Rather odd, if you believe in a magical GHE, dont you think?
Questions, questions! Pity you have no answers, answers!
What is GHE, Moron Mike, and how is that related to an amplifier gain?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bloody nuisance.
I have a way of describing the climate system as an amplifier but the website blocks my post.
Entropic man
” … but the website blocks my post. ”
No, it doesn’t.
*
Your post contains one of these problematic character sequences, like e.g. ‘d_c’ or ‘r_p_t’ (when written without the underscore character between them, of course).
I went through it and checked for the d*c effect.
I’ve encountered the r*p*t problem before with words like abso***ion, so I checked but it wasn’t that either.
Perhaps I’ve found another one.
For some reason, it often does it with p.t.
Are you getting a failure to post, and if you repeat, does it tell you it’s a duplicate and no post shows up? In that case, re-post and change the text slightly. I add something like ‘test’.
I was getting “Internal server failure”.
> feedback is not a recursive function,
Bordo displays his ignorance once more.
Will he ever stop?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
I’m trying to understand your use of the term feedback.
Could you clarify how you would use the term in these examples.
1) My PA amplifier is set to too high a volume. The microphone picks up sound from the loudspeaker. The amplifier increases the sound level until the resulting squeal is as loud as the amplifier’s power supply can produce.
2) Your body maintains a temperature close to 37C. When you exercise your body temperature increases and cooling mechanisms become active to shed the active heat.
3) Your body temperature drops below 37C. Your hairs stand on end to improve insulation and reduce your rate of heat loss below your rate of heat production.
4) Locked in a steam room above 35C wet bulb your body temperature starts to increase. Active cooling mechanisms such as sweating attempt to cool you but are ineffective. The extra heat generated due to make sweat ends up increasing your body temperature further until you die of heat stroke.
5) Something reduces the rate of heat loss to space from Earth, leading to an imbalance with more energy/heat input coming in from space than leaves as energy/heat output to space. Various mechanisms increase energy/heat output from the surface (and hence energy/heat output to space) until the balance is restored.
EM,
Something reduces the heat loss from Earth to space. The Earth still cools, doesn’t it?
No feedback. No amplification. No GHE.
Maybe you can address reality for a little while. Tell me about the “amplification” or “feedback” which is occurring each night when the surface cools. That’s a trick question of course – there is no “amplification” or “feedback” at all!
You are obviously confused.
How many decades will you troll with this silly talking point, Moron Mike:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/22/with-climate-change-nights-are-warming-faster-than-days-why
Bray again.
Weary Wee Willy,
Some retard wrote –
“But they absorb and re-emit heat back down to Earths surface at night, acting like a blanket.”
You do realise that clouds are colder than the surface, do you? Or don’t you realise that air temperatures drop with increasing altitude? For example, at about 3000 m, the air temperature is about -5 C. Not much “heating” there! You might as well jump in an ice bath to get warm – it would be warmer than clouds at 3000 m.
By the way, climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations. Saying really silly things like “climate change is acting like . . . “, only shows that your journalistic source is not only retarded, but ignorant as well.
Are you going to try to say that “greenhouse effect” is just a silly name for a blanket?
Think, Willard – why are air temperatures measured in the shade (of a blanket or similar)?
Or don’t think, if you can’t or won’t.
Moron Mike,
By increasing cloud cover, climate change is acting like the blanket you don’t need in a stuffy room on a hot, summer night.
Climate change. Not climate.
Lean to read. Or not. Who cares?
Wee Willy Wanker,
You are losing it. You wrote –
“Moron Mike,
By increasing cloud cover, climate change is acting like the blanket you dont need in a stuffy room on a hot, summer night.
Climate change. Not climate.
Lean to read. Or not. Who cares?”
Climate change is the change between the statistics of historical weather observations over time. Statistics change nothing. Clouds at -5 C have nothing to do with your delusional “blanket you dont need in a stuffy room on a hot, summer night.”
The Earth has cooled, dummy. Accept reality.
Moron Mike,
Climate change is more than temperature change.
Why are you such a moron?
Willard,
Indeed climate is more than just temperature.
As I said, it is the statistics of historical weather observations. Numbers which have no influence on the weather, or anything else – except maybe the fantasies of emotionally retarded SkyDragon cultists.
How does your imaginary “greenhouse effect” influence weather?
Climate scientists do not study their observations, Moron Mike.
They study climate.
Entropic,
“1) My PA amplifier is set to too high a volume. The microphone picks up sound from the loudspeaker. The amplifier increases the sound level until the resulting squeal is as loud as the amplifiers power supply can produce.”
Not exactly
You’re gonna blow a fifty amp fuse!
Bumbling bob,
You have assumed an external energy source. You do realise that an amplifier doesn’t work without external energy, do you?
No, sunlight won’t power an amplifier at night, just in case you are going to claim that sunlight can amplify itself in some magical fashion.
No GHE.
Swenson,
No I didn’t assume an amplifier, Entropic put it in right.
You tell me why my acoustic guitar is louder than my electric guitar when the electric guitar is not plugged in.
The acoustic guitar amplifies the sound without a power source.
Right, the sunlight doesn’t amplify itself, it’s the greenhouse effect that does the amplification.
Someone who doesn’t know the distance from the Earth to the Sun doesn’t have much cred.
Bumbling bod,
Your acoustic guitar amplifies nothing at all. It just sits there being silent. Do you have a magical acoustic guitar with a mechanism which plucks its strings – powered by a CO2 perpetual motion machine perhaps?
You wrote –
“Right, the sunlight doesnt amplify itself, its the greenhouse effect that does the amplification.”
This would be an imaginary CO2 powered greenhouse effect which allowed the planet to cool for four and a half billion years, would it?
Amplifiers need power to amplify. CO2 provides no power, and the Sun has insufficient power to warm the Earth to more than 255 K – so the SkyDragon cultists believe.
By the way, you wrote –
“Someone who doesnt know the distance from the Earth to the Sun doesnt have much cred.”
You noticed my intentional error, did you? Maybe you could have let others know what the correct distance is, but that would have involved you being helpful, which your retarded personality cannot abide.
Carry on being retarded and useless.
Right, you missed the part where I said my acoustic guitar is louder than my electric guitar when it is not plugged in.
And you claim you intentionally put the Earth in the asteroid belt.
Ha, that’s funny.
And by the way, the greenhouse effect that I again posted for you, is not powered by the CO2, the power source is the Sun, stupid.
I could be helpful, but not interested in helping assholes.
You are beaten, best quit, take your marbles and go home.
Not if it’s a Macintosh, not the Apple computer but the amplifier. They have current limiting as well as a slew of other limiting circuits to prevent that. Some even have an air-conditioner to maintain the power transistors at an even temperature.
https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/amplifiers
Entropic man,
This is from above in case you missed it.
Within the context of these trolls, you have the closest description, but the concept of a cascade process control system is much more appropriate. The earth is generally in an energy balance over time, but the output part of the equation is controlled by the overall temperature of the surface, ocean, and atmosphere system which is extremely complex. So it is a sun energy input, to earth total system temperature, to long wave energy output, cascade system. The temperature of the earth total system is dependent on the sun’s energy which is fairly constant, and the long wave energy output is dependent on the earth total system temperature. There are transient storage and release states, but the long term average is in balance. Heat is not trapped.
tim s…”but the concept of a cascade process control system is much more appropriate”.
***
Cascaded amplifiers are a technique used in electronics to amplify a signal stage by stage. I know of no such process in a control system. Control systems are linear devices with no amplification, unless it is required to boost a control signal over a distance.
There is a night and day difference between amplified systems and digital logic. The latter uses gates as on/off switches and although they use transistors that use a saturation mode of amplification, amplification is not the focus. It’s used only to get a rapid rise on the leading edge of a pulse. You could do the same with relays and they have no amplifiers.
There is no amplification in the Earth-Sun system under normal conditions. Therefore, there is no way to cascade solar input with IR radiation from the surface, if that’s what you are getting at.
tim s…” So it is a sun energy input, to earth total system temperature, to long wave energy output, cascade system”.
***
And where is the feedback legs going back to the Sun to control its output? Besides, cascaded amps use a negative feedback to control frequency response. If you used positive feedback you’d need earplugs till your amp blew.
The moral to this story is that cascades amps us either no feedback or negative feedback. Positive feedback won’t work with them.
ent…
1)positive feedback…mic picks up signal, it is amplified, and comes out the speakers. If mic is too close, the signal represents an earlier signal with the same phase but at an elevated level. That elevated level from speakers is picked up by mic and routed around the system again, each time becoming larger and larger.
Note that such feedback is frequency dependent and is usually related to the resonant frequency of a room. However, it can happen in headphones and comes as a rather unpleasant surprise. You can attenuate it significantly using a graphic or parametric equalizer. If you attenuate the signal at the feedback frequency you can safely raise the other frequency amplitudes.
2) and 3)You’ll know a lot more about the underlying biology than I do. I don’t know how these systems work at the molecular level or even the system level, although I’d like to understand them. However, it’s hard to say whether or not this is the type of runaway feedback referencing the atmosphere. It may be more like the servo controller type that does not feature amplification.
4)would heat stroke be regarded as a runaway heat effect or is it more like the servo system? The body obviously sends signals to various organs/systems to mediate the problem but does a person die from a runaway heat situation or another condition?
5)this sounds more like Monckton’s feedback but I think he is mistaken in thinking it can lead to thermal runaway.
When you talk about reducing the rate of heat loss you have to consider Newton’s Law of Cooling. He claimed that the rate of heat dissipation is proportional to the difference in temperature between a surface and its environment. I don’t know why alarmists are talking about reducing the rate of surface cooling with trace gases.
As I tried to point out earlier, when heat is dissipated at the surface, it is gone. Nothing after surface atoms/molecules can do anything about the lost heat. If we apply Newton, the environment of the surface is the entire atmosphere, not just GHGs. It is the temperature of all the molecules and 99% of them are oxygen and nitrogen.
In order to make the theory stick that GHGs are controlling the rate of surface heat dissipation, they need to prove it.
In summary, positive feedback that leads to a runaway condition requires an amplifier. Every system has losses and there is no way to compensate for those losses without amplification. Once the losses are taken care of, then you can start talking about amplification.
Backing up a bit, that means 2), 3), 4) and 5) cannot form runaway feedbacks. With regard to the heat stroke, there would be an upper limit as to how hot the body could become. Actually, even 1) is limited by the current available from the power supply. Modern power supplies will self-regulate after a certain level of current. However, by that time, considering the speed of reaching a high level of feedback, the speakers will likely blow first.
Thank you, that helps.
“Backing up a bit, that means 2), 3), 4) and 5) cannot form runaway feedbacks. With regard to the heat stroke, there would be an upper limit as to how hot the body could become. Actually, even 1) is limited by the current available from the power supply.”
In reality no positive feedback process can run away to infinity. IIRC there are three main reasons.
1) A limiting factor of some kind slows and stops the process.
2)Something required for the process runs out.
3) There is not enough energy available to drive the process beyond a certain rate.
Even the “runaway warming” of Venus stopped at 730K.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
I see this page is all about free energy amplifiers , well as soon as I finish hooking up my ice powered light bulb I will join in
Eben,
You need to amplify the energy first, using CO2, of course.
Norman attempts to convince others that radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter one, by introducing a red herring in the form of mass. He wrote –
“If the mass remains the same and you add energy you will increase temperature if you are not at a melting or boiling point of a substance.”
Nonsense. Surround a bowl of water with ice. The water does not increase in mass. It definitely won’t increase in temperature either, no matter how Nutty Norman plays with words.
None of the retarded SkyDragon cultists can even bear to acknowledge that the surface cools at night – demonstrating that “energy out” is exceeding “energy in”. So much for reducing the rate of energy loss, feedback, forcing, back-radiation, and all the rest of the cultist clap-trap.
The total amount of energy from the Sun is not even enough to stop the Earth from cooling.
And cool it will continue to do, slowly and inexorably. Ask any real scientist – a geophysicist, for example. The more retarded cultists will seek advice advice from a “world famous climate scientist” like Gavin Schmidt, I suppose. Or maybe a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat like the supposed geologist, Michael Mann, who boasts he can divine historical air temperatures from bits of dead tree, and upside down pictures of sediments!
Retarded, delusional, or just ignorant? Make your own decision.
Moron Mike mumbles incoherently.
Swenson
How much work does it take to be so illogical? You can’t think at all can you.
If you had reasoning ability you would know that a bowl of water is constantly losing energy to its surroundings as well as gaining some.
It is called “heat exchange” maybe you never heard of such a concept.
The reason the ice will not maintain the water temperature is because the energy it adds to the water is less than what it loses.
Yes the energy of the Sun is quite enough to stop the Surface from cooling. You don’t know that surface warms during the day? You don’t know that when the surface receives more solar input in summer than winter it reaches higher surface temperatures.
I think you are the ignorant one. Your posts are perhaps the worst of the worst on this blog. Endless repetition and no rational ideas conveyed. You almost make Clint R seem intelligent between the two of you.
Nutty Norman,
No, the energy from the Sun is insufficient to maintain the current surface temperature. Even your fellow SkyDragon cultists calculate the maximum surface temperature to be only 255 K, due to sunlight alone.
Luckily, the Earth has only cooled to its present surface temperature, even though the interior is still glowing hot. The crust is still cooling and thickening as more of it drops below the melting point of crustal rock.
Of course, you don’t believe that the interior is hotter than the surface, nor that the surface was once molten. The Earth doesn’t care what you think.
By the way, the surface cools at night. No GHE at night, apparently. More energy leaving the surface than it receives. Just like a bowl of boiling water in sunlight – it cools. At night, it cools even faster.
Others may believe your fantasy, or they may accept reality. Who knows?
> The total amount of energy from the Sun is not even enough to stop the Earth from cooling.
And?
Willard,
And . . . the Earth is cooling.
Mike Flynn,
Check the graph at the top of the page.
Weepy Wee Willy,
And . . . the Earth is cooling.
You demanded “Mike Flynn,
Check the graph at the top of the page.”
Quite apart from the fact that only someone who is severely retarded would keep calling me Mike Flynn, when I keep telling you I am not he, the graph at “the top of the page” (from memory), has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth. Nor has any “graph” used by witless SkyDragon cultists.
Why do you persist in demonstrating your degree of retardation and delusional thinking?
Stick to your homosexual and masturbatory fantasies – there are probably more people interested in those than your other nonsense.
Over the last 20,000 years Earth has warmed.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Over the last 800,000 years it has oscillated.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
Over the last 600 million years it has been mostly constant except for four brief cooler periods.
https://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CO2-temerature-1365p-2.jpg
None of them show the long term cooling Swenson claims.
EM,
You are confused. If anything, you are referring to imaginary estimated air temperatures, close to the surface, sparsely situated over less than 30% of the Earth’s surface.
You may not have noticed that Dr Spencer is wondering whether recent recorded thermometer temperature rises are due to man-made heat.
If you are claiming that the Earth, sitting in space some 300,000,000 km from the Sun, spontaneously decides to cool, heat, cool . . ., presumably you have some reason based on known physical laws.
It’s a great pity that you just can’t quite find the reason just now. Did you lose it, like Phil Jones lost his date? Or can’t you tell anybody what it is, because it’s your intellectual property?
Suck it up, EM. Appealing to your own authority is not terribly convincing. You really have no clue, do you?
Meanwhile Swenson, how do YOU ‘know’ about Earth’s temperatures from 4.5 Billion years ago? Or anywhere in between?
How are you certain that there was only cooling during this period?
No wonder Swenson thinks the Earth has cooled for the last 4.5 billion years, he has the Earth in the asteroid belt.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Meanwhile Swenson, how do YOU ‘know’ about Earths temperatures from 4.5 Billion years ago? Or anywhere in between?
How are you certain that there was only cooling during this period?”
You are perfectly at liberty to believe that the Earth was created at absolute zero, and that the Sun heated the interior to its present temperature – by some magical process which another long gone commenter referred to as “heat creep”.
Or you can believe that the interior of the Earth is colder than the surface, or that the Earth is hollow, or flat, or held up by Atlas.
However, if the Earth’s surface was originally molten, and it is not molten now, then it has cooled. Between then and now, the surface temperature has dropped. By definition, it has cooled. If you believe that the Earth has cooled, the heated, then cooled . . ., then I assume you have a reason which you are not prepared to supply – probably because you just realized you can’t think of a reason, after all.
You can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”, so you are reduced to trying stupid gotchas.
There is no GHE.
“However, if the Earths surface was originally molten, and it is not molten now, then it has cooled. Between then and now, the surface temperature has dropped.”
Pretty clear that you don’t know what the T history was in between, Mike.
And what you do claim is based on the geologic record. The one which also shows the Earth warmed and cooled many times in between.
Thus you cherry pick from the geologic record, ignoring parts that don’t fit your narrative.
But that’s all we can expect from a troll.
Evidence of missing layer of sedimentary rock indicate that the surface of the Earth was once nearly covered with ice, it is no longer covered with ice, between then and now the temperature has increased, therefore it has warmed by definition.
See how easy it is to argue like Swenson.
The graph at the top of the page, despite its effectiveness in describing current temperatures, is only 40+ years long.
Were Mike making any sense, there would not be such a graph and climate change would be called climate cooling.
Besides, the graph is is not at the top of this page.
One day it will be a meme!
It started, after NYT declared we were going to have an Ice Age.
NYT is always behind the times.
Demand from the retard Willard –
“Mike Flynn,
Check the graph at the top of the page.”
Being retarded, it takes Willard some time to criticize another commenter by saying –
“Besides, the graph is is not at the top of this page.”
Now others can see why it is pointless entering in Willard’s wild goose chases – Willard being the goose.
Mike Flynn,
Everybody can see you are a moron.
So sad. Too bad.
Demand from the retard Willard
“Mike Flynn,
Check the graph at the top of the page.”
Being retarded, it takes Willard some time to criticize another commenter by saying
“Besides, the graph is is not at the top of this page.”
Now others can see why it is pointless entering in Willard’s wild goose chases Willard being the goose.
Mike Flynn,
Made you look.
Moron.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Made you look.
Moron.”
Look at what? A non-existent graph which existed only in the fantasy of a retard?
Are you really proud of being retarded? Maybe other retarded SkyDragon cultists will applaud you.
Made you look at the top of the page, Mike.
Moron.
“Made you look at the top of the page, Mike.
Moron.”
Are you really so retarded you are copying pointless kindergarten jibes?
How do you figure you “made me look”? You are definitely a strange delusional retard, Willard!
Can you come up with something faintly relevant you your bizarre belief in a non-existent GHE, or are you spouting nonsense to avoid accepting reality?
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
You have looked at the top of the page.
Just like you clicked on the YT link.
That is good enough for me.
Moron.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Another big cold high is beginning to work its way across the southeast Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/samer2/mimictpw_samer2_latest.gif
There is a huge problem of excess grain in Europe due to huge supplies from Ukraine. A wet spring promises a bountiful harvest this year, which will further exacerbate the problem.
Having stupid and/or highly delusional political class could have tendency of causing general shortage of optimism- though one could believe that having an abundance optimism could be a serious problem.
I think/believe that idea that Earth could be too warm is highly irrational, because we living in the coldest period of an Ice Age.
We are an Ice Age because average ocean water is about 3.5 C and our world has a lot ice and most of this ice is cold.
If average temperature of the ice was say, -1 C, one could call that, warm ice. I am not sure what the average temperature of global ice is
but it seems it’s a lot cooler than -1 C. If it’s average is colder
than -10 C, it seems one might call it very cold, and seems possible that average temperature of ice, has been much colder than -10 C, and
as wild guess, at the moment it’s -10 C or colder.
–Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents–
By Bethan Davies Last updated 14/06/2021 tagged Sea level rise.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/
Ice on land Sea level equivalent (m)
Antarctic Ice Sheet 57.9
Greenland Ice Sheet 7.42
Glaciers and ice caps 0.32
So, if total these numbers: 65.64 meters of sea rise occurs.
And there is more cold ice already under water, which rather than add
removes some small immeasurable amount. Immeasurable amount because it’s wildly optimistic to assume we have measured it, well enough, and it’s small difference {10% difference of density}.
Though, I am talking about coldness of liquid ocean {3.5} plus including temperature of frozen ice {and of course, it takes a lot heat to melt 0 C ice- ice on ocean [polar sea ice] and in ocean [ice shelves]- counts, or some number +66 meters}.
And the potential of 65.64 meters of sea rising, has been less than 7″ [0.1778 meter] within last 100 years. Or this religious obsession of rising sea levels, from melting ice is not interesting/relevant, though what could be somewhat interesting is the average temperature of all this ice, ie, how much it’s warmed {or cooled} in last 100 years.
Anyhow, I believe we living in best of times, despite living in an Ice Age. And I believe warming world is better world, and so far, this has been, true.
Op-ed | U.S. leadership of cislunar space hinges on foresight and planning
James Myers April 12, 2023
“Today, we are on the cusp of a new, global space race unfolding at unimaginable speed: a competition for leadership to forge a prosperous and enduring cislunar presence. To win this race, well need masterful planning of myriad efforts along a common course that doesnt end at just one finish line.”
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-u-s-leadership-of-cislunar-space-hinges-on-foresight-and-planning/
Apparently, we are doomed.
Hopefully Starship test launches on 4/20/2023
I wouldn’t call it, masterful planning.
More like, we have at least, one madman.
> Control systems are linear devices with no amplification
Oh noes, not again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
Bordo has no bottom.
Whacky Wee Willy,
I suppose you want people to ignore the fact that you cant even describe the GHE, so you carry on about irrelevant subjects.
There are no PID controllers floating around on magic carpets of CO2, controlling the Sun’s output. Only a retard (or a delusional SkyDragon cultist) would imply such a stupid thing.
Try blankets – that’s just as silly.
Mike Flynn,
I suppose you are a moron.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Good for you, Willard, good for you!
Why do you insist on combing the Net for answers to questions you have no ability to understand? The PID controller is a more sophisticated means of error control that extends to amplifying an error signal, something you have pounceed upon without understanding that the amplification has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I did mention amplification in control systems as related to boosting an error (feedback) signal that goes over large distances. In the PID, they use it to amplify error signals to get a faster response. The article at the link below explains the pros and cons of using such amplification. They also use integrators to get long-term response and differentiators to get an instantaneous response.
Nothing to do with the positive feedback runaway conditions being claimed by alarmists.
We are talking about amplification using positive feedback and this control system simply does not amplify a signal related to feedback, in order to control the gain of an amplifier. The PID is amplifying the feedback signal, not the input signal in order to achieve a larger signal.
Again, you have no understanding of what is involved and you are merely whistling into the wind.
Come on, Bordo.
A PID controller operates in a feedback loop. Check the block diagram. Are you supposed to be able to read a block diagram? And no, this has nothing to do with long distance, whatever you might mean by that.
And of course there are nonlinear control systems. Most if not all real-life control systems are nonlinear. The processes real engineers try to control seldom superpose.
It is the second time you mess up the concept of linearity. The first was when you suggested that positive feedback implied exponentials. It does not. Positive gain *may* lead to chaotic distortion, at least until we cut it off with a filter. Ask Richard for details.
Which means we usually have a logistic function. Just like EM tried to tell you. But you never listen.
Come on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
April 14, 2023 at 8:48 AM
“The one out of 2500 molecules will block all the IR in certain wavelength bands.”
–
“…all the IR in certain wavelength bands.”
–
–
Will one out of… say 3000 molecules block all the IR in certain wavelength bands?
–
In other words, what the CO2 percentage should be in the earthen very thin air to block all the IR in certain wavelengths?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Check for yourself in Modtran
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Choose eg Mid Latitude Winter.
Choose the wavelngth range 1-20 microns.
You can see that at a CO2 wavelength band around 15 microns, the transmittance is 0.
You can adjust the sensor height to the minimum of 1 Km. The Transmittance remains at 0 for the 15 micron band.
This means that the for the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere none of the 15 micron IR passes through this layer. It is all abs.orbed by CO2.
I don’t think so.
impressive rebuttal…
Nate,
Maybe you are unable to explain why the surface cools at night. Does all the CO2 go to sleep? Or is the “greenhouse effect” just a SkyDragon cult name for “sunlight”?
Feel free to change the subject, and go off at a tangent, if you like.
“Maybe you are unable to explain why the surface cools at night.”
It does cool at night. And why would you think otherwise?
It seems you again fail to understand that insulation doesnt prevent a warm surface from cooling, it just SLOWS its cooling.
Nate,
So you cannot explain why the surface cools at night? It just does?
Very informative. Not.
That would be your explanation for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years too, would it?
You finished up “It seems you again fail to understand that insulation doesn’t prevent a warm surface from cooling, it just SLOWS its cooling.”
OK, I agree. So the GHE is nothing like insulation, is that what you are agreeing with? No increasing temperatures, just slower cooling. I suppose anyone that claims that the GHE makes things hotter as a result of slow cooling would have to be somewhat retarded, wouldn’t they?
You certainly wouldn’t say that cooling makes things hotter!
Or would you?
“You finished up ‘It seems you again fail to understand that insulation doesnt prevent a warm surface from cooling, it just SLOWS its cooling.’
OK, I agree.”
Good, so we are clear that the insulation won’t prevent cooling?
And we are clear that the Earth cools at night?
And thus the GHE, if it exists, is doing what insulation would do?
“So the GHE is nothing like insulation, is that what you are agreeing with?”
Whoops!
Is simple logic too much to expect from you Swenson??
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you are unable to act like you were not asking this same silly questions on every thread as if it was the first time, and that you just cannot stop from acting like the moron we all know and love.
Just a thought.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Are you trying to say something, or just whining because you can’t explain why the GHE can’t even stop the surface cooling at night?
The answer is simple for any person not suffering from mental retardation – there is no “greenhouse effect”!
Accept reality, retard.
Mike Flynn,
I said you are a moron.
Play dumb once again.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Are you trying to say something, or just whining because you can’t explain why the GHE can’t even stop the surface cooling at night?
The answer is simple for any person not suffering from mental retardation there is no “greenhouse effect”!
Accept reality, retard.
Moron Mike,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Long live and prosper,
Willard,
Do you think posting stupid and irrelevant links from musical content creators is a mark of intelligence or mental retardation?
Others will no doubt make their own decisions.
Mike Mike,
The “musical content creators” was an ad.
You are an ass.
You wrote –
“Mike Mike,
The “musical content creators” was an ad.
You are an ass.”
Are you talking in tongues, or do all retarded SkyDragon cultists spout incomprehensible gibberish?
What are you braying about, Donkey Mike?
You wrote
Mike Mike,
The musical content creators was an ad.
You are an ass.
Are you talking in tongues, or do all retarded SkyDragon cultists spout incomprehensible gibberish?
What are you braying about, Donkey Mike?
Poor Nate wont understand but his Modtran proves adding more CO2 does NOTHING.
Also an impressive rebuttal…not.
In addition to MODTRAN, you could try https://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
It does more specific calculations in more different circumstances.
Or you could just wait for sunset, and notice that the temperature drops at night.
Do any of your spectral calculators reflect reality?
Or are you just confused about physics, and how to use the calculators to which you refer?
Maybe you also confuse “the greenhouse effect” with “sunlight”.
Mental retardation involves reduced ability to adapt to one’s environment – in this case, the fact that the temperature drops in the absence of sunlight – MODTRAN, HITRAN, and SpectralCalc notwithstanding.
The point is, Tim, Modtran is mainly calculation with only a few verified by experimentation.
christos…”Will one out of say 3000 molecules block all the IR in certain wavelength bands?
In other words, what the CO2 percentage should be in the earthen very thin air to block all the IR in certain wavelengths?”
***
No one knows how air molecules interact with IR. The problem is presented as a direct line action, as if a beam of IR is shot right at a CO2 molecule. That is pseudo-science. The idea that one CO2 molecule among 2500 N2/O2 molecules can capture all the IR in that area is ridiculous.
The truth is that CO2 can absorb…maybe…about 7% of all surface radiation.
It is still snowing on Mammoth Mountain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpGHpWtXGsk&ab_channel=MammothMountain
> Your acoustic guitar amplifies nothing at all.
Moron Mike is racing Bordo to the bottom:
https://cmtext.indiana.edu/acoustics/chapter1_resonance.php
Whining Wee Willy,
Resonance. No more out than in, although the retarded and unsophisticated my imagine this to be the case.
You quoted “Resonance is characterized as the selective amplification of an external source, . . . “, which is nonsensical. Resonance adds no additional energy, which is needed by an “amplifier”. An amplifier takes a small input, amplifies it, and hopefully outputs a more energetic version of the original signal. In an electronic amplifier, an input measured in milliwatts may be amplified, resulting in outputs of many watts. The increased power comes from an an external electrical source. Without this power, no “amplification” takes place.
You will find that below a certain input energy from the source, that no resonance takes place at all. All input energy is dissipated. For example, a musical string needs energy to overcome inherent stiffness, air resistance etc.
You just don’t understand what you are talking about. Try appealing to an authority which is authoritative.
None of this is at all relevant to any supposed “greenhouse effect”, is it? Just an attempt by a retard to cover up his ignorance and stupidity.
An acoustic guitar amplifies nothing at all. It merely ensures that maximal input energy is perceived as audible sound. After a string is plucked, the sound rapidly dies away, as the input energy dissipates. No amplification.
Sorry for typographical error. Left out an “a”.
You left out more than an “a,” Moron Mike.
If you say so, retarded Wee Willy, if you say so.
With my speaking trumpet to amplify my voice, Moron Mike –
Yes, you forgot way more than an “a.”
If you say so, retarded Wee Willy, if you say so.
wee willy …”Resonance is characterized as the selective amplification of an external source, called the excitation source, whose frequency or frequencies match the natural vibrational characteristics of a resonating system. In musical acoustics, these systems may be strings, tubes, cavity vessels such as bottles or your vocal tract, sound boards, wooden instrument bodies, etc. Most of these resonating bodies will have multiple natural, often harmonically-related frequencies that they amplify…”
***
Again, Wee Willy tries to take on a subject he knows nothing about. If the resonant cavity on acoustic guitar amplifies a signal so much, why do they need to use amplifiers to amplify the acoustic guitar sound in a concert?
Anyone who has played an acoustic guitar or listened to one, knows they have a very limited amplification factor. Certainly, if you strung a guitar string between pegs in open air, the sound would be small in nature compared to 6 strings vibrating over a resonant cavity. To claim a resonant cavity can amplify the sound is a serious stretch of the meaning of amplification. Certain notes from certain strings will bounce around in the cavity and add but there is a serious limitation as to how much they can add.
Also, anyone who has played an acoustic guitar knows the most powerful notes are in the bottom E-string. One of the biggest problem when recording an acoustic guitar is suppressing those notes while boosting other notes on the neck. Some acoustic guitars are recorded using only chords in the treble range strings, relying on the ear to fill in the bass string notes, because they tend to swamp the rest of the string sounds and mess up the mix by hogging too much of the overall spectrum.
Even though the resonant cavity on an acoustic will amplify certain notes on the lower E-string, it cannot amplify the rest of the notes on the acoustic more than a trivial amount.
Although a resonator can amplify slightly, there is a limit on the amplification compared to an electronic amplifier that can amplify a sound a million times provided the amplifier is big enough and the speakers can handle it.
Positive feedback using a resonant cavity is also small. There is no way in something like the resonant cavity on an acoustic guitar that the sound output could run away to cause the squealing feedback we equate to that ear-shattering feedback created by a mic being too close to an amplifier-driven speaker.
By the same token, there is no way the atmosphere could amplify heat, simply because there is no mechanism like a resonator to do it. The only example of a destructive natural resonator of which I am aware is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. It involved a fluke combination of suspension cables being driven to vibrate at a frequency which was also the natural frequency of the bridge deck. The wind sustained the resonance to the point the bridge deck tore itself to pieces.
There is nothing whatsoever in the atmosphere can do that.
Once again Bordo tries to intimate he knows something about acoustics.
If it takes power to amplify sound, how the hell did humans make music before the advent of electricity? Windmills? Donkeys?
God this is dumb.
Yeah, and why was I in my misspent youth down at the audio store drooling over Klipsch corner horns?
https://www.klipsch.com/products/klipschorn-70th-anniversary-edition
And why did grandma crank up that old Victrola?
Then there are conch shells and trombones, both amplify sound with out any power source.
Both of you – if you don’t make something vibrate, you don’t get any sound.
If you don’t hammer away at your keyboards, you won’t produce any nonsense.
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about your approaches –
“Intellectual disability (ID), also known as general learning disability in the United Kingdom[3] and formerly mental retardation,[4][5] is a generalized neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significantly impaired intellectual and adaptive functioning.”
Neither of you are able to adapt to reality. The Earth has cooled, Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist, Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, and you can’t even describe the GHE.
Mental retardation writ large. Intellectual disability if you are a precious petal who is sensitive and easily hurt.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Moron Mike?
Both of you if you dont make something vibrate, you dont get any sound.
If you dont hammer away at your keyboards, you wont produce any nonsense.
Heres what Wikipedia has to say about your approaches
Intellectual disability (ID), also known as general learning disability in the United Kingdom[3] and formerly mental retardation,[4][5] is a generalized neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significantly impaired intellectual and adaptive functioning.
Neither of you are able to adapt to reality. The Earth has cooled, Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist, Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, and you cant even describe the GHE.
Mental retardation writ large. Intellectual disability if you are a precious petal who is sensitive and easily hurt.
Carry on.
Copy-paste your comment again, Moron Mike.
What makes you think unamplified instruments amplify sound? If a string on a guitar activates a resonant chamber, is that true amplification or is simply the string activating resonance and producing a note that is louder than strings that don’t activate it. or which activate it only when combined combined with other notes?
I not only know something about acoustics I have expertise in the field. I worked extensively with acoustic systems.
Come on, Bordo. I can play riddles too –
If you rant on a blog nobody reads, are you still as cranky and dumb as you now are?
“One of the biggest problem when recording an acoustic guitar is suppressing those notes while boosting other notes on the neck.”
If that’s a problem, get a better guitarist.
Come on, Bob, your comments get more juvenile as you go along. It has noting to do with the guitarist, it’s the way an acoustic guitar is built. The resonant chamber behind the strings is tuned better to the lower E string notes near G.
There are ukeleles shaped like a guitar and the resonant chamber is much smaller because the strings are shorter and the pitch is higher. Ukes won’t give the same problem during recording as the lower notes on the guitar lower E string.
One of the first and important lessons a guitarist learns is how to play an open D chord.
You have to strum only the top four strings, if you are playing the bottom E string, you are not playing a D chord.
Playing and not playing the bottom E-string requires learning skills and practicing them. Better have those down before you go into a recording studio.
The argument is not which notes the guitar amplifies better, its the fact that the guitar amplifies sound without a power source.
You want to argue about recording music, something you obviously have no clue about.
“I still hear the E-string Bob”
Said a guitar teacher to me.
So the question still is:
Which is louder, my acoustic guitar or my unplugged in electric guitar?
Hint: my electric is a solid body, not an ES-335.
Even if you swing away like Sheryl Crow, she knows how to keep the bottom E-string out of the mix.
bob, please stop trolling.
How about it DREMT,
Do you strum the bottom E string when playing an open D chord?
How about the A string?
You are indeed supposed to play just the top four strings.
Of course, you could tune the E string down to D and play the whole lot. "Drop D" tuning.
Chartmaster vid or it does not exist.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wiki:
“The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs after energy from a planet’s host star goes through the planet’s atmosphere and heats the planet’s surface. When the planet radiates the heat back out as thermal infrared radiation, greenhouse gases and clouds in the atmosphere absorb some of it. This traps the heat near the surface and reduces radiative cooling to space. ”
I would say a greenhouse effect, is a star’s light that passes thru
a transparent atmosphere [or any transparent substance] and warms and surface below it. Or the Earth’s ocean and atmosphere has greenhouse effect. And most of Earth’s sunlight reaching the Earth surface is going thru, it’s transparent ocean.
And if the Earth ocean surface were to become less transparent to sunlight, the ocean would “trap” less heat. And the Earth’s atmosphere “traps” heat due to the mass of the atmosphere- the mass of atmosphere is about 10,000 kg per square meter. If the atmosphere was only a 1000 kg per square meter, it would trap less heat. But if our atmosphere was only 1000 kg per square meter, it would be more transparent, and the ocean or land could absorb more heat, and land surface heat could heated to higher temperature. Or highest the ground can be heated is about 80 C, but with 1/10th as much atmosphere, it could heat up to about 100 C. But the land would trap less heat, as compared to an atmosphere of 10,000 kg per square meter.
The original use of greenhouse effect was related, to trying to understand why Europe wasn’t colder than it is. And a main reason Europe is warmer, than it “should be”, is due the ocean warming Europe- the warmer Gulf Stream which pushes tropically warmed waters poleward.
Likewise, one could wonder why Earth’s polar regions aren’t colder- which also related to greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and the ocean.
Earth has a more uniform temperature, due to warming effect of atmosphere and the ocean.
That wiki definition is close, except for the flawed terminology. The definition avoids claiming the atmosphere can warm the surface. The atmosphere acts as insulation, much like a blanket, but with radiative gases being holes in the blanket.
Sun is what raises Earth temperatures. Or, as someone once said, It’s the Sun, stupid.
And at night, the surface cools. Too many holes in the blanket, perhaps. Or maybe the analogy is full of holes?
It doesn’t amaze me that GHE supporters have to talk in riddles, metaphors, and analogies. It’s a sure sign that the cult members don’t understand what they are talking about!
Einstein said “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
SkyDragon cultists can’t even describe what they claim they can’t explain to a six year old.
Life goes on.
swenson…”Einstein said If you cant explain it to a six year old, you dont understand it yourself.
***
I was watching Part 1 of Feynman’s guest lecture at the University of Auckland. He claimed there are certain things that cannot be explained in electrodynamics and, essentially, we must take his word for those things. In fact, at one point he stated something along the lines of this: if you don’t understand it, and that bothers you, tough!!!
I felt annoyed that he spent 35 minutes talking about the subject without getting at his message.
That’s about the most arrogant I have ever heard Feynman express himself. It wasn’t the arrogance so much as the inference that we must trust him that the answer he supplies is correct, even though he admits he doesn’t understand it. The solution he claimed comes in probability functions because we cannot even begin to understand the physical reality.
I won’t go further into this because I know you admire Feynman. I have admired both Feynman and Einstein, but I now admit my admiration was based on an ignorance of what they were talking about. I am now of the opinion that Einstein had it wrong about time and space. I have gone into that in another posts and I won’t grieve you by repeating my views. However, Feynman is another matter.
The only authority figures I have left are Newton and Linus Pauling. 🙂 Wouldn’t you know that Feynman took a shot at Newton, essentially dismissing his theories as being superseded by Einsteinian relativity. Needless to say, that went over like a lead balloon with me.
Many scientists make the same mistake when talking about Newtonian physics. They infer it has been replaced by Einstein’s relativity, which is nonsense. Most of what we do on this planet is based on Newtonian physics and hardly anything on Einstein’s relativity. Even Einstein admitted that.
Feynman, in his lecture, when talking about quantum theory, praised Rutherford, a Kiwi, and completely ignored Bohr’s contribution. I wondered if there was a deeper meaning there, because Bohr’s theory contradicts the electrodynamics theory that an electron would collapse into the nucleus if it orbited the same.
I have never noticed this arrogance before in Feynman, although it was plainly obvious at times. Also, he tends to contradict himself by saying one thing and doing another. I once heard him say that if a professor cannot explain something to a class he doesn’t understand it. Yet here he was, at Auckland University, not only unable to explain the relationship between the electron and EM but chastising people for questioning that inability.
I am not trying to put either Einstein or Feynman down, my message, based on my own experience, is that we should never accept the views of an authority figure verbatim, simply because he/she is an authority figure. We should always remain open to questioning any authority figure.
btw…the squiggly stuff above was meant to be a smiley.
I am hoping you will take my observations with a generous pinch of salt. Needless to say, no shot intended.
Gordon Robertson
You still hold on to your false belief that Einstein’s theories are based on Authority figure. You are so wrong! Acceptance of Einstein is from evidence. gallopingcamel explained it you you a few years back. You rejected it. You constantly ignore evidence and reject it when it does not fit you delusional world view of made up facts and opinions. You do not understand science or its method. You think it is an opinion based system and those with opinions you like (like Lanka) you blindly believe but ignore mountains of evidence proving he is a dishonest human. So far, in several years of posting, you reject evidence in favor of opinions of lunatics (Gary Novak).
Norman, adding your unsolicited opinions to your trolling is STILL trolling.
And, trolling ain’t science.
Clint R
Hey stupid do you have anything of value to say? Didn’t think so. You are dumber that Gordon so what is your point? You think the valid and well used radiant heat transfer is “bogus” that alone is enough to show how stupid you are and your lack on even basic science education.
Sorry Norman, but that’s still trolling.
You need to eliminate things like:
*Insults
*False accusations
*Endless incoherent rambling
*Mentioning of personalities
*Denial of reality
*Links to things you don’t understand
Here’s a good example of science:
Energy in can raise a system’s temperature, but ONLY if it’s the right kind of energy. You can add ice to a 288K system but the ice won’t raise the system temp. You’ve added energy to the system, but the temperature can NOT go up.
You can add ice to a 288K system but the ice wont raise the system temp. Youve added energy to the system, but the temperature can NOT go up.”
As long as you understand that you’ve added mass in that example.
In the case of adding fluxes to a surface, there is no mass change of significance.
So the results will be different.
Sorry Nate, but you’re on the wrong channel.
This example was about adding ice to a warmer system. To raise the system temperature, the right kind of energy is needed. Mass will not raise the temperature.
Try to get on the right channel. Otherwise people will think you’re just trying to distract from reality.
Clint R
Whereas it is not possible to carry on an intelligent conversation with you I can still try (basically to prove that my statement is correct).
Relative to various states (something beyond your level of understanding) the ice can “warm” a system. By “warm” I mean leave it at a higher temperature than some other condition.
If you take ice at 0 C and add it to a system at 15 C (288 K) in an isolated system it will reach some temperature (depending upon conditions like mass and heat capacity of the various parts).
Now if you would add to an identical system ice at -100 C the end temperature of this system will be colder than the previous. So the 0 C ice leaves the system at a higher temperature than the colder ice.
These are the concepts you cannot seem to understand. They are very logical and most normal people can grasp the logic. You, Swenson and Gordon Robertson are not able to comprehend this concept at all.
You all think the cold atmosphere heats the surface. No one describing the GHE correctly makes this claim and this would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The cold atmosphere with GHG reduces the heat loss from the surface so that the incoming solar energy allows it to reach a higher temperature. It is simple logic, easy for most to understand. Some mental block in your brain prevents you from understanding it.
Clint R
I will show you a link you will not be able to understand but is clearly shows what you can’t grasp.
Here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6440942d537d5.png
Easy to process. The Upwelling IR is greater than the Downwelling IR. Logic conclusion. The atmosphere is NOT heating the surface.
But look at the NET loss of radiant energy. It is around the 200 W/m^2 range. If no downwelling IR the loss of surface heat via radiant energy would be between 400 to 600 W/m^2.
The atmosphere lowers the amount of radiant heat the surface loses via radiant energy. Because of the reduction in radiant heat loss of the surface the solar input will produce a higher temperature than it would with no atmosphere.
It is really logical and simple if you had a science background and logical thinking.
Clint R
The big point would be why would the opinions of a random arrogant asshole like you mean anything to anyone (except Swenson and Gordon Robertson).
You the random asshole says the well established heat transfer equation is bogus and we are all supposed to be amazed by your stupid opinion on things you know nothing about. You claim fluxes don’t add and we are supposed to just accept this as a fact because some idiotic troll on a blog makes this bold and stupid statement.
You make lots of idiot claims with zero support or evidence and everyone is supposed to think you are the next Einstein.
Problem is you are just a trolling idiot that loves to stir up s..t.
It is “so much fun” for you to do this. I wondered why you did it as g/e/r/a/n and now I wonder why you do it as Clint R. What function does this serve. Your posts are stupid so they certainly will not enlighten anything. They are devoid of rational thinking and logic so no one will learn anything from them. If you brought up good thoughtful points I could see value in that. You just post stupid opinions over and over so I fail to see the value in that.
norman…’cam’ offered what he called proof of time dilation and I urged him essentially to go back to the drawing board and try to find a better explanation for what he claimed to have witnessed.
If you work extensively with kinematics as did Einstein, there is a tendency to forget that time is a human creation, forgetting that both velocity and acceleration require a force to initiate them. That’s what I was saying to cam, look for a force-based explanation rather than speculating about a non-existent entity like time.
If you read Einstein enough on relativity, it becomes apparent that he was treating acceleration as a driving force and time as the instigator of acceleration. Einstein obviously believed that time was a phenomenon whereas it is actually an illusion based on the Earth’s rotational period.
For whatever reason, Einstein adopted the work of Lorentz on relative motion, and it was Lorentz who introduced the notion of time and measure dilation. Einstein seems to have presumed Lorentz was correct and he obviously was not.
Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock complained that Einstein’s theory is not even a theory, it is speculation based on thought experiments. Could not have said it better.
Norman,
Here’s what Nate wrote earlier –
“It seems you again fail to understand that insulation doesn’t prevent a warm surface from cooling, it just SLOWS its cooling.”
Are you saying you disagree with Nate, and that insulation increases the temperature of a cooling body?
You wrote –
“The big point would be why would the opinions of a random arrogant asshole like you mean anything to anyone . . . ”
The big point would be if you could actually describe the GHE, indicate where it may be observed, measured, and documented, in some objective fashion.
Of course you can’t, so anyone who points out that you can’t even explain why the surface cools in the absence of sunlight, is characterized as a “random arrogant asshole”. Your opinions may be valued by some, but I doubt you can put a name to anyone who does.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists resort to unsupported personal slurs, in the hope that they won’t have to actually commit themselves to anything which may be scientifically examined.
The behavior of a retard who cannot accept his environment.
norman…”The atmosphere lowers the amount of radiant heat the surface loses via radiant energy”.
***
Nonsense. There is no such thing as radiant heat, it is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century when scientists believed heat flowed through space as heat rays.
IR and heat are two separate energies with very different properties. IR is produced at the expense of heat, which is lost entirely as IR is produced. To satisfy fellow skeptics who call heat something else, I will call it internal energy. That internal energy is lost as IR is produced. No such thermal energy exists after IR is created.
Therefore, the rate of surface heat dissipation has nothing to do with GHGs which encounter the IR long after the heat has been dissipated. There is no way GHGs can affect surface heat dissipation since they have nothing to do with the conversion of heat into IR via surface atoms.
That theory is essentially about moving the goalposts. The old theory about GHGs back-radiating energy that raised surface temperature was too stupid to be explained, since it contradicted the 2nd law. So, the alarmists conjured another rabbit out of a hat and came up with that lame theory, that contradicts Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Sorry Norman but you’re STILL trolling. You’ve got NOTHING but your usual:
*Insults
*False accusations
*Endless incoherent rambling
*Mentioning of personalities
*Denial of reality
*Links to things you dont understand
Ice can NOT warm something that is warmer than itself. A brick can NOT warm something that is warmer than itself.
Maybe you just weren’t cut out to understand science. At least there’s trolling…
Gordon Robertson
Making up your own definitions of words can make you feel correct but does it?
Heat is defined as the energy that is transferred from a hot object to a colder one. Radiant heat is the energy that is carried in IR band energy. It is a measurable quantity.
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-heat-in-physics-heat-definition/
Here is how physics currently defines “heat”. You can define it anyway you like, your choice but it makes any communication with you most difficult. Better for you to use the correct definitions of terms as they are currently used.
You fail in understanding the GHE. As I asked Clint R, I ask you do you know what insulation does? It slows down heat transfer. If you look at the linked graph I posted to Clint R, you see the surface is emitting between 400 and 600 W/m^2 (depending upon the time). The atmosphere is emitting less than that back to the surface. The effect is less heat is transferred from the surfaced so it gets warmer with an equivalent amount of solar input.
Swenson
You are too stupid to attempt conversation with. I view your long interactions with poster Willard and you seem to be very childish in thinking. Maybe take some advice of Paul of Bible.
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”
Unfortunately you are still a child in your thinking. You can’t give it up. Either a child or a poorly programmed AI. Your posts might be the worst of the worst. You say nothing and repeat the same old lines over an over. Most stupid behavior.
You are a complete donkey but I think the donkey in the Bible had more brains than you possess.
“But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.
23
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, she turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat her to get her back on the road.
24
Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between two vineyards, with walls on both sides.
25
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat her again.
26
Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left.
27
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff.
28
Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
29
Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
30
The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?” “No,” he said.
31
Then the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.
32
The angel of the LORD asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. [3]
33
The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her.”
Gordon Robertson
Regardless of what Louis Essen believes it does not really matter. Science is based upon evidence and not opinion. Einstein’s theories are accepted because evidence supports them.
It is as I said, you go by opinion and not evidence. Louis Essen has this opinion of Einstein’s theories and you think that makes it a fact. I do not think you know the difference between an opinion and evidence.
You and Clint R post opinions on things. You do not post evidence. I do post evidence but it is rejected by you opinionites.
Here is more evidence (more recent experiments) of time dilation.
This is evidence not opinion.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141007092248.htm
Norman,
You quoted –
“The angel of the LORD asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.””
If you keep on, you might be humbled – “So he bowed low and fell facedown.”
You should bow low, and fall face down before me, before that happens.
Particularly if you write –
“The atmosphere is emitting less than that back to the surface. The effect is less heat is transferred from the surfaced so it gets warmer with an equivalent amount of solar input”
Less heat is transferred so it gets warmer? But of course, only when the sun is shining!
No wonder you want to beat your donkey – he’s probably smarter than you. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? Neither can a donkey, but at least he doesn’t try to describe something that doesn’t exist!
Carry on.
Sorry troll Norman, but you don’t “post evidence”. You link to things you don’t understand. There’s a BIG difference.
Maybe I can help.
Your link to Surfrad…
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6440942d537d5.png
can be easily explained in 4 words: “It’s the SUN, stupid”.
Memorize those 4 words.
As to your Bible reference, look up “false accusations”.
Clint R
I post evidence. You post opinion “You link to things you dont understand.”
Reality is YOU do not understand the link at all. I understand it quite well.
So as always you post opinions never any evidence.
The link shows that the combination of solar input (yes the Sun) and reduction of radiant surface heat loss from the GHE allow the surface to reach a higher average temperature. It is the Sun but that is only part of the reality. You need both solar input and reduction of heat loss to achieve the Earth surface temperature. Without the GHE the surface would have a lower average surface temperature.
Think insulation. Reduction of heat loss with. An insulated house is warmer in winter than a house with no insulation if they both that the same heating sources. Think over and over, insulation. Someday it may break threw the fog in your brain. One can only hope.
Norman, obviously you’ve never had even a basic course in thermo.
Norman spews: “The link shows that the combination of solar input (yes the Sun) and reduction of radiant surface heat loss from the GHE allow the surface to reach a higher average temperature.”
WRONG. The link doesn’t show any such thing. That is your “interpretation”. You don’t understand the physics, so you just “interpret” things in a way to match your false beliefs.
A “reduction of radiant surface heat loss from the GHE” does NOT mean higher temperatures. That’s just an example of your ignorance. “Trap” all the low energy photons your want, but they will NOT raise the temperature. This is illustrated by my example of adding bricks to an insulated box. Adding more bricks, with the same temperature as the box, adds more energy. It adds more photons. But the added energy and photons can NOT raise the temperature of the box. It’s the same with Earth. You can’t understand because you can’t understand thermodynamics.
Norman spews: “Without the GHE the surface would have a lower average surface temperature.”
WRONG. You are confusing the GHE with “heat capacity”. Your “thinking” is affected by the 33K nonsense, which comes from an imaginary sphere. Remember, at one time you actually believed Earth has a “real 255K surface”. You might as well believe Earth is heated by unicorns!
Your knowledge of physics and thermodynamics is somewhere between non-existent and lame. In the past year or so, I have posed a number of simple physics problems. You didn’t even attempt to answer one. The reason is you couldn’t. You don’t even understand the basics. You actually believe different fluxes simple add. You’re what’s known as a “braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll”. And, that is NOT an insult. It’s reality.
Do you want another simple physics problem to solve?
“Try to get on the right channel. Otherwise people will think youre just trying to distract from reality.”
So the ‘rules’ Clint proposed ‘eliminate insults’ do not need to be followed by Clint?
The ‘channel’ was abundantly clear to me. Adding a cooler mass to a warm body results in a cooler body.
If we ADD a flux of CO2 emitted 15 micron photons to a body at 288 K, we are NOT ADDING MASS, we are only adding energy, thus, all else equal, the body WILL WARM.
My point is apt.
Wrong Nate. It’s not about adding mass. Adding mass is NOT what increases temperature.
The simple example is a perfectly insulated box. The box, and contents, are all at the same temperature, 288K.
First a brick at 288K is added. The box temp does not increase.
In a second scenario, an identical brick at 250K is added. The box temp does not increase.
In a third scenario, an identical brick at 400K is added. The box temp increases.
It’s NOT about adding mass. It’s not about adding energy. It’s about adding the right kind of energy.
These are basic thermodynamic concepts. That’s why you can’t understand. You’re on the wrong channel.
Nature and Nature’s laws were swathed in night.
God said “Let Newton be.” be and all was light.
It did not last. The Devil answered ” No”.
“Let Einstein be.” restored the status quo.
“Its NOT about adding mass.”
And yet immediately this is contradicted.
“In a third scenario, an identical brick at 400K is added. The box temp increases.”
Stop with the faulty analogies, and stick with the actual problem.
A bunk of 15 micron photons hit a body at 288 K, its Temperature goes up, because it is not about mass, nor about the kind of photon.
WAY wrong, Nate. And now you’ve started trolling again.
There are NO contradictions, faulty analogies, or avoiding the actual problem, on my part.
Your statement is blatantly incorrect: “A bunk of 15 micron photons hit a body at 288 K, its Temperature goes up, because it is not about mass, nor about the kind of photon.”
Photons with frequency less than the mean frequency of the target can NOT raise its kinetic energy. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice. It is ENTIRELY about the kind of photons.
This is another concept that the GHE cult gets wrong, so thanks for bringing it up.
“Photons with frequency less than the mean frequency of the target can NOT raise its kinetic energy.”
If true, the why do you jump out of the way when a CO2 laser shines photons on you, whose mean frequency is less than that of your skin?
According to your ‘rule’ they CANNOT burn you.
Please tell us why your ‘rule’ doesnt apply to photons from lasers?
How does a surface recognize that photons are from lasers before deciding to abs.orb them or not?
Nate, you’re just desperately throwing crap against the wall. NONE of your efforts are working. You’ve tried this CO2 laser nonsense before, so now you’ve run out of new crap and you’re just repeating the old crap.
You’re so ignorant of the actual science you don’t even realize the design of a CO2 laser relies on wavelengths! So you’re trying to claim wavelengths don’t matter, but your own crap uses wavelengths in its design! And, the photons from the CO2 laser don’t even have the 15μ wavelength of CO2. AND, you probably have no clue what *coherent* means, or know that the *flux* from a CO2 laser is many magnitudes higher than even solar measured at TOA.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“AND, you probably have no clue what *coherent* means”
Nothing about coherence mentioned in your new ‘rule’.
How does it help?
“the *flux* from a CO2 laser is many magnitudes higher than even solar measured at TOA.”
And?
Nothing mentioned about magnitude of flux in your new ‘rule’.
How can your new physics ‘rule’ be a rule when I can find easy examples which don’t obey the rule..
Troll Nate, you’re so ignorant of the actual science you don’t even realize the design of a CO2 laser relies on wavelengths! So you’re trying to claim wavelengths don’t matter, but your own crap uses wavelengths in its design! And, the photons from the CO2 laser don’t even have the 15μ wavelength of CO2. AND, you probably have no clue what *coherent* means, or know that the *flux* from a CO2 laser is many magnitudes higher than even solar measured at TOA.
You’re just desperately throwing crap against the wall. NONE of your efforts are working. You’ve tried this CO2 laser nonsense before, so now you’ve run out of new crap and you’re just repeating the old crap.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“The definition avoids claiming the atmosphere can warm the surface.”
Well, if the atmosphere could warm the ground surface, it is a tiny amount.
I think organic chemical decomposition or Geothermal heat is more warming of ground.
I doubt any climate scientist thinks it’s worth talking about.
But idea is greenhouse gases slows night time cooling- and added CO2 gases have not had effect which can be measured in any aspect.
But roughly if Co2 slowed cooling, the beginning of next day starts warmer, which on average would make the daytime high, higher.
Or if night is colder, the following day “predictably” will be cooler.
Weather can make a day warmer or cooler [duh], in summer, of get cold weather- it takes a few days to warm back up. Likewise, weather make a day warmer, and will tend to keep following days, warmer.
Or doubling of CO2 level is “suppose to” increase global average temperature. Though news says it causes warmer days, but they are of course, idiots.
But I am talking greenhouse effect, I could get to the idea of greenhouse effect theory related to greenhouse gases.
Of course a problem is there isn’t a theory.
Or when an idiot say CO2 causes 33 C increase in global temperature,
there is no claim it’s overthrowing an existing theory.
If something wishing to argue, CO2 causes 33 C added to global temperature. They should go for it- but no one seems to support this idea.
The cargo cult of global warming is sort of like idea of socialism.
Where has socialism worked the best?
Socialists are clueless {obviously}.
gb…”Where has socialism worked the best?”
***
Likely in Canada, where we have a good mix of socialism and capitalism. Problem is, the modern Canadian socialists have gone off the deep end with their political correctness. They have forgotten that they are supposed to be helping people rather than making their lives miserable.
Although it’s great that I can show up at an emergency ward, or see a doctor and not pay a cent for any procedures ordered, it now sucks that the same socialists have taken it upon themselves to lecture us on how to live our lives. They are forcing this crap on us about climate change as if it is a foregone conclusion while lecturing us on accepting the lifestyles of perverts.
–Likely in Canada, where we have a good mix of socialism and capitalism.–
Well, I say we living in best of times- but it was due mainly due to US and free enterprise the government which was created which “allowed” it and people who fought and died to make it happen.
Including American Civil war- but you can blame Dems for that unnecessary war. Or I wouldn’t blame Lincoln for unnecessary- and credit him, for winning it.
Meanwhile, we have a lot government who said they were socialists- which includes some parties in Canada. Make list of that and weigh it
against whatever the Canadian Socialists did.
They might caused me to leave Canada and I would put that in the plus
bin.
From your quote –
“This traps the heat near the surface and reduces radiative cooling to space.”
In the absence of sunlight, the surface cools. This heat trapping nonsense is merely retarded individuals parroting what they don’t understand.
With the exception of nuclear processes and gravity, everything in the known universe can be explained by the interaction between photons and electrons. In simple terms, CO2 absorbs radiation, and gets hotter. If it is hotter than its surroundings, it promptly emits radiation until it is the same temperature as its surroundings.
Nothing “traps heat”. Matter gets hotter, then cools as fast as it can, if it is hotter than its surroundings.
In air, at STP, at equilibrium, all of the components are at exactly the same temperature, and emitting exactly the same frequencies. Surprise, surprise!
No GHE.
“In the absence of sunlight, the surface cools”.
***
Heck, it cools even while the Sun is shining. As Lindzen pointed out, without convection, the cooling agent, the surface temperature would rise to 70C.
When the Sun heats the surface, and the atmosphere to an extent, the surface heats the atmosphere in contact with it even more. That heated air rises as cool air from aloft forces itself down and under the heated air. The process repeats.
Without that convection, the surface would continue to heat during the day.
No need to go into any detail, Swenson, your post is just retarded.
Awwwww – poor widdle Bobby can’t cope with details and reality.
What a shame.
Maybe you should try not reading anything that upsets you. Just stick with delusional SkyDragon fantasies – the ability of CO2 to keep the world “toasty warm” (NASA), even at -90 C! A GHE which cools the Earth, then heats it, then cools it again . . .. Climate change due to GHGs, which causes floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, mass adulation of autistic teenage girls called Greta Thunberg, and possibly scrofula and hemorrhoids!
Too many details?
Aw, diddums!
Asshole wants details as to why his post is retarded.
OK
“In air, at STP, at equilibrium, all of the components are at exactly the same temperature, and emitting exactly the same frequencies. Surprise, surprise!”
So air is always the same color is it?
All the gases in air emit differently and they don’t have the same spectrums, you can look that up, but I don’t think you are capable.
Obviously you won’t take my word for it.
“it promptly emits radiation until it is the same temperature as its surroundings.”
No it doesn’t, if CO2 has absorbed radiation and is in an excited state, it emits that radiation again, with a specific probability that it will emit within a certain time. A first order reaction if you know what that means. But it doesn’t do it promptly, whatever you mean by that.
“Matter gets hotter, then cools as fast as it can, if it is hotter than its surroundings.”
So matter knows what the temperature of its surroundings is and cools accordingly. Is the theory of intelligent matter you are proposes, the Nobel committee awaits.
But they don’t give prizes to morons.
Bob,
You sound like an Angry White Man.
Not so,
but do you disagree with anything I said?
Or do you agree with Swenson?
bob, please stop trolling.
Unlike our geographic north pole, which is in a fixed location, magnetic north wanders. This has been known since it was first measured in 1831, and subsequently mapped drifting slowly from the Canadian Arctic towards Siberia. However, since the 1990s, this drift has turned into more of a sprint going from its historic wandering of 015 km a year to its present speed of 5060 km a year. Using satellite data, including from ESA’s Swarm mission, have concluded that this is down to competition between two magnetic blobs on the edge of the Earth’s outer core. Changes in the flow of molten material in the planet’s interior have altered the strength of the above regions of negative magnetic flux. The image shows how the strength of the magnetic patch over Canada has weakened and how the position of the north magnetic pole has changed between 1999 and 2019.
https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2020/05/tug_between_magnetic_blobs/22014897-1-eng-GB/Tug_between_magnetic_blobs_pillars.jpg
However, since the 1990s, this drift has turned into more of a sprint going from its historic wandering of 0 15 km a year to its present speed of 50 60 km a year.
Sorry.
0-15 km a year to its present speed of 50-60 km a year.
Magnetic poles have been moving for years. Thats why some airports have to re-label runways, every 10-20 years.
There are even some that believe Earths poles have shifted! That might be possible, if the Intermediate Axis Theorem applied.
The magnetic field over Canada is now rapidly weakening, affecting the winter circulation over North America.
This will cause an influx ozone over Canada in winter and severe winters in North America.
Solar Optimism and Coal Alarmism a Century Ago
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/19/solar-optimism-and-coal-alarmism-a-century-ago/
“The supply of coal and oil, [Frank Shuman] opined, would eventually be depleted. One thing I feel sure of, he wrote prophetically in a 1914 Scientific American article, is that the human race must finally utilize direct sun power or revert to barbarism.”
A lot to say about this. Though nuclear power wasn’t developed yet, the strange energy emitted, was known about, as was geothermal energy.
But maybe he thought we were going to become spacefaring- or that was before it was thought it would impossible, and then later become known it was possible.
But also generally speaking, it’s hard to predict the future.
Solar wind
speed: 416.7 km/sec
density: 6.85 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 140
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Updated 19 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.11×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Below average
48-hr change: -1.9%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 385.0 km/sec
density: 2.05 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 147 sfu
Updated 20 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.27×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.1% Below average
48-hr change: -1.3%
Sunspot 3284 seems to be at equator, does it grow or fade?
The Neutron count seems to suggest all sides of sun are more
active, unless it’s just it’s just a blip.
I am guessing May is more active, and June even more active.
But April going sideways.
3284 isn’t growing.
Solar wind
speed: 382.4 km/sec
density: 3.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 97
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 147 sfu
Updated 21 Apr 2023
[Yet to be named large sunspot coming from
farside- in southern hemisphere.]
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.16×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.4% Below average
48-hr change: +0.5%
Seems to be pausing, like global temps:)
But I still think May will be higher activity.
There is large coronal hole in southern hempisphere which
causing me some doubts.
Solar wind
speed: 625.7 km/sec
density: 7.80 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 87
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 141 sfu
Updated 23 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.29×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.0% Below average
48-hr change: +1.1%
3284 has almost completely faded
Got two large coronal holes, one in south
and other at equator.
Large 3282 is going to farside, soon.
Solar wind
speed: 541.5 km/sec
density: 6.10 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 88
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 134 sfu
Updated 25 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.48×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Below average
48-hr change: -2.6%
Spots don’t seem to be showing strength
but other things are.
Still large coronal hole at Equator, I think
it will fade.
April sideways, May up.
Solar wind
speed: 654.4 km/sec
density: 0.53 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 136
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 141 sfu
Updated 28 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.34×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.5% Below average
48-hr change: +1.2%
Still got lots coronal holes, going to end month
around here, has to pick up if May is strong.
Also from Space Weather:
SPACEX METEOR SHOWER–WITH FRAGMENTS ON THE GROUND: On April 27th, a shower of incandescent debris entered Earth’s atmosphere over the western USA. Mike Lewinski photographed the light show from Crestone, Colorado: {picture}
UPDATE: According to NASA, the reentry was detected by NEXRAD radar with a cluster of strong radar signatures southeast of the city of Limon, Colorado. Large fragments of the trunk may have landed near this site. This map shows where the debris might be located: [map}
Truck from orbit, truck stronger and more massive than starlink sats.
Solar wind
speed: 462.3 km/sec
density: 1.20 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 82
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
[higher]
Updated 30 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.78×10^10 W Warm
[lower]
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.2% Below average
48-hr change: +0.3%
“There are no large equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun. ”
No huge ones:) but less than was. Probably will get more less.
Does not look good for May prediction, but I am sticking to it.
Oula neutron count says, no way.
> There is no such thing as radiant heat
Someone ought to tell the Department of Energy:
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/radiant-heating
NASA –
“These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.”
Anything to do with “radiant heat” do you think?
Do you just believe everything a Government employee says? For example “The systems depend largely on radiant heat transfer — the delivery of heat directly from the hot surface to the people and objects in the room via infrared radiation.” It looks like IR radiation interacts with objects, and makes them warmer, if emitted by an object of higher temperature.
On the other hand, the University of Calgary states –
“Radiant heat, also known as thermal radiation, is the transfer of electromagnetic radiation which describes the heat exchange of energy by photons.”
So one thing is also known as another thing, and describes the transfer of something which describes “the heat exchange of energy” (whatever that is supposed to mean) by photons.
Well, that’s as clear as mud, isn’t it?
Seems like you are playing your “silly semantic games” to cover up your lack of knowledge.
Maybe you could concentrate on reality, and forget about “silly semantic games”, “made you waste space”, “made you look”, and all the other silly attempts to avoid facing the fact that you can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”!
Carry on, retard.
Are you braying about radiant heating, Moron Mike?
NASA
These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.
Anything to do with radiant heat do you think?
Do you just believe everything a Government employee says? For example The systems depend largely on radiant heat transfer the delivery of heat directly from the hot surface to the people and objects in the room via infrared radiation. It looks like IR radiation interacts with objects, and makes them warmer, if emitted by an object of higher temperature.
On the other hand, the University of Calgary states
Radiant heat, also known as thermal radiation, is the transfer of electromagnetic radiation which describes the heat exchange of energy by photons.
So one thing is also known as another thing, and describes the transfer of something which describes the heat exchange of energy (whatever that is supposed to mean) by photons.
Well, thats as clear as mud, isnt it?
Seems like you are playing your silly semantic games to cover up your lack of knowledge.
Maybe you could concentrate on reality, and forget about silly semantic games, made you waste space, made you look, and all the other silly attempts to avoid facing the fact that you cant even describe the greenhouse effect!
Carry on, retard.
Are you still asking for your silly sammich, Moron Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Radiant heating is the effect you feel from the warmth of a hot stovetop element from across the room”.
***
Rubbish, you can’t even feel the radiation from a few feet above a red hot 1500 watt ring. If you feel anything from a glowing ring it is heated air molecules convected to you. I have felt the kitchen warm up from steam but I have never felt a red hot element from across the kitchen.
US government agencies like DOA are now run by idiot alarmists. They lack the brainpower to understand basic thermodynamics. It’s a shame because DOE used to be a good scientific source. At one time, it had a very accurate carbon cycle table of CO2 emissions, from which you could calculate the amount of CO2 emitted by the surface. However, that information helped discredit the catastrophic warming meme and the alarmists ditched the page.
Over at WUWT they created a stink over an author claiming CO2 made up only 4% of the atmosphere based on one DOE table that stated human contributed CO2 was 23,100 Gtons and the total contributed by nature was 793,100 Gtons. If you divide 23,100 by 193, 100 you get about 3%. On the actual DOE table it stated the amounts for the 1990s decade, meaning humans contributed only 3% of all CO2 emitted from the planet during the 1990s.
Sometimes I wonder whose side WUWT is on. If anthropogenic CO2 during the 1990s was only 3%, and that is largely an estimate, WUWT has claimed it is misleading since they subscribe to the bs offered by the IPCC that CO2 has gradually increased since the pre Industrial era. We don’t know the IPCC claims are accurate since they based a lot of it on proxy data, which we have seen bomb big time.
Reminds me of the saga of a certain salmon species that simply began disappearing. The poobahs could not figure it out. Many years alter, they found them under an ice shelf feeding vertically of the ice. For all we know, CO2 is relatively constant in the atmosphere at all times, yet it varies up and down with warming.
The mistake made by the poster was that the 3% represented all CO2 emitted since the pre Industrial era. That is obviously wrong and the poster should have read the table better before posting and noted the table covered only the 1990s. However, the belief that the CO2 is cumulative is a hypothesis with absolutely no proof. It is an assumption only, backed by consensus.
The truth is, the carbon cycle hypothesis is about as bad as the energy budget hypothesis. No one has a clue what has gone on since the pre Industrial era. In fact, Beck provided well collated paper by scientists in the interim that proved CO2 levels were as high as 400 ppmv in the 1940s.
This was the article that caused the stink. The DOE table is included and it is actually a table-form of an IPCC article.
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels/
Come on, Bordo.
You are denying the existence of a technology we had during World War II.
Wee Willy Wanker,
And you’re sure as hell not going to tell anybody what you are talking about, are you? Go on, tell everyone about a particular WWII technology which is being “denied”?
Does it make any difference to physical facts? No?
Why waste time carrying on about something that means nothing?
Sounds a bit retarded to me, but you may have a different opinion.
What are you braying about, Donkey Mike?
swenson…”Wee Willy Wanker, And youre sure as hell not going to tell anybody what you are talking about, are you?”
***
When we willy gets cornered, which is most of the time, he resorts to babbling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
And you’re sure as hell not going to tell anybody what you are talking about, are you? Go on, tell everyone about a particular WWII technology which is being “denied”?
Does it make any difference to physical facts? No?
Why waste time carrying on about something that means nothing?
Sounds a bit retarded to me, but you may have a different opinion.
What are you braying about, Moron Mike?
Wee Willy Wanker,
And you’re sure as hell not going to tell anybody what you are talking about, are you? Go on, tell everyone about a particular WWII technology which is being “denied”?
Does it make any difference to physical facts? No?
Why waste time carrying on about something that means nothing?
Sounds a bit retarded to me, but you may have a different opinion.
By the way, do you realise that calling me Mike Flynn does not make it so?
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Donkey Mike?
So radiant heat does not exist at all? Nobody is that stupid. 5 year old kids are smarter than that. I bet you are the guy who intentionally sits downwind of a campfire because you like having smoke in your face and you think that is the only way you can feel the heat. Get real!
Tim,
Even the University of Calgary says it’s fine to call infrared radiation something other than “radiant heat”. –
“Radiant heat, also known as thermal radiation, is the transfer of electromagnetic radiation which describes the heat exchange of energy by photons.”
But what’s wrong with just “radiation”? Specify a frequency band if you like, or a temperature of the emitter. Otherwise, you get all sorts of silly statements like “oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb infrared”. Of course they do, and also emit infrared – as does all matter above absolute zero.
As long as people accept reality, the name doesn’t matter much, as long as the purpose is clear. Heat flowing from one object to another is a 19th century misunderstanding, based on speculations since shown to be wrong.
Even terms like conduction and convection may inadvertently lead to incorrect conclusions about what is really happening.
Who really cares? If people prefer fiction to fact, that’s life.
tim s…that’s right heat and electromagnetic energy are two very different forms of energy. If you have proof to the contrary, let’s see it.
It is impossible to transfer heat with radiation. Radiation has no means of transferring heat, it is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and has no mass. Heat cannot exist without mass. What appears to be a transfer of heat via radiation is actually a double conversion of heat to EM and back, provided the receiving mass is cooler than the transmitting mass.
There is a parallel example in communications. Electrons running up and down an antenna at a high frequency creates an electric and a magnetic field which is transmitted as an EM field. That represents a transformation from electrical energy to electromagnetic energy. It can flow through the atmosphere, or a vacuum, and a signal can be modulated onto a carrier wave at a specific frequency. If a receiving antenna intercepts that EM it is converted back to pure alternating electrical current in the antenna via induction.
The modulated information can be demodulated and recovered. However, the electrical current that produced the EM wave is in no way related to the the electrical current induced in the receiving antenna. That’s a brand new current created by the EM field being intercepted by the receiving antenna via induction.
Exactly the same with heat and EM. As EM/IR is emitted from a hotter source, the heat associated with it is dissipated. Stated another way, IR cannot be created without the associated heat being dissipated and lost. If the emitted IR is intercepted by a cooler body, it will cause the electrons in that body to respond by rising to a higher kinetic energy level. The rise in KE is a rise in heat, and the heat is brand new, having nothing in common with the heat in the emitting source.
Ergo, heat cannot flow through space, or the atmosphere, as radiation. Therefore the term radiant heat is a misnomer, there is no such thing. However, some scientists who know that insist on using the term to define the the radiation as being associated with heat, even though the heat is lost as the IR is created.
Taking about stupid 5 year old kids, any of them could reason that, given the fact that air is a very poor conductor of heat, heat cannot flow through the atmosphere. Apparently you are having difficulty with that phenomenon.
Heat can be transported via convection, which is a bulk movement of air molecules which are heated. Radiation has nothing to do with convection, so how could heat be moved through the atmosphere, physically as heat, if air is a poor conductor of heat?
You have bought into an anachronism that is seriously out-dated. It was believed in the 1800s that heat could flow through air as heat rays. Actually, they thought an aether was required since even they knew air was a poor conductor of heat. They also knew heat could not flow through a vacuum like space.
They can be excused for that erroneous belief since Bohr did not establish the relationship between electrons and radiation till 1913. You, on the other hand, have no excuse since the relationship between electrons and EM has been established for at least 100 years
> If you have proof to the contrary, lets see it.
Come on, Bordo.
Tim already told you of a counterexample.
Okay, my mistake. There are blatant trolls, and there are subtle trolls who appear confused as if they are being sincere in their statements. Ultimately, whether you use word games or not, electromagnetic radiation is a means of heat transfer. It is very sad that you folks amuse each other by going back and forth pretending to be stupid with long drawn out statements, just so you can accuse each other of being stupid.
tim s…”electromagnetic radiation is a means of heat transfer”.
***
Tim, I am not your problem, it is teachers and profs at universities who have taught you incorrectly in the first place. I have a good reason for emphasizing this point, mainly because alarmists use it as an obfuscation to jump arbitrarily between electromagnetic radiation and thermal energy at will.
Without this obfuscation they cannot explain how heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. In lieu of such an explanation they have concocted an unbelievable theory that the 2nd law is not contradicted as long as a mysterious balance of energy is positive. That balance of energy is a liberal confusion of heat and infrared energy that have nothing in common and cannot be summed.
Although the Sun is the source of energy that heats the Earth, there is no heat transferred as heat from the Sun to Earth. Essentially the energy that heats Earth is electromagnetic energy from the Sun. If electrons in atoms of the surface, including electrons in water, H2O, did not react to EM by producing heat locally, the Sun would have no effect on Earth.
In case you missed it, the mysterious balance of energy is a reference to outgoing infrared and the back-radiated IR from GHGs. They claim that the balance between IR energies are positive therefore the 2nd law is not contradicted. That cockamamey theory is not only wrong, it is an insult to the intelligence of any good student of science who understands that heat and IR have nothing in common. The 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer and has nothing to do with a mysterious balance of IR energies.
The anachronism that heat moves through space, especially through the 93 million miles between Sun and Earth, has persisted since the 1800s. As I said, those scientists can be excused, they had no understand of what Bohr hypothesized about electrons and electromagnetic energy in 1913. In fact, most of them were not even aware that electrons existed, since they were not discovered till the 1890s.
If heat could move as heat between Sun and Earth it could do it in only two way: conduction or convection. There is simply no medium between Sun and Earth to make either means of transmission possible.
Heat transfer through space is based on a fluke of nature. More likely, it’s a design by an omnipotent Creator who Newton took care to credit with the fantastic intelligence in the universe. Since Newton, egos have grown immensely and we now tend to believe, that we nimrods called humans, have the ability to decide the origins of the universe.
BTW…I am not religious in a conventional sense. I have no beliefs, just a lot of questions and far too few answers. Even the answers I have are not certain.
For some unknown reason, there is a direct interconnection between electrons in atoms and electromagnetic energy. I should have noticed the connection long ago but I was too busy with more frivolous matters. When electrons move in an orbital they carry an electric field and should produce a magnetic field. They do so in a copper conductor, why not in an atomic orbital?
Electric/magnetic field -> electromagnetic energy. Both are closely intertwined in electronics and the electrical field, and it makes perfect sense to me now that electrons produce most if not all of the EM in the universe. By the same token, EM absorp-tion by an electron is like coming home.
It’s a natural and beautiful arrangement which can mitigate thermal energy levels in atoms. However, it works in only one way in that the EM reaching an electron must have sufficient energy intensity and frequency to be able to excite an electron to a higher energy level. If it does manage to excite the electron, the electron’s increase in kinetic energy is heat, by definition. However, if the EM is from a colder body, it lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons in a hotter body. That’s what the 2nd law is about.
Therefore, heat is lost at the Sun when electromagnetic energy is emitted and heat is created anew when that EM in intercepted by the Earth. However, neither heat has anything in common.
I get your concern that I am offering a semantics argument but my motivation is precision, to the atomic level.
“Who really cares? If people prefer fiction to fact, thats life.”
As Swenson immediately confirms, since he prefers fiction over science facts:
” Heat flowing from one object to another is a 19th century misunderstanding”
“‘oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb infrared’. Of course they do”
nate…” Heat flowing from one object to another is a 19th century misunderstanding”
***
Cherry pick!!! Swenson was obviously referring to a heat flow via radiation. That was a belief in the 19th century and it is obviously wrong. Heat is never transferred by radiation, it dissipates in one body and is created in another body by a separate mechanism.
“That was a belief in the 19th century and it is obviously wrong.”
Sure Gordon, science and engineering failed to consult you when they defined heat in a way that has worked well for science and engineering and is thus is in all their textbooks today.
“In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the form of energy crossing the boundary of a thermodynamic system by virtue of a temperature difference across the boundary.”
After all, Gordon, when engineers need to solve a heat transfer problem, what matters to them is to find all the ways that heat could be lost or gained.
Clearly thermal radiation is one of the ways a cooler body can gain heat from a hotter body, as we all learn when sitting by a fire.
And thus it is called heat in ALL heat transfer calculations.
And for some mysterious reason this really grinds your gears!
The carbon naturally added to the atmosphere is part of a cycle. Since the same amount is added and removed the quantity and concentration stay the same.
Artificial carbon from our industrial emissions is in addition to the natural cycle. It adds extra carbon which increases the amount and concentration of carbon, both in the atmosphere and the other carbon sinks.
Think of an aquarium with a circulating water pump. It pumps 1 litre/minute into the top of the tank but the water level does not rise. 1 litre/minute is being removed from the bottom of the tank which maintains the balance. The quantity of water in the system stays constant.
Now add a glass of water. The quantity of water in the system increases and the water level rises.
The carbon cycle circulates carbon between three reservoirs; the atmosphere, the biosphere and the oceans. About half the total is in the atmosphere. Over a year the same amount of natural carbon (equivalent to about 100ppm) enters and leaves the atmosphere, so the CO2 concentration stays constant.
Industrial emissions are equivalent to adding 4ppm/year of extra carbon to the whole system..Half leaves the atmosphere into the other reservoirs. Our emissions raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2mm/year.
EM,
I wonder if people realise that the carbon going into the atmosphere is only carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere by plants in the first place.
And then more plants grow to take the carbon out again.
ent…”Over a year the same amount of natural carbon (equivalent to about 100ppm) enters and leaves the atmosphere, so the CO2 concentration stays constant”.
***
How do we know that for sure? The global surface temperature is decided by less than 1500 thermometers and we know it is off. How many CO2 monitors do we have? The only one I know of is the one on Moana Loa, in area where CO2 is likely more concentrated.
Besides, Beck produced an in-depth collation of studies from scientists who claim to have measured co2 levels in the atmosphere as high as 400 ppmv in the mid-20th century.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20150315082836/http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
https://web.archive.org/web/20110228230821/http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
norman…got tired of trying to find the top of the thread…
re Louis Essen…maybe you missed it but Louis invented the atomic clock. I use him as a reference because anyone who can invent an atomic clock surely knows a thing or two about time. As such an authority figure he was not very impressed by Einstein’s understanding of time.
Even Einstein admitted there was little in the way of proof for his relativity theories. And he admitted it was no different than Newtonian relativity theory.
There are no good proofs. The basic relativity theory is not a problem, it’s the thought experiments upon which he based the theory that present the problems. He offered absolutely no proof that time or length can vary with speed relative to the speed of light and that was one of Essen’s objections.
When I first read through Einstein’s first paper on relativity and he stated that time is ‘the hands on a clock’, I stared at his words with incredulity. I could not believe what I was reading. I thought, surely he had a deeper meaning I was missing.
At that time, I still regarded E. as some kind of physics God, but the more I have gone into this, the more I realize he was highly over-rated. Although modern dweebs have replaced Newton By Einstein, they have not the slightest idea what they are talking about. What Newton accomplished, both as a theoretician and an experimenter, far surpasses most scientists, and Einstein does not even come close to Newton’s understanding of and accomplishments in science.
Those who think that Einsteinian relativity theory has replaced Newtonian physics are sadly mistaken. 99.999% of the practical applied physics we do today is based on Newtonian physics and I seriously have no idea how Einstein’s relativity has any use. All the relativity you need is in Newtonian relativity theory.
Gordon Robertson
The evidence of time dilation has been experimentally verified. That is why Einstein’s theories are currently accepted because evidence supports them. I gave you a link to a recent experiment verifying time dilation. Not sure if you looked at it.
Newton laws are still used for most physics applications. Einstein did not replace but enhanced them to make them more complete over all systems. You need to use Einstein physics in all applications of high energy physics, the giant atom smashers that explore the smallest parts of the physics world. Newton’s Laws would not work in the design and operation of these machines. Also in Astronomy Newton’s laws do not work completely to describe motions around large gravity objects. Newton’s laws of motion could not explain Mercury’s Orbit around the Sun. Einstein adjustments work in this application.
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm
Einstein’s physics is the same as Newtonian physics for objects moving at slow speeds.
There is no real proof that anything changes as velocities approach the speed of light. All the proof is based on thought experiments.
One thing that you have to remember is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames.
Lets say there exists some particle A which is stable for to seconds when it is at rest. From its own reference frame, its lifetime has to be to seconds regardless of the velocity with which it travels, because the laws of physics which apply to it are same whether it as at rest or travelling at 99% of the speed of light with respect to something.
The amount of time for which it remains stable when observed from its own reference frame is called the proper lifetime.
Its lifetime when observed by other observers is indeed speed dependent.
If we observe A when it is at rest, its lifetime would be to
seconds long.
When A moves with some velocity v with respect to us, its lifetime would be:
t′=to(1−(vc)^2)
This comes from special relativity. c here is the speed of light.
A well documented experiment which shows this is the measurement of muon flux at the surface of the Earth. Muons are subatomic particles, and are produced on Earth when cosmic rays hit the upper layers of our atmosphere. You can check this link out for some information and numbers from the experiment:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html
During the Little Ice Age, there was a heat spot in the North Atlantic below Greenland.
Significance
Vikings occupied Greenland from 985 CE to the mid-15th century. Hypotheses regarding their disappearance include combinations of environmental change, social unrest, and economic disruption. Occupation coincided with a transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age and Southern Greenland Ice Sheet advance. We demonstrate using geophysical modeling that this advance would have (counterintuitively) driven local sea-level rise of ~3 m (when combined with a long-term regional trend) and inundation of 204 km2. This largely overlooked process led to the abandonment of some sites and pervasive flooding. Progressive sea-level rise impacted the entire settlement and may have acted in tandem with social and environmental factors to drive Viking abandonment of Greenland.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2209615120
Is warming accelerating in the troposphere?
Posted on April 19, 2023 by curryja
by Ross McKitrick
“I recently published an op-ed in the Financial Post describing the findings of the new JGR paper by NOAAs Zou et al. NOAAs STAR series of the MSU satellite-based tropospheric temperatures used to show more warming than UAH or RSS in the mid-troposphere. Zhou et al. recently rebuilt their dataset and now STAR has a slightly lower trend than UAH.
…”
https://judithcurry.com/
Zhou et al, had lower long term temperature trend, but also had recent acceleration in upward trend.
But I am going to guess that April will be down from March +0.20 C
Worth reading the original paper on STAR corrections.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472
Much closer to UAH than RSS now.
The US hands China the Middle East at its own peril
“On Sunday, just days after Saudi Aramco publicized a multibillion-dollar investment in Chinas petrochemical industry, Saudi Arabia and its OPEC+ partners announced a surprise cut to oil production.
Alongside the recent China-brokered agreement for Iran and Saudi Arabia to resume diplomatic ties, these developments typify an ongoing transition: America is stepping back, and China is stepping up in the Middle East.”
https://jinsa.org/the-us-hands-china-the-middle-east-at-its-own-peril/
Linked: https://instapundit.com/
Meh- China a shorter distance.
I think if going to give Middle East to someone, it should be China.
Having weak president is pretty good- as long as he doesn’t start a nuclear war.
This has been happening for a long time. China has been pouring economic aid and investment into the South and West. This buys them access to raw materials and influence. It is not a coincidence that most countries buying communications and internet infrastructure now but Chinese.
Raw materials such as oil from Iran which once flowed to the West now goes to China. Politicians see more benefit in pro-Choice policies.
In international forums such as the UN more countries vote as China wishes, rather than in the Russian or US interest.
China is now a close second to the US by most measures of GDP and ahead on one of them. In four years China is expected to overtake the US and become the largest economic power.
China has the largest military manpower of any country and technology comparable the the US. They have hypersonic missiles in service which make US carrier battle groups obsolescent. The US recently abandoned their hypersonic missile project because they could not make it work.
Overall the US and China are probably equally matched at present, but you will soon have to get used to being second-rate.
No, their technology isn’t comparable to the US, and China isn’t our friend. If Biden and the Democrats stay in charge, we will soon be second-rate.
“No, their technology isnt comparable to the US,”
Really?
To quote only one example, the most successful telecoms company in the world is now Huawei.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei
China doesn’t develop technology, it steals it.
ent…you missed one point. How will those countries fare when China starts exerting their oppressive communist leanings? Of course, the opposite is true in countries where US capitalism has robbed them of resources while putting little back into the country.
The problem in Taiwan is interesting. The interest in defending Taiwan shown by the US is solely about capitalist investment. Seems the US government is willing to risk a major war over a few capitalists who probably don’t need the money. China, on the other hand, could make their lives better at the risk of losing personal freedoms.
BTW, the Biden’s are currently bein investigated for taking money from China on the side. Of course, Biden senior is doing everything he can to block the investigation.
It’s a hard call for the Taiwanese. Personally I’d rather be poor and free, whatever free means. It seems when you are poor and free, some dickhead always wants to make you more miserable.
Why can’t people in this world just back off and leave others alone? If they want to help, fine, but don’t expect anything in return.
” Why cant people in this world just back off and leave others alone? If they want to help, fine, but dont expect anything in return. ”
Because it is in any country’s interest to increase its power and influence in the world. Generally the more power and allies you have, the safer you are and the easier it is to get the resources you require.
Yes, but these days decisions are made by a handful of power-brokers in governments. The average Joe in a country could not give a hoot.
Here’s Willard, trying to appear clever, whilst denying reality –
“Are you braying about radiant heating, Moron Mike?”
The retard demonstrating his intellectual deficit. Don’t bother asking Willard why the Earth’s surface manages to cool, notwithstanding any supposed “greenhouse effect”, he’ll simply deflect into “silly semantic games”, or make ridiculous claims – “made you waste space”, “made you look”, bang on with irrelevances like “language is a social construct”, and generally try to avoid the real world.
Oh well, it takes all types.
> Dont bother asking Willard why the Earths surface manages to cool
Promises, promises!
Moron.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> So radiant heat does not exist at all? Nobody is that stupid. 5 year old kids are smarter than that.
Since Bordo denies that an non-electrified instruments amplify at all, what should we expect?
***
> I bet you are the guy who intentionally sits downwind of a campfire because you like having smoke in your face and you think that is the only way you can feel the heat
I would rather bet on Mike Rlynn to do that, more so during a cool night.
It comes down to the definition of amplification. In an electronic amplifier the meaning is clearly defined as Eo/Ei for straight amplification without feedback. Outside of that, there is no way to get an amplification without an active device like a transistor. There is certainly no way to get an amplification without an amplifiying device.
Then again, electronic amplification is a trick. In actuality, if an electron current is amplified, the SAME current should be amplified. It’s not. The current claimed to be amplified originates in a different circuit.
Suppose you could have a base current (input) in a BJT transistor where the electrons were coloured blue. At the same time you have the electrons in the collector (output) coloured red. The blue base emitter electrons run from ground, through the emitter of an NPN transistor through the signal source and back to ground. At the same time, the red collector electrons run through the same emitter from ground but at the emmiter-base junction they run to the collector junction through a collector resistor to the power supply positive with the other end of the P/S connected to ground.
You have two different circuits, with the amplification coming from the collector circuit. A transistor is designed to change the impedance of the output circuit so as to allow more current to flow in the output stage than what is present in the input circuit. However, the extra current is produced from a power supply, it does not appear out of thin air.
Amplification referenced to natural amplification operates differently. If a spectrum of frequencies is presented to a resonant chamber, only frequencies that correspond to the frequency of resonance of the chamber will activate it. That can increase the effect of a lower resonant input frequency but is it true amplification? Is the resonant input frequency actually being amplified or is it merely setting off a much larger resonance condition in the chamber?
Amplification in an electronic amplifier, has many uses, even though it is based on a trick. However, what use can be made of an amplified frequency in a resonant chamber. We know it can be put to use in music but only to a very limited extent, localized extent.
> It comes down to the definition of amplification.
Z’obvious you’re keen on redefining words to suit your fancy of the moment, Bordo. You do it all the time.
C’mon.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Show some backbone – define amplification, then.
Just make sure it doesn’t have more energy output than input, without an external power source.
Can’t do it? That’s a bit sad, isn’t it?
I already did, Moron Mike.
You are not very good at following exchanges, are you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
UAH and RSS from a STAR point of view
https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
The surface temperature of the South Pacific is dropping. Winter in the south is approaching.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_west_current.png
I didn’t look for a while at NOAA STAR.
They finally introduced a set of time series for LT (starting Jan 1981 instead of previously Nov 1978):
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/
And oh surprise… their LT trend in rev. 5.0 is with 0.13 C/decade below that for UAH 6.0 in the same period (0.14)!
Here is a comparison of the three major LT anomaly outputs for the Globe (all of course wrt the mean of 1991-2020):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X43KTM8arJ6RdHgnBxd5GMLUd6xp2Gxi/view
Five years ago I predicted it will be cooling from then on,
Why didn’t you predict it ???
You never predicted anything.
You just pasted what others predicted, that’s all.
You five years ago were posting straight lines drawn through past data extended forward and upward like dumb ass you clown
Oh look… the little, aggressive ankle-biting dachshund has just returned and poisonous spit is foaming out of its mouth.
As I posted earlier
ttps://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
STAR now agrees more with UAH than RSS.
https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
Note how it is mostly the earlier RSS record that is corrected as
https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
shows also.
Again and again: your ridiculous nonsense of comparing arbitrarily offseted anomalies.
Simple-minded curve fitting that you only accept because it fits your personal narrative.
You are an over and over opinionated person, and hence will never and never admit your own mistakes.
Did you bother to study the paper on STAR
“Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach”
03 March 2023
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472
which essentially says that UAH and STAR agree over all of the record and RSS disagrees completely until 2000 or so and from then on all agree together.
Just like I showed yo previously.
I took the comparison diagram between STAR, RSS and UAH from that.
i.e. https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
UAH agrees quite closely with UAH now over the whole record (and much closer than RSS).
Don’t let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.
“Comparisons of TMT time series between existing data sets and STAR V5.0 from the present study during January 1979June 2021. (a) TMT monthly anomalies averaged over the global ocean; (b) Annual-mean anomaly difference time series between existing data sets and STAR V5.0 over the global ocean; (c) TMT monthly anomalies averaged over the global land; (d) Annual-mean anomaly difference time series between existing data sets and STAR V5.0 over the global land; (e) Global-mean TMT monthly anomalies; (f) Global annual mean anomaly difference time series between existing data sets and STAR V5.0. Time series are plotted so that their mean differences during January 2020June 2021 are zero. Vertical lines on the right panels represent the end of NOAA-10 near 1991 and start of RTMT on August 2002, respectively.”
Correction: STAR agrees quite closely with UAH….
Using the STAR offset to get RSS and UAH into line we get
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
What’s your prediction for next five of years Eben? We need to get you on the record.
More cooling?
Yours is more warming of course.
> It is impossible to transfer heat with radiation
Bordo seeks deeper and deeper:
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat
Once again, we willy has problems with comprehension. From you link…
“The heat source for our planet is the sun. Energy from the sun is transferred through space and through the earth’s atmosphere to the earth’s surface. Since this energy warms the earth’s surface and atmosphere, some of it is or becomes heat energy…”
***
Note!!!…flash!!!…alert!!!…
The article states that ***ENERGY*** from the Sun is transferred through space. It says the energy warms the surface.
There is no mention of heat being transferred through space, they are talking about electromagnetic energy, and they make that clear.
Get it straight wee willy, heat cannot flow through space or be transferred through space. It must first be converted to electromagnetic energy. That EM carries no heat, but if absorbed by atoms on the Earth’s surface, it can cause them to heat. That is, to raise their kinetic energy level, which is heat.
Heat on Earth is created on Earth.
[BORDO READS] Radiation is the transfer of heat energy through space by electromagnetic radiation.
[BORDO COMMENTS] The article states that ***ENERGY*** from the Sun is transferred through space.
He’s yours, Sky Dragon cranks.
You deal with that kind of insanity.
Why are you so desperate that you have to resort to lying? The article clearly said…”Energy from the sun is transferred through space…”.
Come on, Bordo.
I once hoped that you learn how to read.
That hope is now lost.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
norman…”You need to use Einstein physics in all applications of high energy physics, the giant atom smashers that explore the smallest parts of the physics world. Newtons Laws would not work in the design and operation of these machines”.
***
I know of no reason why one would use relativity theory in high energy physics or elsewhere. Especially the more fanciful ideas such as time and length dilation.
If you’d be good enough to re-link to your post with the link on time dilation I’d appreciate it. I don’t approach any such links with a negative attitude, I am curious as to what they have to say. Sometimes I fin them absurd and reply with my reasoning.
The problem with Newtonian physics is a lack of instruments able to detect activity at the atomic level. Ironically, Newtonian physics re orbitals is still used at the atomic level where the mass of electrons, protons and neutrons are used to calculate electron orbitals.
There is nothing in Einstein’s relativity theory to address atomic-level activity. Besides his insight into photoemissivity, circa 1905, Einstein contributed very little to atomic theory. He spent much of his life fretting over his relativity nonsense and he was said to have agonized over it.
I have yet to read an article on time dilation that is not heavy with theory. However, my basic opposition to time dilation is that humans invented time based on the rotational period of the Earth. Therefore it is an idea, not a physical reality, unless you include its basis, which is a rotating mass that orbits the Sun. That means time cannot dilate since there is nothing to dilate.
Think about it. Any time we have known till the 19th century was based on sunrise or the moment when the Sun was highest in the sky. Even in the UK, during the early 20th century, they had no means of synchronizing clocks between stations. Maybe in the early days of radio, the BBC might announce the time when Big Ben struck.
The BBC did not begin official broad.casts till 1922, and when they did, they’d announce London time so everyone could adjust their clocks. Coordinated Universal Time was not introduced till 1960 and only then were clocks universally synchronized to a data source.
So, all this stuff about time dilation is based on a figment of human imagination. It’s a good thing because it removes the stigma of past and future. Only true neurotics can worry about the past and future since more enlightened people realize there is nothing to fear but fear itself, in most cases.
There may be legitimate cases where someone has threatened an action against you sometime in the future, or you were assaulted some time in the past and you fear it re-occuring. However, much of the worry over past and future is petty in nature.
Gordon Robertson
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141007092248.htm
The link again.
I believe you are confused with units of time and time. Mankind invented the units they use to measure time. Time exists outside the units used to measure it. It is a rate of change from one state to another or from one place to another. Things are changing and time is the rate of the change. It is a basic of the Universe like energy and mass. No one invented it, it exists and can be observed.
Seconds, minutes and hours are units that measure time but are not time. Just as joules or BTU measure energy the units are not energy. Or kilograms or pounds are units of mass but they are not mass.
When you say Humans invented time that is like saying humans invented energy or mass when they chose some units to describe them.
No Gordon, time exists outside units we use to measure it just like energy or mass.
Time dilation would mean that a reaction that took so long to occur at our speed would take longer when at a much higher speed frame. All of it is has been experimentally verified.
norman…”Time exists outside the units used to measure it. It is a rate of change from one state to another or from one place to another”.
***
Would you care to demonstrate this mysterious time? If it is not measured in seconds, what is the unit? I’ve had physicists peed off to the point they gave up in exasperation because they could not demonstrate time as a physical entity. If it’s there, Norman, it shouldn’t be hard to prove its there.
What does rate of change mean and what significance does it have to anyone other than a human? Animals don’t carry watches, they rise or go to sleep based on the sun, or lack of it. That’s what humans did for millennia, their lives were governed by the Sun.
There is no time, just the Sun and its light.
Gordon Robertson
I leave my hot cup of tea on the kitchen table and to upstairs. When I come down again the tea has cooled.
I can infer that time passed in the kitchen, even though I did not measure it or observe its passage.
Time is events occurring in sequence along a gradient of increasing entropy.
Gordon Robertson
There are so many examples of rate changes that certainly you do not really need me to provide one.
You can monitor the path of the Sun across the sky from morning to evening. There is a rate this occurs. You do not need to use seconds. Any unit would do.
Chemical reactions have a rate to them. Some occur quite rapidly (explosions) while others take place at a slower rate.
I do not know if I will waste anymore time on this issue with you. If you do not understand rate of change then it will be a hopeless task to explain time to you. I can understand why physicists got peed off with you since you are so dense you frustrated them. They could probably not image a person that is too dumb to understand a rate of change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kB-2Ex-0w8
The video gives many examples of rate of change. The second is NOT the rate of change it is the unit used to measure it. Other units can be used to measure the rate of change. The rate of change exists outside the units that measure it and it does have value to people.
norman…thanks for link. This is not a shot at you since you did not do the research or write the paper. IMHO, however, this paper should not have passed the review stage. It did so because the reviewers know nothing about time. That does not stop them blocking papers from Roy when they know nothing about what he is talking about.
The basic premise of the Einsteinian portion is that natural vibrations in an atom represent time. And if the vibrations change as the atom is accelerated, it is reasoned that time has somehow changed. This conclusion calls for one of those large boxing gloves in cartoons that come out of left field and bop a character on the head.
Atoms vibrate due to internal forces and accelerating the atoms is obviously affecting the forces. In the article, they talk about the impossibility of accelerating real clocks to the speed of light. That reveals their mindset, that time is related to the hands on a clock, as Einstein put it. Therefore, they are expecting a real clock’s hands to change their angular speed due to being accelerated to the speed of light.
Suppose a clock with hands is accelerated to the speed of light and the hands rotate at a different speed. What does that tell you about time? Nothing. The clocks are synchronized universally to the rotational rate of the planet. They are measuring its rate of rotation, not time.
Even an atomic clock, with its great accuracy, has its vibrational intervals broken down to the length of the second we derived from Earth’s rotational period. Ergo, atomic clocks do not measure time, they vibrate in accordance with internal nuclear and electrostatic forces.
Even if a clock’s rotating hands do change their angular velocity, that has nothing to do with time. Most old-fashioned clocks had varying angular velocities and if time was based on them, we would have a continually varying time base.
The electrodynamics experiment is no more illuminating. Forgive the pun. They have detected light from an electron transition. Big deal, they had done that before Bohr came up with his quantum theory in 1913. It was an important clue in Bohr’s work, that the hydrogen atom gave off light at discrete frequencies and he reasoned they came from electron transitions between different energy levels.
If there is such a thing as natural time as a phenomenon we should be able to synchronize to it. So, where is this natural time so I can synchronize my watch to it? It should be the same for everyone on Earth therefore everyone should be on the same time, with no convenient time zones. 2 am in Australia should be 2 am everywhere else.
What you are witnessing with intervals associated with time is an illusion produced by the human brain. There is no meaning to spaces between events, there is nothing going on. We give them meaning by insisting on measuring them against some scale, which we conveniently invented.
What surprises me most is that Einstein got caught by the illusion, while wasting much of his live immersed in it. I don’t blame Einstein, many people of similar intellect have been caught up in it. Jiddu Krishnamurti appealed to people like physicist David Bohm and other luminaries because he figured it out, that time is an illusion. Not only that, human thought produced time and thought is ordered according to our invention, complete with a past and a future.
Hence, Krishnamurti was known partly for his statement that thought is time, and time is thought. David Bohm, a top physicist, agreed with him entirely. At one point in a dialog with K., Bohm stated that most people fail to understand that humans invented time.
However, Bohm could not abandon time since most physics uses it as a parameter. He did state in one of his books that both Newtonian and quantum physics have reached the end of their respective roads, and that we will have to back up and begin anew. I don’t think he meant we will have to abandon physics altogether, only that we will have to rethink what got us here.
It bothers me when people claim Newtonian physics is finished and quantum physics is the new kid on the block. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics that more delicate instruments won’t fix. The main problem with Newtonian physics is the lack of instruments fine enough to measure at the atomic level. That’s because instruments tend to draw power from what they are measuring and doing so at the atomic level interferes with what is being measured.
Quantum theory is essentially no better. Much of what is hypothesized cannot be measured either and that is the main weakness of QT, you have to go on the word of the scientists that what they claim is true. I am sure that’s what Bohm was talking about. He was big on reality and he claimed that an equation with no reality to back it is garbage.
Above I stated…”The clocks are synchronized universally to the rotational rate of the planet. They are measuring its rate of rotation, not time”.
***
I should have added…therefore the clocks are now in error since they are reporting incorrectly the rotational period of the Earth.
Bordo goes taugology:
One might argue that there’s no crankiness without a cranky device, and Bordo would be the absolute unit.
Your point???
I push a boulder off a hilltop. The boulder rolls down the hill.
What device is amplifying its velocity and kinetic energy?
EM,
The force of gravity is restoring a part of the energy which was required to push it to the top of the hill.
There is no amplification. Maybe you could address amplification, rather than silly and irrelevant analogies.
Merely restoring something to its original state (well, less any losses along the way) does not “amplify” anything anything, except the perception of silliness of the person thinking that a reduction in energy is amplification.
We know you are a moron, Mike, but we also know you can crack a physics textbook.
Or perhaps an online dictionary?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
amplify (ˈmplɪˌfaɪ)
vb, -fies, -fying or -fied
1. (tr) to increase in size, extent, effect, etc, as by the addition of extra material; augment; enlarge; expand
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/amplify
EM,
Indeed. Note the words “extra”, “addition” and “augment”.
Pushing a boulder up a hill, and allowing it to roll down, amplifies nothing.
There is no CO2 induced “amplification”, either. No GHE. Just fanatical SkyDragon cultist beliefs, unsupported by reality.
Try defining “climate forcing” in any way which reflects observed reality, if you feel that you have time to waste. Here’s some authoritative nonsense to get you started “Climate forcing is the physical process of affecting the climate on the Earth through a number of forcing factors.” – University of Calgary.
Seems a wee bit vague, possibly based on circular reasoning or self referential logic to me, but it might make perfect sense to a SkyDragon cultist. What are your views? Can you come up with a better definition for “climate forcing”? Do you think that substituting “the statistics of historical weather observations” for “climate” might make things clearer?
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…”amplify (ˈmplɪˌfaɪ)
vb, -fies, -fying or -fied
1. (tr) to increase in size, extent, effect, etc, as by the addition of extra material; augment; enlarge; expand”
***
How is this definition related to a boulder running down a hill? Increasing its rate of velocity is a natural phenomenon as noted by Newton. Increasing, in this case, is not the same as amplifying. If you wanted to amplify its rate of acceleration you’d have to do the experiment on another planet with a higher force of gravity ‘as compared to its natural acceleration on Earth.
Amplification in this instance would be increasing the change of speed of the boulder by some means beyond the speed it is moved by gravity.
wee willy tends to get snotty when Swenson proves him wrong, which happens on a regular basis.
C’mon, Bordo.
First of all, Mike Flynn was responding to EM, not me.
Second of all, he made no claim. He was just trolling, like the moron we all know and love.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Come on, Bordo.
Search for the dormitive principle.
You just rediscovered it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard quoted –
“Radiation is the transfer of heat energy through space by electromagnetic radiation.”
In other words, radiation is radiation. Brilliant.
But what is “heat energy”? Look it up – everybody knows what it is, but nobody knows how to describe it in a consistent fashion. Any description that is used can be shown to be wrong, under certain circumstances.
For example, from Wikipedia –
“Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, . . . “. If you can’t see any problems with this definition, look at some other definitions. Everything above absolute zero is hot, by definition. Is it emitting heat? Phlogiston or caloric into the luminiferous ether? I prefer the concept that the object is emitting photons of specific frequencies. If you prefer to say everything in the universe emits heat, that’s fine. Of no practical use whatever, but true.
Vague concepts like “heat energy” are loved by delusional SkyDragon cultists – it can mean anything at all, depending on circumstances. If, as Willard quoted “Radiation is the transfer of heat energy through space by electromagnetic radiation.”, how much “heat energy” is being transferred through space by the Sun? How many joules? All of a sudden, Willard will discover he has an urgent appointment, or will decide his definition needs “amplification’ and “refinement”.
What’s wrong with telling people the facts (according to current knowledge)?
Is it better to keep treating people as too stupid to cope with reality?
What is our Mike Flynn moronically braying about?
Willard,
I’m sure I don’t know. Who is this Mike Flynn you claim is moronically braying? A figment of your imagination?
Or are you just admitting that you really don’t have any idea of what you are talking about, and are just trying to troll.
If you cannot comprehend my comment, just let me know, and I’ll have a good belly-laugh at your retarded stupidity.
Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn is it because you are a gutless moron?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson
“Whats wrong with telling people the facts (according to current knowledge)? ”
An excellent idea.
When do you and Gordon plan to start?
EM,
You can help by pointing out to me any factual inaccuracies you believe I have promoted. I have been known to occasionally be wrong. My memory is not perfect.
When I become aware of new facts, I change my views, but you can’t seem to put into words what you are apparently whining about.
What is it, in particular, that you are unhappy with?
Man up, and spit it out. Being obscure and mysterious makes you look as retarded a# Willard.
Or are you just trolling?
We’ll look into it as soon as you supply scientific rebuttals to at least show you have a basic understanding of physics. From what I have seen thus far, based on your responses, you have no idea what physics is about.
I have witnessed your understanding of feedbacks and I am still awaiting your explanation of feedbacks in the atmosphere. I mean a step by step explanation of how a feedback works in the atmosphere and how it can produce an amplification of heat.
People get ideas of what feedback means but when they try to explain it they fumble. It’s like asking Norman to explain time, he fumbles with it because there are not words to explain it as anything outside the definition of time based on the rotation of the Earth. Same with the alleged lunar rotation. In the mind, it sounds reasonable to presume the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit while keeping the same side pointed at Earth but when a person tries to explain it, step by step, he/she can’t do it.
Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS failed to offer an adequate explanation of the positive feedbacks they program into climate models. Their models project catastrophic warming based on a faulty understanding of positive feedback.
You guys can’t even offer an explanation of the GHE or AGW that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
swenson…”But what is heat energy? Look it up everybody knows what it is, but nobody knows how to describe it in a consistent fashion”.
***
In a moment of mind-defect, I once grabbed the hot end of a soldering iron. It was apparent to me what the meaning of heat was at that time. I did not regard it as the transfer of energy, I saw what it did to the skin of my hand.
Mind you, I did not blame it on heat, or my own stupidity, I blamed it on the hot end of the soldering iron for placing itself in the palm of my hand. The human brain is a constant source of entertainment…well after the fact. At the time, there is often not a lot to laugh about.
swenson…”For example, from Wikipedia
Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system…”
***
I have asked several times to have the energy described that is being transferred. The only answer I can see is that the energy being transferred is heat. Therefore, Wiki thinks heat is the transfer of heat.
The 1st law states that delta U = Q – W
It is saying that the change in internal energy of a body equals the heat added minus the work done. If no work is done, then the added heat determines the change in internal energy.
But why do they use the word internal energy rather than internal heat or internal work. Clausius clarified this for us since it was his definition that currently appears as U in the 1st law. He stated that internal energy is internal heat + internal work. Atoms in a solid vibrate to a degree determined by heat but the vibrations being mechanical produce internal work. That energy cannot be ignored.
As heat is added, the vibrations increase and produce more work. Therefore internal energy has a work component as well as a heat component.
According to Clausius…
internal energy = Qint + Wint
He was talked out of that by Thompson who felt it enough to call the internal energy as generic energy rather than expressing it as heat + work. I disagree, the term internal energy is far to ambiguous and it leads to the notion that internal energy is unrelated to heat.
The Encyclopedia Britannica calls internal heat. ‘thermal energy’. But, but but…in Greek, the word thermal, therme, is also the Greek word for heat. I am reasoning then that thermal energy must be heat. Therefore, it makes little sense to call heat a transfer of energy when the energy being transferred is obviously heat.
Bordo sinks and sinks and sinks –
Appeals to etymology are usually quite weak. Sometimes they are ridiculous.
Now is such a time.
Thermal energy refers to the energy contained within a system that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. There is really no need to waste time on this.
Bordo seems convinced that everybody misunderstands physics because of some conceptual misconception. Yet that left him nowhere. For years now. More that a decade.
Sky Dragon cranks are just a confused bunch of trolls.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Thermal energy refers to the energy contained within a system that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. There is really no need to waste time on this.”
Have you just appointed yourself the supreme authority of thermodynamics?
You are surely retarded if you think anyone is likely to value the opinion of a dim-witted troll like yourself.
You also wrote “Appeals to etymology are usually quite weak.” That would be another of your retarded opinions would it? Whatever happened to your love of playing “silly semantic games”, or your apparent preoccupation with “made you waste space”, or “made you look”?
Are you really so retarded that you seek inspiration from schoolyard insults?
You really need to lift your game – if it’s at all possible.
Carry on trolling – you have my permission. Keep the laughs coming.
What are you braying about, Moron Mike?
Check this out:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=thermal+energy
Since you’re a moron, you might prefer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Thermal energy refers to the energy contained within a system that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. There is really no need to waste time on this”.
***
Once again, after checking with Christos, who is Greek, speaks Greek, and lives in Athens, the Greek word for heat is therme, the root of ‘thermal’ energy. Thermal means heat, so why would anyone reserve it for a flow of thermal energy?
However, the Encyclopedia Britannica reserves ‘thermal energy’ for internal energy and claims heat is the transfer of energy. At least you claim it is the transfer of thermal energy.
Either way, these modern definitions of heat as a transfer of energy appear to be in the minority on the Net. Most definitions of heat I read about state that heat is the energy of atomic motion. That jives with the definition offered by scientists like Clausius, Tyndall, etc. Tyndall called it a mode of motion but his references was to atoms.
Circa 1840, the scientist Joule discovered an equivalence between heat and work. He designed a small paddle to turn in a container of water and noted that the heat increased over time as the paddle turned. Was he talking about a transfer of thermal energy? No. He was talking about heat building up in the water to raise its temperature.
About 10 years alter, Thompson and Clausius invented the 1st law which relates heat, work, and internal energy. Not a mention of thermal energy, just heat, both externally and internally.
Nothing has happened over the past century and a half to change that other than some scientists arbitrarily re-defining heat as a transfer of energy. That makes no sense to me so I am sticking with the older, tried and trued definition of heat.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re being obtuse for no good reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy
Your intuitions about the truest and most original meaning of the expression “thermal energy” carries no weight at all.
Better spend some time listening to your McIntosh.
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“The term “thermal energy” is used loosely in various contexts in physics and engineering. It can refer to several different well-defined physical concepts.”
In other words, nobody really knows what they are talking about.
No useful definition at all. Another of your “silly semantic games”, perhaps?
How about the term “greenhouse effect”? Do you think or is used more or less “loosely” than “thermal energy”?
Is that why you can’t actually describe the GHE? That sounds like a wonderful excuse for slippery reality avoiding retards.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
You’re confusing the concept scientists are using with what you’re braying about. Only I care what you’re braying about.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…you can read all the bs you like from rags like Wiki but remember, even an idiot like you could post an article on Wiki as an authority.
Once again we’re talking about the meaning of an expression, Bordo.
Understanding it should not be the hurdle of a decade.
You can do it.
C’mon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
For those who are not trolling, internal energy which includes latent heat and sensible heat is not fundamentally different from electromagnetic radiation. Heat is related to the wave-particle duality of matter, and therefore involves a wave function. Although temperature is universal according to the zeroth law, internal energy is different for different molecules because of the bond interactions. The effect is related to the degrees of freedom of the bonds, which is essentially how many different ways they can move in relation to each other. The concept of resonance makes this clear to those who are paying attention, and possibly introduces a new talking point for the trolls. Nonetheless it is precisely this effect which makes the greenhouse gases behave differently with different spectra. It is not surprising that water vapor has a very high level of specific heat and also is a very active greenhouse gas. I do not really expect to either educate anyone or prevent future trolling. I just enjoy expressing myself.
A nice, clearly formulated text, the significance of which is of course inaccessible to trolls.
“wave-particle duality of matter”
I think you meant “wave-particle duality of electromagnetic energy”, Tim.
Nope. You can apply the Schrodinger equation to particles of matter of any size, though you only get measurable wave-particle duality for subatomic particles. In theory a London bus has a wavelength, though I don’t think anyone has successfully done a two-slit experiment using them.
Come to think of it, buses usually come two at a time of not at all. Perhaps buses form interference fringes.
Ent, in your ongoing perversion of reality, you believe passenger jets fly backward.
Pup, you still have to do the PDE.
You also forget at least one kind of radiation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The dual slit experiment has been done with positive results with buckyballs, double decker buses will have to wait.
An electron in free space is a charged particle. An electron interacting with an atomic nucleus is a charged standing wave. This is the nature of the nuclear weak force. If involved in tetrahedral bonding, it has a defined shape. The science for this is over 100 years old.
Tim S,
Here’s what Richard Feynman had to say –
“There is one lucky break, howeverelectrons behave just like light. The quantum behavior of atomic objects (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and so on) is the same for all, they are all “particle waves,” or whatever you want to call them.”
Experiment supports his speculation. The double slit experiment, which Feynman said encapsulates the entire mystery of quantum physics, has certainly been carried out using electrons, to extreme standards of accuracy, supporting theory.
Feynman also stated that nobody knows what energy is. I agree. However, this nebulous concept can be misused in any number of ways, not just on this blog, but by people who should know better.
An example might be people who loudly proclaim that “energy in equals energy out”, which is manifestly untrue for an object which is either cooling or getting warmer.
The GHE is a speculation which is supported by neither observed fact, nor experiment. A cultist fantasy, in other words.
“There is one lucky break, howeverelectrons behave just like light. The quantum behavior of atomic objects (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and so on) is the same for all, they are all particle waves, or whatever you want to call them.”
***
I found myself shouting at Feynman the other night and calling him names. He made such a statement and did not prove it. In fact, he got arrogant and claimed for anyone who differed in opinion from his…’tough’.
I had never seen Feynman in such a light. He admitted he did not know how electrodynamcs as related to electrons and EM works but he had the arrogance to claim it was tough if anyone disagreed with his probability solutions.
I hate it when one of my heroes turns to to be like that. Then again, it’s about growing up and getting off the emotional high of having a hero.
Feynman’s schtick seems to be probability theory. Not sure he’s ever had a hole burned in his thumb by an electron stream.
Sorry, Swenson old boy, but I think he is wrong with his particle/wave theory. That comes from de Broglie circa 1928 who I think seriously overstated the situation based on pure theory.
As I tried to explain earlier, they are not talking about waves like EM, they are talking about a sine wave depicted of an orbiting particle. Even a pendulum clock can have its motion depicted with a sine wave.
In all my years working with electrons, I have never seen a demonstration that an electron is a wave. On the other hand, I have never seen a demonstration it is a particle. All I have done is feel the little blighters running through my thumb, leaving a small black spot. I swear I could hear them tittering to themselves.
tim s…”An electron in free space is a charged particle. An electron interacting with an atomic nucleus is a charged standing wave”.
***
Electronics is my field and I am not about to stand by and allow someone to spread this kind of propaganda. A standing wave is the term used to define the action of frequencies in a waveguide. They don’t normally exist in copper conductors, only in metal waveguides and fibre optic cable.
If I send a signal of a certain frequency down a waveguide or fibre cable, it moves like a wave. When it reaches the end of the guide/cable, if its wavelength is mismatched with the wavelength reprsented by the guide/cable, it will be reflected. As it travels back the other way, it interacts with the original signal, producing peaks and troughs that stand and don’t move. That is a standing wave.
Referencing that to an electron orbiting an atom is shear idiocy. In a waveguide or fibre cable, the signal has the properties of a wave in that it’s amplitude changes between peak and troughs, meaning its intentsity increases to a peak and wanes to a trough along the length of the guide/cable.
That cannot be applied to an electron orbiting a nucleus. Some idiots have tried, especially in the 1920s when theoreticians who had no business offering their opinion tried to claim electrons had a wave/particle duality. This is what happens when theoreticians, who have never seen the inside of a lab, offer stupid opinions.
An EM wave actually has a wavelike motion, like wave on the ocean. The signal rises to a maximum and decreases to a minimum, as it moves along, then changes direction. That can never happen with a particle like an electron orbiting a nucleus. The notion that it can came from a complete misunderstanding of the difference between particle motion and the motion of a radiation field.
EM is measured in frequency/wavelength because its field actually increases and decreases over time, producing a sine wave. That is my main beef about photons having a frequency because a particle cannot do that. Therefore, if the photon is to have a frequency, it must be a longer-length emission of electromagnetic energy, something I call a quantum of energy, hence not a particle.
The electron in orbit exhibits no such properties. It’s angular velocity is constant and nothing varies in amplitude. The reason it is given a frequency is due to its angular velocity alone, based on the number of times it orbit per second.
If the electron moved both ways in orbit, as it does as a high frequency current in a conductor, that would be another matter. An alternating electron current produces an alternating electric and magnetic field. However, in an orbit, the electric fields and magnetic fields produced would be stationary. Not stationary as in a standing wave because standing waves are a phenomenon produced by alternating currents, not direct currents, as represented partially by an electron in orbit.
There is a reason electrons are given a frequency and it is not because they act like a wave. If you took any particle moving in a circle, starting at the value x = 5, y = 0.and started it moving along the circle, as it moved, it could cast a shadow on the x-axis. As it moved around the circle, that shadow would move as a dot along the x-axis. If we now project a z-axis, with units of time, the shadow cast on the x-axis would produce a sine wave along the z-axis.
That sine wave does not represent a frequency as with the projection of an EM wave into space, it represents only the position of the electron in its hypothetical circular orbit. The peaks and troughs of the sine wave have no meaning wrt a wave motion.
It’s the same with a pendulum. Its shadow can be projected onto the x-axis and the inclusion of a z-axis with unit of time would reveal its motion as a sine wave. However, we cannot claim a pendulum has wave-particle duality, anymore than we can claim the same for an electron in orbit.
The notion of the electron as having wave properties comes from a misunderstanding of the single-slit experiment using electrons rather than an EM wave. Because the electrons can be diverted to produce a diffraction pattern on a screen it has been presumed they also behave like waves.
No one has checked to see why the electrons bend to form diffraction patterns. The closest I have seen is an explanation by Bohm, that the electrons are acting with some kind of quantum potential against the very narrow edges of the slit. The meaning is clear, at such small dimensions, electrons are interacting with electrons, and possibly protons in the material of the slit.
BTW, the slits in diffraction gratings are normally score lines in the glass (can have 4000/cm.). With a single-slit electron experiment, electrons will not move through glass. In fact, glass is used as an insulator for electric currents. Therefore the slit has to be open, meaning it has sharp edges. How anyone can compare such a condition to EM moving through scored glass and draw the conclusion that electrons behave like EM waves is beyond me.
I am sure it’s not beyond wee willy and others.
“That cannot be applied to an electron orbiting a nucleus. Some idiots have tried, especially in the 1920s when theoreticians who had no business offering their opinion tried to claim electrons had a wave/particle duality. This is what happens when theoreticians, who have never seen the inside of a lab, offer stupid opinions.”
And those same “idiots” built an atomic bomb. It must have been a lucky guess.
Atomic bombs are based on neutrons and the ability to motivate them to start a fission reaction to split atoms. They literally do split atoms in two.
I have read quite a bit on the early days in nuclear fission and the problems they faced. It had nothing to do with electron theory.
Besides, is that the only comment you have on my novella?
You want another comment? Really? You are either the most eloquent of all trolls in the history of trolls, or you are really stupid.
tim… I guess I expected too much from you. You obviously have a very limited understanding of physics if you can’t offer an intelligent rebuttal of what I wrote. Then again, I caught you out on your comment about electrons being able to form standing waves, which is plain silly.
I was a second year student in college when I asked a graduate student in Physics to explain what defines the size of a proton. He said that a proton is a region of space with certain properties and one of those properties is that other particles cannot occupy that same space. That has always stuck with me. There literally is nothing tangible there. That was well before we had as much knowledge about subatomic particles as we do today.
Reminds me of the old definition of a neutrino.
Nothing spinning.
tim…”He said that a proton is a region of space with certain properties and one of those properties is that other particles cannot occupy that same space”.
***
Your graduate student mentor was obviously an idiot. A proton has a measured mass and carries a positive charge. It’s hardly a property of a particle to claim no other particle can occupy the same space. Calling it a region of space smacks of the idiocy about space-time.
We used to claim that matter has mass and occupies space. As a particle, a proton is obviously matter and occupies space. Are you sure your mentor wasn’t a graduate student in philosophy?
Newton was precise with his definition of mass, in fact, he invented the concept. Was your mentor not aware of Newton? Whoever found the mass of a proton was obviously aware of Newton and his definition.
It may appear that I am intentionally taking shots at you. I have no such intention or desire, I am simply trying to get you to think outside of the confined atmosphere present at a university. I am basing that on having been seriously gullible myself as a student and not having the confidence to think for myself till many years after leaving university.
It’s a good thing you did not ask him about electrons, which have about 1/1800th the mass of a proton but have an equal and opposite charge. Between them, protons and electrons make up most of the mass of the universe. I would include neutrons but their apparent purpose is as a filler for mass.
So what was that? Was Starships launch a failure or a success?
SpaceX’s development process is messier, but it’s also much faster.
Eric Berger – 4/20/2023, 10:33 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/
…
“Time will tell.”
…
“I turned 50 years old yesterday. In those five decades, we have gone from flying a fully expendable Saturn V rocket to the beginnings of a fully reusable Starship rocket. Much remains to be done, and Starship is a work in progress. But this is historic. No one really knows what our planet, our orbit, or our Solar System will look like with low-cost launch, frequent access to space, and essentially no constraints on mass. We have never experienced anything like that before.
This is a far more wonderful and wild time in space than any that came before. There is incredible opportunity and peril. The future is unknowable but tantalizing.
So I no longer have any regrets about missing Apollo. I am thrilled to be alive at this very moment in human history.”
Linked: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
It is the best time in history.
Though lots of doubts.
But that we in an Ice Age [and many people have an irrational fear it getting too warm] isn’t a doubt.
“I turned 50 years old yesterday…”
***
Happy birthday, ya old goat…☺ ☺
Can you see the superdeveloping La Nina yet ???
https://notrickszone.com/2023/04/19/are-enso-regime-changes-connected-to-major-climate-shifts-are-we-tipping-to-cooling/
I don’t see it, yet. But I don’t see an El Nino, either.
It seems to me, we could in middle or more than 1/2 thru a Solar Grand Min.
Does going thru a Solar Grand Min, have relation to having more La Nina?
It seems your link is connecting the 60 year cycle to La Nina.
There Is No Climate Tipping Point
How the tipping points metaphor infiltrated environmental discussionsand how it set us back
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/climate-change-banned-words/climate-tipping-point-real
It’s too long and boring, but cargo cult global warmers, should read it.
Linked from http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Tipping points are a concept which originally came out of complexity theory. The idea is that in non-linear chaotic processes a system has more than one stable state. Instead of changing gradually from one to another, the system remains in one state until it reaches a tipping point and then rapidly changes over to another state. I could go on to discuss strange attractors etc.
You sceptics cannot have it both ways.
If climate is deterministic it is easily predictable but does not have tipping points.
If climate is chaotic it is harder to predict and has tipping points.
Climate appears chaotic to us only because we don’t know enough about it, yet.
What we do know is that there are people that try to pervert reality to fit their cult beliefs. You are one of those people, anonymous troll Ent.
A small lake will not have big waves, whereas large lake can have larger waves.
Global weather appears chaotic, because Earth is big.
ent…”Instead of changing gradually from one to another, the system remains in one state until it reaches a tipping point and then rapidly changes over to another state”.
***
That is a statement right out of Gavin Schmidt’s realclimate school of climate propaganda. The tipping point theory is not from complexity theory, whatever that is, it came from Schmidt’s boss James Hansen. Hansen, in turn, stole it from his idol, Carl Sagan, who formulated the theory that the atmosphere of Venus was created by a runaway greenhouse effect.
Sagan was proved wrong by the Pioneer probes that discovered a surface temperature of 450C on Venus. According to astronomer, Andrew Ingersoll, based on the extraordinary surface heat, the source of the atmospheric heating must be from something other than direct sunlight or a greenhouse effect. Besides, all that, a tipping point is indicative of extreme positive feedback and there is no amplifier in the atmosphere to produce it.
EM,
You wrote –
“I could go on to discuss strange attractors etc.”
Of course you could, but of course you wont.
You are trying to convince others that you are knowledgeable about chaos theory, but you obviously know next to nothing about it.
A chaotic process may have no tipping points at all, and merely exhibit a strange attractor. You seem to be under that a non-linear chaotic system has more than one stable state. Well no, it doesn’t. If it has even one stable state, it is not chaotic. A simple chaotic equation is the logistic map. Most people have no conception of what the graphical output represents, and make bizarre assumptions about non-existent “stable states”, “tipping points”, and suchlike.
If you like, disregard chaos entirely, and consider the atmosphere from the viewpoint of quantum electrodynamics. The future state of the atmosphere is unpredictable. If you choose to believe otherwise, you may. You may also believe in world peace breaking out tomorrow.
All irrelevant. There is no GHE. You can describe a mythical unicorn, but you cannot even describe the equally mythical GHE.
Is Russia Preparing to Attack Offshore Wind Turbine Infrastructure?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/21/is-russia-preparing-to-attack-offshore-wind-turbine-infrastructure/
You might say it couldn’t be true.
But what could be easier to attack than Offshore turbines.
Russia can’t win a war. US can’t win a war.
Maybe Russia can win this war.
Russia has already won. They got the land they came for and now they are in a holding action. They also eliminated the neo-Nazi Azov battalion in Mariupol, another of their goals.
Meantime, the idiot Zelensky continues to get Ukrainians killed over his stupid arrogance.
If they have won, why aren’t they happy.
Why do they continue to bomb civilians.
Why continue to threaten EU and UK?
Why not have peace?
gb…simple, the Ukrainians, under the new dictator, Zelensky, are not willing to cede the land to the Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who asked Russia for help. It is the Ukrainians based in Kyiv, led by the dictator Zelensky, who spread the propaganda about bombing civilians.
In any war zone, civilians pay the ultimate price. They are the innocents. There are two factions currently at war and the Ukraine is just as much to blame for civilians deaths by keeping this war going.
I am not aware that Putin has threatened the EU or UK other than in retaliation for threats against Russia. Remember, you are hearing this propaganda from sources in the West, like the Ministry of Propaganda in the UK. Putin was reacting to the EU, Nato, and other sources arming the Ukraine and threatening to back them to the end.
From what I recall, he laid it on the line, pointing out that he has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them. My question is this: why do we in the West have to be warned about such an outcome? Why are our leaders putting us in such a precarious position when that possibility is so obvious?
After the Ukrainian army stood by in 2014 and watched a democratically-elected president run off in a coup by armed Ukrainian nationalists, they don’t deserve the support of the West. We should have acted to re-instate the president rather than leaving it to the Russians. However, both the EU and representatives of the US government were in the Ukraine encouraging the coup. We are currently experiencing with this war, the results of what we helped create. The people in eastern Ukraine revolted after the president they helped elect was run off in a coup. We in the West did nothing to help them.
The Russian aggression ended a while back, they are currently in maintenance mode. Do you seriously think, with their firepower, they could not have taken the entire Ukraine, if that was their goal?
I know nothing about Putin and I am not supporting him. I am simply not going to buy into absolute propaganda from corrupt western media. Here in Canada, our Deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland, is of Ukrainian descent. She has bent over backwards to spread propaganda about this war in favour of the Ukraine.
She once joined with a group, singing songs from Ukrainian nationalists who backed the Nazis in WW II, and when confronted, claimed it is propaganda about the nationalists and the Nazis. That is a direct insult to the Allies who died fighting those SOBs in WWII.
“I am not aware that Putin has threatened the EU or UK other than in retaliation for threats against Russia. Remember, you are hearing this propaganda from sources in the West, like the Ministry of Propaganda in the UK.”
UK runs Russian news channels??
I was not that impressed with UK govt.
But one of guys on Russian news, has a son living in London.
> I have asked several times to have the energy described that is being transferred. The only answer I can see is that the energy being transferred is heat.
Bordo has a very short term memory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188101
Vintage 2015.
In all seriousness, has Bordo ever been tested for Alzheimer?
wee willy…”No, work (W) is only ever energy being transferred to/from an object. An object cannot have work inside it.
***
A vibrating atom is a mass moving through a distance. Work = force x distance.
——
It also represent internal heat.
No again. It represents internal energy (U), not heat (Q).
***
What kind of energy is internal? Clausius, an expert on this claimed there is mechanical energy related to work and thermal energy related to heat. Rather than include that in the 1st law, Thompson talked him into using a simplified term, internal energy.
—–
“Heat (Q) IS energy in transit! In particular is it energy entering/leaving a system/region/volume due to a temperature difference”.
***
So, if you drilled a hole in an object and inserted a thermometer, it would measure no heat inside the object?
Have you ever heard of an internal energy thermometer? And why are some thermometers marked in gradations between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water? How do you get water from 0C to 100C? You add heat. Right?
—
“No. Areas cannot have heat (Q) so they cannot have differences in heat”.
***
So, if I take an acetylene torch and heat up a metal plate at one corner it will have exactly the same temperature in each ‘area’ of the plate?
If we start out with the thermometer on one corner reading 20C and we hold a torch on the opposite corner and the thermometer starts to read a higher temperature, why is it reading a higher temperature?
—
“They can T & ΔT; they can have U & ΔT. But they cannnot have Q or ΔQ (a difference in heat); they cannot have W or ΔW”.
***
You seem to be deluded into think temperature is not a measure of heat. Fourier’s Law (for a bar of metal)-> Q = -k.delta T
Where Q = heat flowing through the bar (not into or out of it)
k = conductivity of metal
delta T = difference in temperature between points on the metal bar.
[TIM] Heat (Q) IS energy in transit! In particular is it energy entering/leaving a system/region/volume due to a temperature difference.
[BORDO] You seem to be deluded into think temperature is not a measure of heat.
He’s one of yours, Sky Dragon cranks!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…”You can apply the Schrodinger equation to particles of matter of any size, though you only get measurable wave-particle duality for subatomic particles”.
***
Schrodinger is all about the probability of finding an electron wrt its nucleus. The wave equation may be applicable to any body but not Schrodinger. It is specific to electrons and the nucleus.
Although they have used this equation to do impressive things, it tells you nothing about electrons, only the probability of finding one in a specific location in an atom or molecule.
Watch this video, it is a good explanation of Schrodinger. Don’t worry about complex number theory, Hamilton operators, etc., He explains it as the video goes along.
Schrodinger basically describes the energy of a particle related to its displacement. The psi operator is its displacement and early in the video he gets into the equation for a sine or cosine wave. Nothing to panic about, simply look it up and familiarize yourself with it.
It is basically y = A.sin wt, where y = displacement along y from x-axis and wt (omega.t) is the angular displacement of a radial vector (phasor) rotating at ‘w’ radians/sec. If you stop the phasor at any point, sin wt gives the amplitude in the y direction.
The A is the peak amplitude, so (A sin wt) tells you the fraction of the distance above the x-axis and below A. If w = pi/2 radians = 90 degrees, sin wt = 1 and y = A.
The complex number theory pertains to the rotating phasor. Basic complex number theory is very simple. They have defined ‘i’ as root(-1), which makes no sense until you assign i as the y coordinate and the other part of the complex number, the real portion, as the x component. Then you can relate it to the above explanation of a the rotating phasor, y = A sinwt.
All of this is related to the exponential, e, through calculus.
The other component in there, the kx value is a phase value, the number of degrees along x that the wave deviates from the standard sine wave. I don’t know why they write it backwards as (kx – wt), I have always seen it written as wt = fi, where fi (phi) is the phase angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcNiA06WNvI&ab_channel=Universaldenker%E2%9A%9BPhysics
When you see molecular structures as depicted on this page, the spherical regions usually indicated the probability functions for electrons distributions. In other words each area represents the probability of finding an electron in that location.
https://schoolbag.info/chemistry/central/14.html
Linus Pauling started all this back in the 1930s after he had visited Europe to study quantum theory, which was in its infancy. He asked for a meeting with Schrodinger but it appears Schrodinger was too arrogant to meet him.
Nevertheless, Pauling had to simplify the theory to make it work. Maybe that’s why Schrodinger avoided him for fear he’d find something wrong, which he did. Schrodinger’s equation was aimed at the basic hydrogen molecule and Pauling was interested in more complex molecules.
Pauling already had expertise with x-ray diffraction and knew the probable shapes of several molecules. Only he could have modified Schrodinger to make it work for more complex molecules.
> Russia has already won.
How low can Bordo go:
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3698158-over-60-cases-of-rape-documented-in-kherson-region-as-committed-by-russian-soldiers.html
Willard,
Committing atrocities, torturing people to death, using weapons of mass destruction against civilians, doesn’t necessarily affect the outcome.
Just look at the actions of the USA over the last century or so – win some, lose more.
Luckily, there are always plenty of retards like you to eagerly accept that propaganda wins conflicts.
Or are you just trolling?
What about whataboutism, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling,
wee willy now has the Ukrainian propaganda machine as an authority figure.
Bordo’s idiocy knows no bound:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/21/qa-dr-pavel-felgenhauer-russia-ukraine-war
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yet another propagandist offering a distorted set of beliefs as to what the Ukraine war is about.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re supposed to be a Man of Reason and Argument.
Act like one.
Willard, please stop trolling.
From wee willy’s Russian defector expert…”The Russian military has been isolated for more than 100 years from world tendencies in war-making. They are still living in the world of tanks, believing that if you mass enough, victory falls into your lap”.
***
Let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1923. WW II happened 16 years after that and the Russians managed to kick Nazi butt.
In the interim, the Russians have managed to develop a nuclear arsenal and missiles, yet the defector claims they are out of touch with modern war-making. That seems to suggest the Ukrainians, who are just learning to use ordinance donated to them, have expertise in war-making. If that’s true, why are they having so much trouble dislodging the Russians from the Ukraine?
C’mon, Bordo.
I too can play questions –
If the ZZs have won, how come the war did not take a week like they said at first?
How come Russian oligarchs have their assets seized and athletes refused access to international competitions?
How long do you think the ZZs will be able to resist what appears to be a siege?
Aren’t you surprised that the EU did not miss gas, in fact haven’t you predicted that they would?
How come The Great Patriotic War marches were cancelled – is it because Vlad would have to reveal all its losses or because of the protests?
What do you think of the Wagner’s Group founder questioning the narrative that there are Nazis in Ukraine?
Whining Wee Willy,
Are you trying to set a record for the greatest number of pointless and poorly phrased gotchas in one comment?
Only a retard would think such a feat would result in general applause.
Did you have a reason for your gotchas, or were you just hammering away on your keyboard – as retards are wont to do?
Only having a laugh at your expense. You’re just trying (and failing) to be annoying, aren’t you?
Oh well, better luck next time.
I realize, for someone like you who relies on authority figures, it’s hard to accept the Russians did wrap up the main campaign quickly. It only took them a few weeks to rout the Nazi Azov battalion, who retreated to the bowels of a steel mill while holding hostages.
How do we know Azov had Nazi leanings?
a)damned if they didn’t wear the Nazi SS emblems on their helmets and another SS emblem on their flag. Do battalions in democracies normally wear such insignia?
b)the US Congress cut them off from support after learning of their Nazi leanings.
c)anyone who can read knows the Ukrainian UON nationalist movement has been a white supremacist outfit since they began in 1929 and fought on the side of the Nazis in WW II. Their leader, Stepan Bandera, was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. There are still faction of the UON operating openly in the Ukraine today. They hold candle light vigils to honour Bandera and the SS Galacia, a Ukrainian division who fought with the Nazis.
Go on, wee willy, look it up.
***
The only siege going on is in the propaganda machines of the Ukraine and the West. We know damned well the Ukrainian army got its butt kicked and despite all the ordinance we have given them for free, they still can’t do anything.
***
Who said the EU don’t miss the gas? What propaganda rag did that come from? Last I saw, Europeans were struggling with the cost of fuel. Germany even went back to coal fired plants to get power.
Moron Mike,
I’m showing Bordo how silly it is to play Questions.
***
C’mon, Bordo.
When was the last time you went to Ukraine?
I hope your answer is “in the last 365 days,” otherwise your “authority figure” stance will bite you in the ass.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As CO2 increases, plants share more resources with symbiotes/soil. Increases nutrient availability and soil bio-carbon.
Within two days, the frigid air will reach the Great Lakes region.
https://i.ibb.co/0sqwD4D/gfs-toz-NA-f048.png
I’m watching a show on Coral Reef Bleaching. Ironically they are touting how they have replanted Coral to revive a bleached coral. The problems here should be obvious:
1) If it was climate change and pollution that killed the reef, why would the new coral fair any better? Neither the climate or pollution has changed, but the new coral is doing just fine. If someone salts a field, it will kill all current and future plants.
2) They accidentally discovered what was causing the bleaching and warming of the oceans and it isn’t CO2. They literally state that too much incoming sunlight bleaches the coral. That should be all the evidence one needs that there has been a change of incoming radiation reaching the oceans causing them to warm and bleach the coral. It has nothing to do with CO2.
The answer is right in front of their eyes and they don’t see it. Evidence of fewer clouds over the oceans is abundant and increased coral bleaching is evidence of that.
They don’t want to see it because this has nothing to do with global warming/climate change. The UN has been trying since the 1960s to form a world government with them in charge. Their goal has always been to tax wealthy countries and pass it on to corrupt Third World countries.
The UN is corrupt and so is their climate division, the IPCC.
> The UN has been trying since the 1960s to form a world government with them in charge.
Bordo’s bottomless slump continues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Willard, can men get pregnant? Did Hillary pay for the Steele Dossier? Did the virus come from a Lab? Is Hunter’s Laptop Real? Did Joe know about Hunter’s Business Activities? Did Joe pay taxes on all the money Hunter gave him? Can CO2 warm water? Did Joe Biden pay for the 51 Intel Officers to sign the letter? Is there a liberal bias in the media?
Life,
Do you know what’s JAQing off? Do you understand that it is as annoying as it is weak? Why don’t you stand with your shoulders straight and simply own your conspiracy theories?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Name a single conspiracy theory. Trust me, you are on the wrong side of all of them. People like you find strength in conformity, you huddle together in fear attempting to gain power through your collective. You will believe anything just to be accepted by the herd, Facts don’t matter, acceptance does. That is why you can tell a Progressive that men can get pregnant and no one pushes back. Membership in the herd is what matters, collective power is what matters, and the truth is irrelevant. Uniformity, collectivism, and obedience are what define people like you.
Simply explain how pollution and climate change can cause the destruction of the coral reefs is neither has changed but simply planting more coral make them come back to life? You can’t, so you simply attack and censor.
Life,
No, asking for sammiches is no better than JAQing off. No, I won’t trust you. And no, you’re not that original – there are tons of deluded fools like you.
Some who bought into the Donald’s “university” racket that siphoned all their savings and made them max out their credit cards:
https://money.com/trump-university-scam-credit-card-debt/
You’re more than a fool. You’re a tool.
Willard, there are entire school districts under Democrat control where not a single child is proficient in Math and you worry about sales practices of Trump University? Really? Those are adults using a credit card and you blame the salesperson? Really?
0%: Not a single student proficient in math at 19 Minnesota schools
https://www.americanexperiment.org/0-not-a-single-student-proficient-in-math-at-19-minnesota-schools/
Outrage on Twitter after Baltimore reveals zero students proficient in math across 23 schools: FAILURE’
https://www.foxnews.com/media/outrage-twitter-baltimore-reveals-zero-students-proficient-math-across-23-schools-failure
If that is the worse you can find from Trump that makes Trump pretty impressive. Biden showers with his daughter and Hunter’s Computer displays moral bankruptcy at a level never seen before in American politics. Your selective moral outrage is truly astounding.
Life,
You are basically a mark:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/02/donald-trump-fundraising-schemes-campaign-finance-scrutiny-criticism
The Freedom Fighters’ echochamber is scams all the way down.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Project Veritas did not publish Ms. Bidens diary, but dozens of handwritten pages from it were posted on a right wing website on Oct. 24, 2020. The posting was largely ignored by other conservative outlets and the mainstream media.”
CO2islife believes any crap posted by partisan hacks the week before the election.
I am already regretting this, but the answers are mostly likely, but not certainly the following: no, yes, yes, yes, probably, no, sometimes, unknown at this time, needs further definition.
That third “no” is dubious at best, TS:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/03/13/the-origins-debate/
That is complete crap. SARS-Cov-2 does not exist anywhere in nature. It has not been identified anywhere in nature. The missing link also does not exist. SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV both have identified animal links and neither one ever developed the ability to effectively transmit human to human. The Wuhan lab was doing gain-of-function research on bat viruses. The absolute very first case of COVID-19 containing the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 was exceptionally adept at attacking human lungs. Later variants became a nasal virus and thus more infectious but less harmful. It is a slam dunk. I am sad to state the Dr Fauci lied every time he said it came from nature. He absolutely knows the truth because he is just too smart and well informed.
Let’s not leave out the Furin Cleavage Site which is near proof of a gain-of-function result.
“It is a slam dunk.” for you Tim, but not for the various intelligence agency assessments, or international researchers, who assess ALL the data.
Quite a powerful argument you got there, TS.
You forgot to mention that the site must have a signature, there is no evidence of that, therefore you’re right because reasons.
TimS
You find Furin cleavage sites in a variety of viruses.
The envelope proteins of viruses such as HIV, influenza, dengue fever, and other filoviruses including ebola and marburg virus must be cleaved by furin or furin-like proteases to become fully functional.
Finding similar cleavage sites in SARS-CoV-2 is not surprising and does not indicate that the gain in function was artificial.
tim…”I am sad to state the Dr Fauci lied every time he said it came from nature. He absolutely knows the truth because he is just too smart and well informed”.
***
I doubt that Fauci is smart. He’s devious, but hardly smart.
Fauci and David Ho tried to develop an RNA-PCR test for HIV and they were told by Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR method, that PCR could not be used as a diagnostic test for a virus that could not be independently identified. Luc Montagnier, credited with finding HIV, even though he only claimed to have ‘inferred’ a virus, admitted freely that he had not physically isolated HIV.
Montagnier, who worked out of the Louis Pasteur Institute, tried to apply a method developed by LPI for isolating a virus. The final step after a suspected virus was isolated was to prove it by viewing it under an electron microscope. Montagnier’s team did that but failed to see a virus on the EM micrograph. His lab technician verified that no virus has been seen.
Montagnier inferred HIV using techniques from retroviral theory which was only 10 years old when he applied it, and still an unproved science. He inferred that certain strands of RNA (not a complete genome) taken from a person with AIDS, was a signature of HIV. However, the proof lay in his claim that this extraction from the person with AIDS killed healthy cells in a lab. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean, disproved his theory by demonstrating that the healthy cells would have died anyway from pre-treatment they received to prevent bacteria and to weaken them to make infection easier.
Since Montagnier produced this inferential method, all viruses since have been inferred and that includes covid. Mullis argued that the only true method of physically isolating a virus is to purify the suspected material and view it on an electron microscope, and that any virus that had not been physically isolated like that could not be amplified by PCR. The reason he gave is that PCR amplifies everything equally and if the virus is not there on an EM micrograph it won’t suddenly appear by amplifying it.
The RNA-PCR test for a virus is fraudulent.
Fauci disagreed with Mullis, who invented PCR, and Mullis began calling his a liar repeatedly for inferring he could use PCR to isolate a virus. Fauci did nothing to salvage his reputation and for good reason. Mullis was right, he was lying that the RNA-PCR test can identify a virus. In fact, anyone who claims that test is valid is a liar. They have absolutely no proof.
In his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert Kennedy laid out the entire horror story about Fauci and how he has ruined the careers of medical scientists who have opposed him. Dr. Peter Duesberg was one of his first victim after Duesberg claimed HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. Fauci set the gears in motion to ruin Duesberg’s career, even though Duesberg was eventually exonerated by Montagnier.
Montagnier eventually claimed that HIV dos not cause AIDS and that a healthy immune system will handle HIV. He put the cause of AIDS down to oxidative stress due to lifestyle, and like Duesberg, claimed HIV is a harmless passenger virus that can act only after the immune system is defeated. Lanka goes one step farther, claiming there is no proof that HIV exists, a claim he extends to covid,
Lanka does not claim there is no virus, he simply claims there is no proof. He has extended that to most modern viruses which he claims have never been scientifically isolated.
BTW…the method Fauci used to ruin Duesberg’s career was simple. Fauci, as the director of NAIAD, controlled the purse strings for medical research. He simply ensured that Duesberg would never again be funded for research. Fauci should be in jail for that alone.
In the UK, funding is done be the Wellcome organization, and it decides who will be funded. Off course, UK medical dissidents find themselves cut off. Anyone who spoke out against covid was immediately cut off, forcing any researcher who had something to say against the established views to keep quiet.
It was a travesty that Duesberg was treated like that and that no one stepped forward to defend him. Duesberg was a top researcher, isolating the first cancer gene. For that, he was honoured by being inducted into the National Academy of Science as the youngest member ever inducted at the time. Those were the days when NAS meant something, before climate alarmists infiltrated and began inducting their own, like Michael Mann.
Duesberg also received the California Scientist of the Year Award. The travesty is in some low-life like Fauci being allowed to ruin the career of such a renowned scientist over a simple vendetta. If Duesberg was right about HIV, it meant Fauci’s buddies in the pharmaceutical world would lose a lot of money producing the poisons called antivirals.
The first antiviral used for HIV was AZT, a compound so noxious that it had to be removed as a cancer chemotherapy agent. Yet uninformed victims of HIV/AIDS were put on it for life, most of them eventually dying. Some people on these drugs developed additional AIDS symptoms, leading to Duesberg calling it ‘AIDS by prescription’.
Now Nate thinks he knows what information the various agencies have. Be careful about leaking any of that here. It could get you in trouble. I can only imagine what information they have, but I know for certain that they are not going to state anything except the most vague statement possible. They are not in any way going to confirm what they have, or as a practical matter say anything the goes against official government policy at the time.
“I can only imagine what information they have, but I know for certain that they are not going to state anything except the most vague statement possible.”
Then how do you arrive at your certainty?
What I have read is that the different agencies disagree.
What’s been published goes back and forth on the origins, with the most recent publication of DNA sequences of swabs taken from the live animal market showing Covid 19 intermingled with Racoon Dog DNA on surfaces in the section of the market selling live mammals.
Since we have a lab and live animal market as potential sources present in the same location at the same time, I don’t see how anyone can call it a slam sunk.
Nate, if you are going to play stupid, I will spell it out. Spy agencies have to protect their sources and methods. They cannot and will not release information that compromises their sources. More to the point is the fact that putting out fake statements often helps them gather information and protect sources. They absolutely know things that they will not reveal. Fauci’s lies are backed up by all of the other scientists who want to coverup the fact that gain-of-function research is dangerous and was done recklessly by the Communist Chinese.
Tim, It appears that your feeling that it is a slam dunk is not based on known facts intelligence assessments, or published science, but instead on your political biases.
Nate, you are the one with the political crap. I gave a detailed scientific explanation why lab leak is the only possibility without a source in nature or a crossover animal. Done! SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV had crossovers. The almost miraculous infectiousness is the final proof of a gain-of-function virus. Anyone who is paying attention knew this in June of 2020.
There was Professor in Australia who went public way back in 2020 and was widely criticized, but now proven correct. He is the one who educated the world about gain-of-function which is now common knowledge.
Can you cite a literature reference for you ‘gain of function’ hypothesis?
I think the jury is out on this one, given the recent DNA evidence that you didnt address.
“Faucis lies are backed up by all of the other scientists who want to coverup the fact”
Sorry Tim, your political biases are on full display here.
And ‘all the other scientists who want to cover up’ ? that is straight up conspiratorial thinking.
So those don’t help your science credibility.
Nate cannot make his point on the science or basic logic so he tries his political game called projection (accuse them of what you are doing) and now the strawman — “you can’t prove it”. I made my case to everyone who is paying attention. All of the facts are there, and I am not interested which side is promoting what theory.
For the record, Dr Fauci is a brilliant scientist with an exceptional record of success and contribution to science and humanity, but he made a mistake trying to cover his tracks. Honesty is always the best strategy for a public figure, because the truth will finally come out. He knew full well what was going on at Wuhan, and the connection to his agency. If he had said zoonotic was “possible” back in early 2020, he would have been correct. To say zoonotic was “most likely” was a lie by him at that time because he already knew the truth. That truth has taken many years for the rest of us to fully discover, and yes, many other scientists and public agencies that know the truth have help to cause confusion for various reasons.
In the context of this discussion, I will point out that I have had 4 vaccinations of the original mRNA and my most recent was the BIVAL. Humorously, I had an experience at a medical facility that required me to remove my approved N95 mask which is highly effective for the paper mask they supplied which is only marginally effective at best.
I guess I am not done here. Look at Nate’s quote: “Faucis lies are backed up by all of the other scientists who want to coverup the fact”.
Now look at actual quote: “Faucis lies are backed up by all of the other scientists who want to coverup the fact that gain-of-function research is dangerous and was done recklessly by the Communist Chinese.”
Does that change the meaning? What “fact” are we discussing here?
wee willy…you fail to grasp that the UN’s IPCC is a corrupt, political body that has no interest in science, but pushes the meme of catastrophic climate change aimed at scaring people into accepting an agenda driven by international concerns.
Privileged groups like the Club of Rome meet regularly to discuss circumventing our democracies with fascist ideas run by elites. The UN has become yet another one of these idiotic, politically-correct groups. We don’t need world government but the UN cannot operate without it.
Where is the UN re Ukraine? Where are they when major conflicts break out? They are hiding behind corrupt projects like the IPCC. There corrupt health agency, the WHO, are offering insane recommendations re covid while pushing untested genetically-modified drugs on the unsuspecting. The WHO created an artificial AIDS pandemic in Africa because they could not find evidence of heterosexual transmission of HIV in North America or Europe.
Bordo,
You fail to grasp that without any tin foil hat, it’s really hard to take you srsly.
Do you have one spare?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Game over, it came from the lab and anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that from the beginning.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in a global pandemic and shutdown economies around the world. Sequence analysis indicates that the novel coronavirus (CoV) has an insertion of a furin cleavage site (PRRAR) in its spike protein. Absent in other group 2B CoVs, the insertion may be a key factor in the replication and virulence of SARS-CoV-2. To explore this question, we generated a SARS-CoV-2 mutant lacking the furin cleavage site (ΔPRRA) in the spike protein. This mutant virus replicated with faster kinetics and improved fitness in Vero E6 cells.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32869021/
In Honor of Earth Day, Two New Exclusive WUWT Features are Now Online
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/22/in-honor-of-earth-day-two-new-exclusive-wuwt-features-are-now-online/
#1 Earths Real-Time Temperature
Currently: 57.56F/14.2C
#2 Failed Predictions Timeline
“Global Temperatures are predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020. 1986-06-11”
Must have been 11.2 C in 1986.
Or Wrong.
Oh, probably meant F, so that would be 12.5 C in 1986.
Well, the year 1986 was pretty cold, and probably only had the 1985
year which was a bit colder but it seems it could been only as cold as around 13.5 C.
China’s average temperature is about 8 C, and I could understand why Chinese want it warmer. And not sure what Beijing average is, but China government would want global warming. So, airport in Beijing average temperature is just above 0 C.
There are towns in Greenland which are about that warm.
wee willy…”Thermal energy refers to the energy contained within a system that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. There is really no need to waste time on this”.
***
You have painted yourself into a corner. Heat transfer is a common term, it is not referred to as thermal energy transfer. Some kind of energy is transferred and the energy transferred is called heat, or thermal energy.
Let’s do a for instance. The Sun is claimed to be hot. On a certain day in summer we might claim the Sun feels hot but what were are referring to is the heat produced in our bodies when our bodies absorb electromagnetic energy from the Sun and convert it to heat. Call it thermal energy if you want.
An energy has been transferred between the Sun and our bodies but we can’t call it heat because it is radiant energy that is transferred and that radiant energy is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy. I fact, no energy transferred by EM can be called heat, simply because no heat is transferred.
I realize this is a difficult concept to absorb but it is true. According to quantum theory, when electrons generate EM, they lose kinetic energy that represents heat. In fact, the emitting body cools as it radiates EM, proving heat is lost.
On the other end, if a body absorbs EM. it results in the excitation of electrons to higher kinetic energy levels , and that raised KE is heat. Again, call it thermal energy if you like. The point is, thermal energy is the energy associated with atomic motion. I call it heat, call it what suits you.
A word of warning. By redefining heat in this way, you lose the ability to communicate with most people on the planet who have an intuitive understand of the meaning of heat.
I fail to grasp the meaning behind redefining heat as a transfer mechanism, rather than the energy it has been claimed to be over the past couple of hundred years.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s quite clear you fail to grasp what you’ve been ranting about for more than a decade. Thermal energy is no exception.
Look at this this way. If scientists go down your rabbit hole, they need to explain what you call a great mystery. If they keep using concepts the way they do, there is no great mystery to explain.
C’mon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Scientists don’t need to go down any rabbit hole all they need to do is come back out of the rabbit hole in which they re-defined a perfectly good, natural phenomenon without providing a basis for their redefinition.
As far as ranters are concerned, you seem to be the one ranting. You offer a definition and when I rebut it using good science you rant about it being wrong rather than proving I am wrong.
If I come out and redefine gravity as a transfer of energy rather than an energy, it’s the same thing you are ranting about. Everyone knows what gravitational force means but you are claiming its something else.
C’mon, Bordo.
Scientists don’t need to return to anything.
They’re ignoring your cranky conspiracies and they’re doing fine.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Newton was precise with his definition of mass, in fact, he invented the concept
Lower and lower and lower:
https://spark.iop.org/brief-history-concepts-mass-and-weight
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Very importantly, notice that Philoponus compared the weight or mass of each falling body to the mass of the other falling body, .
Weight or mass – which one? Do all delusional SkyDragon cultists believe that they can define anything to mean something else, and hope nobody who is not retarded will notice?
How are you going with showing your description of the GHE? Maybe you could try complaining that bobdroege or Norman borrowed it, and their dog ate it.
Or you could just man up, and admit that you can’t describe the GHE in any way which accords with observed fact.
Carry on trolling, if you wish.
Mike Flynn,
It was a quote, so I didn’t exactly write it. And here –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
It’s nice to see you return to your good ol’ sock puppet self.
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
Whether you “write” or “quote” nonsense is irrelevant, if it is nonsense. Trying to slither away by saying you “didnt exactly” do something or other, is just the action of a retard looking to excuse his retardation.
By the way, are you still being too coy to explain that you continue to link to something quite irrelevant – or so I’m told. Apparently the fruits of some face-pulling deluded “content creator and musician”!
What form of mental deficiency leads you to think that I would waste time looking at such nonsense? I guess you are retarded enough to waste your time posting such nonsense again and again!
Carry on trolling. It won’t help you making reality go away, you know. There is still no GHE, and you are still an ineffective troll, due to your obvious retardation.
What are you braying about, Donkey Mike?
Nevermind. I have not read it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I repeat, Newton defined mass, it is his term. Weight is a force applied to a mass. Philiponus knew nothing about mass, which is not weight. The weight referenced by Philiponus applied only to Earth’s gravitational field.
A mass at sea level on Earth can weigh 100 pounds. Take the same mass into space where there are no forces acting on it and it weighs nothing.
No one knew about mass till Newton offered the concept.
> Newton defined mass, it is his term
Wrong again, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale#History
Mass comes from the German “Masse,” which comes from the latin “massa,” which comes from the Ancient Greek μᾶζα.
The concept of mass is as old as trading itself.
You could argue that Newton was the first to come up with his own definition. This trivial claim might not even be right: something similar was known by Galileo’s time. Otherwise his most important thought experiment would not work.
C’mon.
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you are appealing to an authority about “mass”, you might do better than to choose one titled “Weighing scale history”.
A kilogram mass will have a different weight depending on the local force of gravity, which varies around the globe.
You can play all the “silly semantic games” you like. It still won’t help you coming up with a description of the GHE.
In the meantime, you have my permission to demonstrate the depth of your mental retardation by confusing mass with weight. You might just as well continue trolling. Maybe you can succeed in annoying someone, but I doubt it.
Are you really disputing that humans weighted things and stuff before Newton, Moron Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Newton developed the theory of mass. He was the one who proposed the word inertia to represent the resistance in a mass to motion. I don’t give a hoot if the word has been used for millennia, Newton was the one who put it all together and explained what mass means in a gravitational field.
Newton II, f = ma, had never been written before Newton offered it. What do you think the ‘m’ represents in that equation?
I am not writing this for your benefit, it is for the benefit of those who might read your bs. They need to understand that you are a troll here who claims black is white simply for the sake of being a dickhead.
C’mon, Bordo.
You said that Newton invented the concept of mass. He obviously did not. And he created the first formalized theory of motion, not a theory of mass.
If you’re shooting for a new physics because you seek moar precision, then be precise.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kepler formed a [distinct] concept of mass (amount of matter (copia materiae)), but called it weight as did everyone at that time. That was in about 1599.
Galileo’s inclined experiments were in 1603.
Newton did not publish the Principia until 1687.
ent… although Galileo knew about acceleration, he had no idea what caused it. Kepler was a mathematician who used the data collected by Tycho Brahe.He had no idea either.
Newton’s 1st law is about momentum. He said essentially, if a body is in motion, it will remain in motion unless a force acts on it. I call that momentum, when a mass keeps moving indefinitely until acted on by another force. So, momentum is the inertia of a moving mass, although some people use inertia related to motion in the same manner as momentum. If you add a force that aids the motion or resists the motion, the body will oppose either force.
If you read Newton on mass in Principia he goes into it in some detail. He did not want to leave the impression that mass applied only in our gravitational system, he meant his definition of mass to be universal. So, it’s not just about a force being applied on Earth to a mass, it’s meant to apply to any force anywhere applied to any mass anywhere.
For me, Newton’s relationship between mass and inertia was a hallmark of science. No other scientist before him had revealed such an insight. I am sure the word mass had been used before, for example, a mass of dung. Wee Willy would have expertise with such a mass since he spends a lot of time with bs.
That’s why I feel annoyed with Einstein for completely ignoring mass and force and concentrating only on acceleration. Acceleration depends on force and mass and you cannot simply isolate acceleration, particularly its related time factor, and focus on that. If you do that, and treat time as a real phenomenon, then you can arrive at erroneous conclusions like time and length dilation.
The entire theory of Lorentz on relativity, which was adapted by Einstein, depended only on distance, velocity, and time, in other words, kinematics. The fact that Lorentz could draw an inference about time dilation from that alone means he was seriously naive about the related physics and motion. The fact that Einstein adapted the work of Lorentz without question suggests he was equally naive.
Acceleration has two clear meanings. There is the visual meaning when you look at something like a dragster accelerating from 0 mph to 100 mph in 3 seconds. What you see is true acceleration, however, if you want to measure it you need to introduce time, which is man-made and defined. How something like that can dilate is beyond me.
It’ not easy for me to be so critical of Einstein and I am fully aware that I come across as a clown for doing so. It has occurred to me that his meaning may have been far deeper. If that’s the case, then he should have tried to clarify that meaning and that applies to everyone who defends him.
It is important to me that Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock, criticized the relativity claims of Einstein as being a bad theory whose sole basis was thought experiment. He also criticized him for not understanding measurement. A former physics prof saw time for what it is, a human invention.
“whose sole basis was thought experiment.”
Science deniers dismiss the countless real experiments that test and confirm theory, for some reason.
Dr Spencer
I have been unsuccessful in finding any document that states what temperature atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules achieve due to earth radiated IR. Can you direct me?
This might help.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html
Actually, modtran won’t help since most of the calculations are not based on experiment.
EM,
How would it help?
For example, if the ground temperature is -75 C, what is the temperature of the CO2 in the atmosphere above?
Obviously, not a lot of sunlight is warming the ground. Is it warming the atmosphere perhaps?
You have no clue at all about any of this, have you?
dennis…Roy does not normally respond after a few days after he posts his article.
I can offer my own 2-bits worth. Even the IPCC offers no concrete warming factor accompanied by proof. They still refer us back to Tyndall’s experiment circa 1850, or the theories of Arrhenius somewhat later.
If you read alarmist propaganda from the likes of Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, you will see a warming factor bandied about in the range of 9% to 25%. It’s apparently 9% with water vapour and 25% without it.
However, if you want to get into real science, you have the Ideal Gas Law which leads to the conclusion that warming is relative to the mass percent of each gas molecule in the atmosphere. That means oxygen and nitrogen with a mass percent close to 99% combined creates 99% of the warming while CO2 at 0.04% creates about 0.04%.
That means for the claimed 1 C warming over the past 170 years, CO2 has contributed about 0.04 C.
Dennis, typically the temperature of an individual CO2 molecule is not discussed, as it has little meaning. An individual CO2 molecule has a vibration associated with the main photon it absorbed from Earth. That being a photon with wavelength of 15μ, which has a WDL temperature of 193K (-80.2C, -112.3F). As you’re aware, that photon ain’t going to do much warming to Earths average surface temperature of 288K.
Since when are ‘CO2 molecules’ a single molecule?
” That being a photon with wavelength of 15μ, which has a WDL temperature of 193K (-80.2C, -112.3F).”
In any case Clint oddly still assigns a temperature to individual photons.
“As youre aware, that photon aint going to do much warming to Earths average surface temperature of 288K.”
WE are not aware, because no evidence to support this claim has been presented.
WE have shown counter-examples which falsify the claim.
Troll Nate, thanks for confirming I hit the target. Its nice to know Im effective.
You mean you got negative attention meeting your trolling objective?
We know.
I’ve got science and reality on my side, troll Nate. Then there are the braindead cult idiots trolling me. It all makes me very effective, and it’s soooo easy. I never get tired of being right.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Now, get the last word in. It’ll just add to my effectiveness.
Nah, you never ever have any science or reality on your side.
We know this because you never back up your made-up ‘science rules’ with any facts or sources that agree with you.
And because they contradict known laws of physics.
You made your trolling goals clear above. So now you can stop pretending that science or reality matters at all to you.
It is thought by many that for most of Earth past, Earth has been
warm- something like about 70% of this time.
And it’s called Greenhouse global climate, but today, we living in a period of time which has been called “Late Cenozoic Ice Age” and it’s called, an Icehouse global climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
And what you can call the modern human, evolved during coldest time
of the late cenozoic ice age which started when ice sheets first formed on the Antarctica continent about 33.9 million years ago.
It generally believed that plate tectonic movement caused the Antarctica continent to move closer to the southern pole, and when it closer, it resulted in gradually cooling the average temperature of all the oceans in the world.
An Icehouse global climate is defined by having an ice sheet in the polar region and having a cold ocean. Most Earth’s past had ocean with average temperature of about 15 C and a cold ocean would be ocean with an average temperature of about 10 C or colder.
My guess is at the time Antarctica developed an ice sheet, the average temperature of the ocean was about 6 to 8 C.
Your present average temperature is about 3.5 C, and for most of last 33.9 million years the average temperature of the ocean was 4 to 6 C.
Also if the ocean was as warm as 8 C, the ice sheet of Antarctica could not call “permanent”, but if the ocean was 6 C, the ice sheet could last for as much as much as 1 million years, but most likely or on average, probably only lasted for about 100,000 years.
So, there isn’t any ice found on Earth which is 33.9 million years old, and it is assumed that a ice sheet developed starting 33.9 million, but it retreated and advanced over millions of years.
The 33.9 years is related to first ice sheet, there could been some glaciers before this. And due it’s present location near south pole, there could be glaciers even with ocean with average temperature of 15 C.
We have glaciers in tropics, and sea level average temperature of tropics is well above 20 C.
Over millions of years and ocean cooling further, the Antarctica ice sheet became more “permanent”.
And starting about 2.5 million years ago, the ice sheet of Greenland started to become more “permanent”.
But there is much discussion over last hundred years, of so called tipping points [which could for example include volcanic activity] which could make either “permanent” ice sheet, not permanent.
One might say “permanent” is likely, or has, lasted more than, roughly, a million years.
The religiously crazed, sometimes imagine CO2 levels could be called a tipping point.
The reality is what causes global climate is mostly about various geological factors. And likewise what are “normally” called by “tipping points” likewise mostly geological activity- or extraterrestrial events, such as large impactors hitting Earth.
It is thought that Earth’s orbit has roughly remained the same and that Sun’s output of energy has increased over last tens to hundreds of years. Yet, we living in coldest period in last 200 million years.
Earth is in the coldest part of an Icehouse global climate, because
of plate tectonic activity and/or other geological factors.
Though a significant factor other than extraterrestrial events, and geological changes, is life on Earth. Or without life, Earth global climate would be different- CO2 levels are related to geological and biological processes on Earth. And these processes have made Earth have low levels of CO2. One aspect is geological activity, has made
a cold ocean, and a cold ocean can store a lot of CO2.
And warming a cold ocean is only a tipping point, that takes very long time- it’s not an “end of world thing” in a decade or a century, or even thousands of years.
Human can’t accidentally or currently have the technological capability deliberately warm the ocean within 50 years. Though with planning and trillions of dollars spent, we might warm the ocean by about .2 C within a century- and might possibly be a good idea at some point.
But we currently have more important priories- such as global poverty, try to have less wars, and space exploration.
“The religiously crazed, sometimes imagine CO2 levels could be called a tipping point.”
With such an attitude is it worthwhile to discuss the science with you?
Really, at what Global CO2 level could there be a tipping point- and why?
And when it this level happen, and at that point in time, and how long does it take [years, decades, centuries] to cause the “point” of tipping point do something significant.
And can we agree that CO2 has so far, has not had any tipping points, recently, or at any time in the past.
Lots of tipping points. Every switch between glacial and interglacial conditions is a tipping point, a switch between two stable states.
So is the switch between greenhouse and firehouse climate at the start of the Pliocene.
But that’s not my point.If you think of me as religiously crazed there is no hope of a sensible science based debate.
Ent, you ARE “religiously crazed”. Why deny it. You’ve got a false religion that forces you to pervert reality. You’ve even claimed that passenger jets fly backward, just to support your Moon nonsense.
“Lots of tipping points. Every switch between glacial and interglacial conditions is a tipping point, a switch between two stable states.”
There are tipping points, just not from CO2.
“But thats not my point.If you think of me as religiously crazed there is no hope of a sensible science based debate.”
Al Gore made a film saying CO2 were tipping point- he not religiously crazed, he just a lying politician. Can’t debate Al as he made more 100 million dollar from his scam. And he got nice house in the beach- he doesn’t believe it.
EM,
You wrote –
“With such an attitude is it worthwhile to discuss the science with you?”
That would be a decision for you. Whether gbaikie cares (or not) about your decision is a matter for him.
Presumably, you imagine that there is some “science” which involves CO2, “tipping points”, and the GHE. Given that you can’t even describe the GHE, what is it that you believe anybody would wish to “discuss” with you?
Fanatical SkyDragon cultists believe that rational people are just falling over themselves to “discuss” fantasies with them.
Maybe they’re right.
Eman knows as much about science as Greta Thunberg. Wait, she finally saw the light. Maybe he should take his cues from her?
In regards to war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BHnijL9xYc
Japanese Defence Strategy & Rearmament – Japan’s ambitious plans & lessons from Ukraine
I thought this pretty interesting- and it seems it should stop a future war.
I would count it as one benefit, to having a weak US president.
While listening to video, I thinking of ocean settlements.
First, I thinking Japan having them, then I was thinking of US military having them {because Japanese aren’t overly fond of US military personnel, particularly in Okinawa, and about reducing US
presence in Okinawa {Japan strengthening their military presence in
Okinawa] so then I was thinking of ocean settlement 1/2 way between Okinawa and Guam and around latitude of 20 degrees North.
And having suborbital launch and space launch site.
Now, I tend think a ocean launch site should at equator in terms of commercial launch site. But for US miltary, they could remove military personal from Okinawa and reduce them in Guam.
And with floating breakwater for military, one make them more unsinkable against military attacks {not something, I normally think
about}.
Nothing what Willard wrote about the concept of mass versus Newton’s work was wrong.
Wrong is as usual the egomaniacal stuff claimed by Robertson.
Isaac Newton never invented the concept of mass.
His ingenious idea of combining the concept of mass, which was still very unclear at the time, with the principle of acceleration to form a force was, as so often, the consequence of what had previously been devised: the principle of inertia (resistance to movement), first devised by Galileo Galilei and further developed by Johannes Kepler, then denied for decades by Descartes and all his seconds, until finally Huyghens won the day with his Horologium Oscillatorium in 1673, helping to sweep away Cartesian notions.
*
The great Newton was not only a genial scientist but also a person who once said that he has seen farther by ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’.
*
Most persons lacking both technical skill and scientific knowledge also thoroughly lack any humility.
In fairness, the “standing on the shoulders of giants” may sound differently in context:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mystery-robert-hooke-portrait
There are no heroes anymore.
Whininng Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“There are no heroes anymore.”
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
“Hooke claimed in 1684 that he could mathematically demonstrate whats known as Keplers first law, which Newton published in his famous Principia Mathematica”.
***
More nonsense from the peanut gallery. The importance of Newton’s discovery was not the mathematics of orbits, which had already been laid out by Kepler. it was the gravitational cause of those orbits.
Kepler’s 1st law is about planetary motion in an ellipse. What the heck could Hooke demonstrate about that? The statement above attributed to Hooke is nonsense.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/
Why are you ranting about topics you never study?
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”Isaac Newton never invented the concept of mass.
His ingenious idea of combining the concept of mass, which was still very unclear at the time, with the principle of acceleration to form a force was, as so often, the consequence of what had previously been devised: the principle of inertia (resistance to movement), first devised by Galileo Galilei and further developed by Johannes Kepler…”
***
Does anything other than drivel and slobbering come from Binny? An acceleration forms a force? Have you gone stark, raving mad? What the heck is an acceleration without a force?
Einstein was good for such natterings. He used a model of a man riding in a box. On one occasion, the man’s box is subjected to gravitational force and accelerates down the way to ward Earth. On another occasion, the box is attached to some sort of sky hook which yanks the box up the way, accelerating it vertically. Einstein asked how the man could tell the difference.
Einstein offered that nonsense circa 1905. Today, we have high speed elevators and anyone who has ridden one can easily tell whether he/she is moving up the way or down the way. The difference is easy and it should have occurred to Einstein. Moving down, the floor is trying to fall away below your feet and moving up the floor is moving you up the way.
However, Einstein failed to grasp the obvious as laid out by Newton, an acceleration requires a force, not the other way around. Newton made that clear and it seems to have escaped Einstein. Newton stated, If a force can move a mass, the mass will accelerate…blah, blah, blah.
I’m sorry, I don’t have the Latin for blah.
Einstein created an idiotic thought experiment based solely on kinematics, which removes the causal force from the equation and focuses only on velocities and acceleration. Therefore, ijits who study kinematics while failing to grasp that both are initiated by forces, fall prey to the nonsense that an acceleration can produce a force.
What is being accelerated…a mass!!! What is accelerating the mass…a force!!! How the heck can an acceleration come along and create a force on a mass??? Acceleration is a property of a mass driven by a force and has no independent means of moving a mass.
Mass was not clear at the time…everyone called them weights. You could weigh them, you cannot weigh mass to discover it is a mass. The word mass as applied to physics came from Newton’s theories about inertia. He claimed that when a force is applied to an object the object resists the force, a force he called inertia.
Newton defined mass based on his theory of inertia and had the brilliance to realize that the content of a body would react differently if it was not in Earth’s gravitational field.
Then along came Einstein and tried to change all that by focusing only on acceleration, which has absolutely no meaning without a force, a mass, and a gravitational field. Not only that, he elevated time to the level of force and a mass when time has no existence whatsoever.
Although Einstein is regarded as some kind of guru, and I used to see him in that light, I now regard his as someone who has set physics back a century or more.
Robertson
Instead of arrogantly blathering nonsense, try to read historical documents about mass instead.
You might start learning, for the first time in your life.
*
And you don’t understand anything about Einstein.
The reason: you don’t anything about Newton, except the trivial f=ma you can’t stop talking about.
You are simply too dumb to compare Einstein’s gravity formulas to Newton’s, and to understand where and why they differ.
In 2019, you poor uneducated guy dared to claim that Newton’s gravity theory would be sufficient to explain the precession of Mercury’s perihelion – and that without having the least idea how it has to be computed.
*
Did you, arrogant and ignorant slob, know that Einstein’s general relativity formulas exactly reflect the orbit of the Moon as tracked by today’s lunar laser ranging?
No, of course.
Because you don’t understand either of them and therefore discredit and denigrate both.
Binny,
Maybe you could put all the “arrogant, ignorant” slobs firmly in their places by simply describing the GHE in a way which accords with reality.
I don’t believe either Einstein nor Newton achieved this, nor has anybody else.
If the GHE exists, how hard can it be to describe it?
Oh oh… the Flynnson stalker is here again with his dumb, stubborn GHE blah blah.
Nothing relevant to say, but can’t stop to say something.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
The theory of quantum electrodynamics is the most rigorously tested theory in the history of mankind. Every QED prediction has been supported by experiment, to the limits of theoretical measurement.
QED is relativistic in nature.
Newtonian, or even common sense, ideas fail at the quantum level.
Take a minor example. A photon has no rest mass, because it only has one “speed”, the speed of light, and never “rests”. When emitted from an electron, it is traveling at the speed of light (otherwise it wouldnt be a photon). Now, if you accept e=mc^2 (which seems to be supported by experiments and atom bombs), then the mass can be calculated from the measured energy of the photon.
If f=ma, then the force needs to be extremely large, as the acceleration is seemingly infinite. One might say an infinite force is needed to accelerate a photon to the speed of light. But does a photon possess the infinite momentum imparted by this infinite force? Not at all, so something is wrong.
Acceleration measure the rate of velocity change, but time apparently does not exist for photons, in the sense we think of time, so any formula involving acceleration in relation to photons is not applicable.
There are other aspects of QED interactions which can be only satisfactorily explained by a photon going “backwards” in “time”, but luckily there is no way of establishing whether this is true or not.
Before laughing too loudly, the double slit experiment gives predicable results which differ – depending on whether you treat photons as waves or particles! It also shows that if you count the photons, they change their behavior.
It just so happens that if relativity is not taken into account with aspects of QED, experimental results stop agreeing with theory.
All very weird, but supported by experiment.
My opinions are, of course, worth precisely what you just paid for them.
We hopefully agree that the GHE has no relationship to Einstein or relativity, any more than other mythical entities like unicorns.
swenson…”Before laughing too loudly…”.
***
I enjoy your humour and way of looking at science. If I laugh, it is laughing along, not at you.
I never claim I am right, especially about the behavior of electrons and the likes. It makes no sense to me that electrons are orbiting a nucleus. However, all the proof and all my experience points to the fact that electrons are particles with mass and a charge. Photons on the other hand have no mass and are defined as a hybrid of a massless particle, with a frequency, and electromagnetic energy, which has no mass.
I would say, whoever came up with that idea was on something. Toward the end of his life, much to his credit, Einstein claimed that some scientists think they know whether EM is a wave or a particle, but they are wrong.
I don’t pretend to know anything about electrodynamics, never mind the quantum arm of quantum electrodynamics, but they were wrong about one thing prior to Bohr’s 1913 theory. They had claimed that an electron orbiting a nucleus would lose energy and fall into the nucleus. There has never been evidence that an electron loses its charge under any situation, or its momentum, hence no reason to lose energy. Planets don’t lose momentum orbiting the Sun, so why should electrons lose momentum, or charge, while orbiting a nucleus?
Why does light not lose energy while traveling multiple light years? The overall spherical intensity will diminish with distance but there is no proof that an individual quantum of EM dissipates. I disagree with the implication of e = mc^2 so I am no help there.
Your claim that time does not exist for photons is apt since time does not apply to any natural event. Time is merely a convenience for humans to measure change. I think it’s far too convenient to claim that photons are not affected by events that affect all other matter. Claims like that form part of my reasoning that photons are fiction. In fact, I regard much of the science associated with photons to be fiction.
I fear I am biased, having gone deeply into the theory of electrons. I accept Bohr’s theory that electrons emit and absorb EM, but that’s as far as I’m willing to go. I also agree that whatever is emitted or absorbed has no mass and has a frequency, but I cannot go deeper than that. I think any scientist who does has moved into the eerie world of sci-fi.
Look at it this way. An electric current is measured in coulombs/second (charges/second). If you measure so many coulombs/second (amps) at one point of a series circuit you should measure exactly the same amount at any other point. In other words, the energy of an electron in a conductor does not diminish, even though it also produces a constant magnetic field.
Electrodynamicists thought that generating a magnetic field would somehow diminish the energy of an electron, causing it to lose orbit. However, an electron in a conductor generates a constant magnetic field without losing energy. That’s because the energy of an electron in a conductor comes from an external field.
Electrons are weird little critters. They are forced out one end of a power supply by a higher potential energy than at the other terminal yet they don’t appear to lose kinetic energy as they progress around the circuit. A boulder falling of a cliff seems to gain KE as its PE diminishes. When it hits the ground its PE = 0 and its KE = max. An electron, on the other hand, loses PE as it gets to the positive terminal and needs to have it raised again before leaving the negative terminal. It seems, however, that its KE remains constant throughout the circuit.
The theories offered by Feynman and others are, to me, stopgap measures trying to fill a void that no one understands. In fact, I regard all quantum theory as such a stopgap measure. It will eventually have to be replaced with a better theory.
As I said earlier, the theory that electrons orbit a nucleus in a very orderly fashion does not sit well with me. It makes no sense that adding one electron and one proton to an atom can dramatically change its properties. Adding an electron and proton to platinum should turn it into gold and removing an electron and a proton from mercury should do the same. Neither has been proved to work.
I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we understand atomic theory. We have simply offered theories that could be horrendously wrong. Feynman even admitted in his talk to the Auckland University that he has no idea how his theory works in reality. It’s all based on probability theory.
One thing I don’t like about Feynman diagrams on the face of it is their isolation of electrons and protons into linear systems. I don’t think there is proof that photons even exist and I found Feynman’s argument lacking. He based the detection of photons on a photomultiplier device. He claimed that such a device pinged every time a photon hit, which is a load of nonsense.
The devices, like geiger counters, click when ‘something’ happens and is detected. There is absolutely no proof that what is being detected is a photon. On the other hand, we have proof of electron activity en mass when we look at a cathode ray tube screen. The illuminated phosphors on the screen come from electrons.
This notion about single photons moving through space is bs. A photon is regarded as a particle of EM and is compared to a real particle with mass and charge, the electron. Feynman makes it sound like an electron can move from A to B and interact with a photon, which is a gross generalization. Of course, he has to dumb it down to communicate with lay people but even with scientists, such a claim is a generalization.
I like Newton’s offering better. He claimed there is a divine force operating in the universe. It makes more sense to me that we are living in a universe designed by intelligence. The alternative, a fluke occurrence that occurred in a Big Bang out of nothing, seems ludicrous.
Tropical storm approaches US territory in Pacific with about 40 days until Atlantic hurricane season
“Guam is the southernmost island of the Mariana Islands and is home to important facilities for the U.S. military. The U.S. estimates 21,700 military members and their families are based on the small island.”
By Andrew Wulfeck Source FOX Weather
https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/tracking-tropics-pacific-guam-2023
And:
U.K. Organization Tropical Storm Risk Expects Below-Average 2023 Atlantic Hurricane Season
“TSR reduces its forecast issued in early December and predicts North Atlantic hurricane activity in 2023 will be 25-30% below the 1991-2020 30-year norm. However, this outlook has large uncertainties, and the forecast skill at this range is very low, according to the report released by TSR earlier this month.”
https://stthomassource.com/content/2023/04/22/u-k-organization-tropical-storm-risk-expects-below-average-2023-atlantic-hurricane-season/
wee willy…”Cmon, Bordo.
When was the last time you went to Ukraine?”
***
Which raises the question as to when was the last you were there? Or when were any of your authority figures on the front lines to witness what is actually going on. Of course, truth is not of much interest to you in your fantasy world.
C’mon, Bordo. My authority is the owner of the Wagner Group. Good luck trying to deny that he doesn’t know what’s happening with his assets in war territory.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You seem to be an expert on the Wagner group. Personally, I have no interest in what alleged Nazis have to say.
C’mon, Bordo.
You realize why the Wagner Group is called the Wagner Group, Right?
The guy who created that fascist paramilitary organization is telling us he doubts there are Nazis in Ukraine!
But you, oh noes, you know better, right?
Willard, please stop trolling.
> An acceleration forms a force?
Lower and lower to the end of time Bordo goes:
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/4-3-newtons-second-law-of-motion
Cue to some EM mumbo jumbo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Now wee willy, in his desperation, is cherry picking my words. I never said anything of the kind, that was Binny’s offering. Then again, with wee willy’s reading comprehension it is no surprise he got confused.
C’mon, Bordo.
The whole paragraph:
These are not your words?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Scientists identify thousands of unknown viruses in babies diapers
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/scientists-identify-thousands-of-unknown-viruses-in-babies-diapers/ar-AA1adERX
Linked: https://instapundit.com/
“Overall, the researchers uncovered 10,000 viral species from 248 viral families; of those families, just 16 were already known. “
I’d like to see their proof of the viruses. They are likely talking about viral particles which are not viruses.
It is well known that human feces contains seriously deadly bacteria. That does not seem to concern male homosexuals who insist on playing in that regio. When they get sick and die, they blame it on a harmless virus. Surprisingly, only 16% or so die from their practices. Maybe most of them have enough sense to take precautions.
Googled: 10,000 viral species from 248 viral families; of those families, just 16 were already known
And got:
https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/596045-5-Year-Study-of-Children-s-Diapers-Finds-232-Unknown-Viral-Families/
Which had a link:
Which didn’t work for me.
Google: Nature Microbiology 248 viral families
First hit:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01345-7
Gordon
Thanks for the heads up re Dr Spencer. I am really looking for what the CO2 molecules temp is resulting from earth IR. It would almost seem this is secret information or in very limited print.
dennis…talking about the temperature of a molecule is tough to contemplate. Temperature is a human invention aimed at the macro level and makes little sense at the atomic level. In a gas of molecules, temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules. I suppose if you wanted to, you could estimate the number of molecules using Avagadro’s number and infer a temperature for a single molecule but it would really have no meaning.
In the atmosphere, a CO2 molecule, on average, is surrounded by 2500 molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. So, how could you derive a single temperature for that CO2 molecule?
I have argued that temperature is a measure of heat but others are arguing that heat is only a name for the transfer of some unnamed energy between bodies of different temperatures.
A temperature scale like the Celsius or Fahrenheit scale is based on two set points: the boiling point and freezing point of water. But what are those scales measuring? If you have a mercury bulb thermometer on the wall of a room, it is measuring the average temperature of air molecules, and perhaps wall atoms. But what again is it measuring? It seems obvious it is measuring the average kinetic energy of all molecules contacting the glass mercury bulb.
I call that kinetic energy heat. If you add heat by warming the air in the room, the kinetic energy of the molecules increases and the mercury rises in the capillary tube of the thermometer.
I don’t see any way of splitting the heat load between air molecules to claim a molecular temperature for CO2. That problem is compounded when trying to measure the temperature of individual molecules through their infrared signatures. For one, oxygen and nitrogen are claimed not to radiate in the same spectral range as CO2. For another, the CO2 spectral region is dominated by the water vapour spectrum. In essence, there is no way to observe CO2 to get an accurate measurement.
The UAH sat data comes from AMSU units in sats that detect the microwave emissions from oxygen. The microwave spectrum is just under the IR spectrum. Alarmists claim that the surface cannot cool through radiation from oxygen and nitrogen but there you have evidence that oxygen can radiate and cool the atmosphere. Is nitrogen cooling it further by radiating at a different frequency, perhaps in a higher part of the EM spectrum?
Not quite sure what you mean. The graph I showed you shows the temperature at which 15 micrometre infrared radiation is emitted to space from CO2. That is the temperature at the altitude at which the density of CO2 molecules is low enough to allow radiation from CO2 to reach space instead of being abso**ed.
You may also notice that the red graph was the model for that location from Modtran. The black line was satellite observation. The two match.
Modtran uses the Hitran dataset, which was observations of radiation transmission and absor**ion through the atmosphere. These were compiled secretly during the 1950s to help in the development of infrared air-to-air missiles such as Sidewinder and the monitoring of Russian ballistic missile launches. Nowadays anyone can use it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITRAN
As to being hidden, it’s all in the literature, but it’s fairly subtle and not the sort of thing usually discussed on Fox News.
Wanted: new ideas to live off Moon resources
“Making use of the very first resources of another world would be a major feat for our species, bringing us closer to living in space to stay. But reaching such a milestone will take sustained inventiveness and effort – so ESA invites your ideas to help make it happen.
Making use of space resources will be crucial for sustainable space exploration, enabling us to reduce the costs and risks associated with transporting resources from Earth across space. The Moon is a particularly promising target for resource extraction, given its proximity to Earth and abundance of resources available.
Lunar-sourced resources such as oxygen, metals, lunar regolith and water ice look likely to play a fundamental role in in-space economies. Applications include life support, refuelling of spacecraft, energy storage, surface infrastructure construction and in-space manufacturing. With the Moon’s one sixth Earth gravity these resources could be transferred elsewhere in the Solar System on a comparatively easy and cheap basis.”
https://www.moondaily.com/reports/Wanted_new_ideas_to_live_off_Moon_resources_999.html
The moon is near Earth, you don’t have live on the Moon- anymore
then you can live on ISS.
So, one can visit ISS, and you can visit the Moon.
And it’s even possible to get to lunar surface, quicker than we can dock with ISS.
That worked.
To live on Moon more than 6 months, we got to determine the affect of lunar gravity as compared to microgravity of ISS.
And/or determine the effect of artificial gravity, which might also allow human to live on the Moon, or in Earth, or in Venus orbit, or on Mars surface.
To explore Mars, we have to stay more than 6 months on the Mars surface- and it takes about 6 months to get to Mars and another 1/2 year to travel the distance from Mars to Earth.
Or it should be obvious, we need to test artificial gravity before we send crew to explore Mars. But don’t have to do this to explore the lunar surface with crew.
What have to do with the Moon is to determine whether or not there
is mineable water on the Moon.
This “might” be done with robotic exploration.
At minimal level you could just explore the Moon with robotic exploration. But NASA has been ordered to explore and Moon, and then explore Mars. And sending crew to the Moon is a lot easier than sending crew to Mars. So, if robotic missions find lunar water, one could or should still send crew to lunar surface- to more lunar exploration to find lunar water and help prepared for crewed missions
to Mars. Or as they say, the Moon can be a testbed for Mars exploration.
Or one can say, robotic lunar missions, can help crew mission find mineable lunar water.
Mineable water is like anyone which is mineable- finding gold someplace doesn’t mean there is gold which can mined in that place.
Or there are all kinds of factors, which can determine if one can profit for mining anything.
One can even say exploring Mars, could make lunar water mineable.
So, you want to look around the lunar polar regions, and find a few places where lunar water might be mined, and find one or two places which you think might be the better places to mine lunar water [for various reasons- concentrate of water and/or whether there could be
1 million tonnes of water near the location, and etc.
NASA is Sending Humans Back to the Moon, But it Won’t Stop There. Next Comes Mars
https://www.universetoday.com/160994/nasa-is-sending-humans-back-to-the-moon-but-it-wont-stop-there-next-comes-mars/#more-160994
I have seen worst.
Problems:
“However, the elements required for operations between 2028 and 2033 (when the first mission to Mars is planned) have been in a holding pattern since 2018-2019. These include the Deep Space Transport, the Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) system it would use, the Mars Base Camp, and other concepts that have been proposed since the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. There is also the unresolved issue of whether or not nuclear propulsion is a viable option, as there is research that indicates it will not be ready by 2033.
As the assumptions and minimum requirements show, an orbit-only mission is still possible, though no consensus has been reached on this issue as indicated by the Achieve Mars (AM) IX Report. And, of course, theres the issue of the budget environment. According to a 2015 op-ed by two former NASA personnel, the agencys funding would need to be tripled to achieve the Moon to Mars mission architecture by 2033 (increased from the current 0.5% of the U.S. annual federal budget to 1.5%). ”
Kill the nuclear rocket, plan.
You are not going to triple NASA budget anytime, soon.
No mention of Starship [which NASA is going to pay 3 billion dollars for- which would be a bargain, if it works. And if it works, it would lower your budget needs, and allow you to get to Mars, faster than 2033.
In the central equatorial Pacific, easterly winds will persist.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/04/28/1800Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-148.99,1.71,562
> Einstein failed to grasp the obvious as laid out by Newton, an acceleration requires a force, not the other way around. Newton made that clear and it seems to have escaped Einstein. Newton stated, If a force can move a mass, the mass will accelerateblah, blah, blah.
Bordo’s daily intellectual limbo continues:
https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-acceleration-193330/
Willard,
Bordos daily intellectual limbo continues:?
Please stop trolling.
These are not exactly the magic words, Mike.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Are you retarded or just delusional?
You are getting colder, Moron Mike.
“[W]e cannot decide whether or not we are in a gravitational field or not”.
***
I have no doubt I am in a gravitaional field. Only an idiot trapped in a thought experiment could not figure it out.
If you know you are on Earth, and you find yourself floating in an elevator, you are high on something. If the elevator was going up, you would not be floating and if it was going down, you would not be floating since you’d fall at the same rate as the elevator, if you were on its floor when it started falling.
If it happened while in space on a spaceship, you’d likely have little or no gravity anyway.
Come on, wee willy, you don’t need the rubbish you are receiving from authority figures, think for yourself.
Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, was the one of the only scientists to criticize Einstein for his fairy tale theories. What’s wrong with the courage of the rest?
Come on, Bordo.
The point is not to ignore that we are a gravitational field. The point is that, would we not know where we are, we would not be able to determine if we are in a gravitational field or not by measurement alone. They would be the same.
No wonder you rant and rant and rant.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
RFK Jr.: ‘Every Totalitarian Regime in the History of Mankind’ Has Sought ‘Total Control’
https://pjmedia.com/columns/benbartee/2023/04/22/rfk-jr-every-totalitarian-regime-in-the-history-of-mankind-has-sought-total-control-n1689427
Linked: https://instapundit.com/
Interesting article. Kennedy is one Democrat I can identify with but how long will he be able to maintain his independence once the backroom boys move in? Even Trump was forced to listen to the idiots who make policy.
Maybe there are a few Democrats left with a conscience, I don’t know. Having said that, the biggest problem for Republicans is the number of them who lack a conscience. Neither party seems capable of cluing in to the simple fact that poverty is still an issue when it should have been dealt with long ago.
That’s why I no longer vote. Parties on both sides feature leadership by idiots.
“Thats why I no longer vote.”
Scott Adams says doesn’t vote, to help him be less biased.
It doesn’t seem to help me, and I never vote.
Reminds me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVssUM54X1g
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVssUM54X1g
The Conservative Closet | Dennis and Julie
I never been in any closet- not in my nature.
Gordon
Here is what I was thinking: With the earth having an average surface temperature of 60 degrees F it radiates IR outward and CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs energy and supposabley attains a temperature of the source ie 60F. The Co2 then radiates at 60F but as the earth is the same temp no energy is transferred. As the CO2 is constantly replenished by the earth IR it holds its temperature at 60F. As it is surrounded by oxygen nitrogen and argon some heat can be transferred so long as these gases are below 60F ie upper atmosphere. The CO2 being replenished constantly the heat flow by conduction/convection is constant. Over time this could overcome the big ratio of molecular weights and achieve some order of measurable temperature increase.
Likely full of scientific holes but holds some logic.
Nice to see a forecast for warmer temps here on the coast. Cold spring!
ennis, I responded before when you were “Dennis”. You must have missed it.
We usually don’t consider a single molecule as having a temperature. How would it be measured? But a gas temperature (whole bunch of molecules) can be measured. If you could hand-carry a thermometer straight up into the atmosphere it would be decreasing in temperature with altitude. At tropopause, it would read about -60°F. Note that is MINUS 60°F.
As you stated, the surface averages about +60°F, but temp drops to MINUS 60°F at tropopause, with is roughly about 5-12 miles over your head, depending on your latitude. As I stated previously, an individual CO2 molecule has a vibration associated with the main photon it absorbed from Earth. That being a photon with wavelength of 15μ, which has a WDL temperature of 193K (-80.2C, -112.3F). As you’re aware, that photon ain’t going to do much warming of Earth’s average surface temperature, 288K.
If you’re interested, search on “standard atmosphere”. You can find a chart showing the atmospheric temperature versus altitude.
dennis…”Likely full of scientific holes but holds some logic”.
***
All our arguments have holes in them if you look closely enough. At least you have the courage to post yours and I have found out that is how one learns, through feedback, and evaluating it. Don’t py any attention to anyone who takes shots at your theories, you need a thick skin to survive on the Net.
Besides what Clint offered, I might add the lapse rate theory is worth studying with an open mind. There is a measurable decrease in the temperature of all air molecules with altitude of about 6.5C/kilometre, That’s not written in stone because if you’re on Everest at 25,00 feet and the Sun is shining, it will warm you enough to survive. However, at night, without the Sun, you’ll freeze to death without a sleeping bag and tent.
BTW, I don’t like the lapse rate theory overall because it denies the effect of gravity in cooling with altitude. Also, it implies an adiabatic condition in the atmosphere which I regard as strange. An adiabatic system prevents heat from entering or leaving a system and I don’t think a theoretical vertical column of air in the atmosphere can meet that restriction.
However, it does give a good indication of how the atmosphere cools with altitude. The fact that pressure also decreases, and the reason why, seems to have been missed by lapse rate theorists.
The point is, you can’t really peg CO2, as a gas, as having a temperature unless you specify an altitude. You specified near the surface but there’s a problem there too as pointed out by R.W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2. As soon as radiation leaves the surface, it loses intensity quickly due to the inverse square law. I am no expert on the law but Wood reckoned the IR would lose so much intensity within a few feet of the surface that it would prove useless as a warming agent for CO2.
I have offered an example in the past of the inverse square law. If you turn on a 1500 watt electric stove ring and let it get red hot, you can feel a combination of super-heated air molecules and IR radiation close to the surface. However, if you back off a few feet you feel nothing. That’s how quickly radiation dissipates, and 1500 watts over an approximately 1 square foot area is a heck of a lot hotter than any radiation from the surface of the Earth.
Another problem with your theory is how the Co2 molecules transfer heat to the surrounding nitrogen and oxygen molecules. They can only do it by collision as far as the theory goes. Therefore 1 Co2 molecule must transfer heat via collision with 2500 surrounding N2 and O2 molecules which are at a lower temperature. And, how much heat can be converted from the amount of radiation absorbed. That is the unanswered question.
I find that theory to be highly unlikely. It suggests that a real greenhouse can be warmed only by CO2 and water vapour molecules transferring heat to the surrounding N2/O2 molecules. Or by the glass blocking the radiation from CO2 and WV, which makes no sense as a heating agent. No one has demonstrated ho blocked IR can heat anything.
Wood offered a far better explanation for greenhouse warming. Short wave solar heats the infrastructure, soil, and vegetation and they convert the incoming solar to heat. That heat heats the greenhouse air by direct conduction where the air meets those surfaces and that heated air rises. The glass blocks the rising, heated air and the number of heated molecules accumulate, raising the greenhouse temperature.
In other words, real greenhouses heat due to blocked convection. Alarmists have tried to apply the former theory to the atmosphere wherein glass blocks IR and causes heating. They have extended that theory to CO2 in the atmosphere absorbing about 7% of surface radiation and have implied that blocked IR is like glass in a real greenhouse and causes heating of the atmosphere.
Hansen compared the theorized planet UNIFORM surface temperature
(the Earth’s EFFECTIVE temperature Te =255K) WITH THE SATELLITE MEASURED Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
–
Those temperatures, the planet UNIFORM surface temperature, and the planet AVERAGE surface temperature are different PHYSICS TERMS.
–
By Hansen’s idealized FORMULA, when considering a planet average surface temperature, it cannot mathematically exceed the same planet idealized UNIFORM surface temperature.
–
Thus, Hansen resumed, the satellite measured Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288K, is at least +33 oC warmer than the theorized Earth’s UNIFORM temperature 255K.
–
The +33 oC had to be somehow explained. So it was attributed to the not existent (the very insignificant) the Earth’s atmosphere GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
–
Also, it was asserted, the above very confusing and very mistaken conclusion (The Earth having at least +33 oC GREENHOUSE EFFECT), it was asserted the above was in full accordance with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Rotating round earth temperature
https://i.postimg.cc/rFzypwfs/model-atmo-b-1.jpg
Thank you, Eben, for your respond.
–
Thank you, Eben, for the very interesting Link.
“Rotating round earth temperature
https://i.postimg.cc/rFzypwfs/model-atmo-b-1.jpg ”
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
binny van de klown…”The reason: you dont anything about Newton, except the trivial f=ma you cant stop talking about.
You are simply too dumb to compare Einsteins gravity formulas to Newtons, and to understand where and why they differ.
***
The trivial f = ma??????????????
That formula is the basis of motion in the universe. Give me one formula devised by Einstein that has such importance. I am willing to bet that f = ma applies at the atomic level as well, has we the instruments to measure it.
E = mc^2 does not count since it is nonsense. I have already explained why although you have failed to explain why f = ma is trivial.
Do you really believe that all energy in the universe is related to the speed of light in a cute formula where ‘c’ is squared? Do you really accept that all energy is convertible to mass and vice-versa as in the idiotic Big Bang theory?
If I burn a litre of gas in my car, does e = mc^2 apply? If you have any brains at all you will argue that the energy in a litre of gasoline is converted to other forms of energy because energy is conserved in that case. So, where does the energy in e = mc^2 go if energy is conserved?
Einstein was obviously talking about E as electromagnetic energy. He had a fetish about electromagnetic energy, so much so, that when the planet absorbs EM, Einstein proposed that it’s mass increases. The mass gained, according to Einstein, should be lost when the planet radiates away EM as IR.
***
Einstein does not have a gravity formula, he offered a thought experiment which is full of nonsense. The basis of this thought experiment is acceleration, which he foolishly equated with the parameter, time, which can change in his world. His world is the only world in which time exists, never mind as a variable.
Gordon Robertson
The really sad thing is I have linked you to evidence of E=mc^2 both of matter turning to energy and energy back into matter.
You totally ignore anything outside your very small world of your own make believe.
You have zero science training of any type. Science is a discipline that requires evidence. You reject all evidence and only go by belief. You believe viruses don’t exist because and idiot called Lanka told you that. You ignore several images of Electron Microscopes that demonstrate you wrong but that does not change anything with you.
I have given you multiple lines of evidence that Einstein’s theories have support but you reject and blindly accept the opinions of the man who invented Atomic Clocks. He offers zero evidence that Einstein was wrong but gives his opinions. That is not science at all. Follow the evidence.
You just reject all evidence regardless. Bindidon is quite correct about you. Very arrogant and not very intelligent. Just blindly believe any contraian regardless of any evidence.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Interesting article. Kennedy is one Democrat I can identify with but how long will he be able to maintain his independence once the backroom boys move in? Even Trump was forced to listen to the idiots who make policy.
Maybe there are a few Democrats left with a conscience, I don’t know. Having said that, the biggest problem for Republicans is the number of them who lack a conscience. Neither party seems capable of cluing in to the simple fact that poverty is still an issue when it should have been dealt with long ago.
That’s why I no longer vote. Parties on both sides feature leadership by idiots.
This post obviously ended up in the wrong thread.
“…the biggest problem for Republicans is the number of them who lack a conscience. Neither party seems capable of cluing in to the simple fact that poverty is still an issue when it should have been dealt with long ago.”
Well, few politician are great. And they have a greater chance of being murdered.
There article which don’t know it’s name [or how to find it- but it’s somewhat famous] in which very evil politician or if they trying to do the wrong thing- end up doing the right thing, and others trying to do a “good job” make things worst.
Anyhow, it’s an interesting “thing”.
Personally I think voters pick the right person.
I also suspect voters are actually torturing politicians.
> Einstein does not have a gravity formula
New Episode in Bordo’s Daily Limbo:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einsteins-genius-changed-sciences-perception-gravity
It gets weirder and weirder.
If you want weird, try extending the twins experiment to triplets instead (to make it symmetrical about the ‘center’) and then tell me which triplet is the younger, ‘left’, ‘right’ or ‘center’.
In case you don’t get the problem, from the ‘center’ ‘left and ‘right’ are the same (though different directions). ‘left’ sees ‘right’ travelling faster than the ‘center’ (and vice versa) but they are both the same!
richard…doesn’t matter if it’s twins, triplets, quadruplets or quintiplets, they all age according to an internal mechanism not the speed in a spacecraft. In other words, their biology decides the rate of aging, not speed.
Surely Entropic will agree with that.
In their own reference frame each person ages at 1 second/second in accordance with the clock each carries with them.
The elapsed time for each depends on the acceleration each experiences. The greater the total acceleration the smaller the elapsed time when all the clocks are compared. The only way of comparing the elapsed time for different travellers is to bring them back together and compare their clocks.
Richard,
You might like:
https://ed.ted.com/lessons/einstein-s-twin-paradox-explained-amber-l-stuver
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wee willy…this twin paradox is an example of the trash Einstein produced with his time dilation nonsense. No one gets older or younger by traveling faster, because time has no effect on aging. Time is nothing more than an indicator of how long we have been around, it cannot affect one’s cells. However, we can affect the rate at which we age by treating out bodies poorly.
Since you cannot grasp the reality of how the Sun heats the Earth –you believe heat travels through the vacuum of space –you will never understand the error in the twin paradox. Humans age by cell mutations and cell aging, and that has nothing to do with a clock.
If we had no clocks, we’d age just the same.
Anyway, carry on with your delusions, you are fooling no one but yourself and others who think like you.
The twins paradox is asymmetrical. The triplets experiment is symmetrical. That difference matters.
Simultaneity is not symmetric, for two simultaneous events in one frame may not be simultaneous in another.
wee willy…from article at link…”General relativity explains how the universe can obey physical laws that apply to any form of motion. Its at the heart of identifying and investigating crucial questions about space and time, existence and reality. And its implications are not limited to esoteric concerns on cosmic scales it has its down-to-Earth impacts as well. Without general relativity, for instance, GPS devices would be worthless. Satellite signals designed to keep your car on the right road would be off by miles if not corrected for the effects predicted by Einsteins math”.
***
This is unmitigated rubbish from an Einstein groupie who does not even begin to understand basic physics. For one, mass moves in the universe according to its own rules. It does not need humans to tell it how to move. What Einstein offered was a load of thought experiments based on time, which has no existence. All Einstein accomplished was obfuscating science in a direction it did not need to go.
The author claims GPS devices would be worthless without Einstein, absolute nonsense.
Before GPS, we had Loran-C, a direction finding system based on transmitters located around the surface. If a ship at sea could hone in on any two signals, the ship could triangulated to get its position. The only difference between that and GPS is that GPS units fly on a satellite while Loran-C stations are Earth bound.
The author is confused about the fact the satellites move while the land stations don’t. Ships move wrt Loran-C stations but at a much slower speed. The sats have their own time systems because they use atomic clocks that are onboard. It is vital to keep that time system coordinated with the land station time system and that requires correction that has nothing to do with time dilation. It is a problem of coordination between time systems.
Some whiney idiot has postulated that time dilation is involved which is a load of bull feathers. As I have explained, there is no known instrument that can measure time dilation, even if it existed. Furthermore, at the velocity of satellites it would be totally insignificant anyway.
What needs to be adjusted is the relative velocity of the satellite to the velocity of the EM signal to and from the satellite from land stations. That is a straight problem with relativity that has nothing to do with time dilation.
Somehow, Einsteinians have confused the velocity of a moving EM wave, which is a real entity, that is moving relative to a land station, as a time problem. It is not, it is a problem of an energy form moving through a medium, where it’s source is moving.
It’s exactly the same as the Doppler effect produced in a train whistle as the train move relative to the observer. Nothing to do with time whatsoever.
However, one can make it a time problem…on paper. Then one can delude oneself into thinking time is somehow related.
The EM wave would move anyway, with our without the human invention of time. Time is required only to measure its velocity for human purposes. That time cannot change since it is synchronized to the Earth’s rotational period. Clocks are used as measuring devices but play no part in the motion of the Em wave. The atomic clocks on sats play no part in that motion either, they are simply very accurate clocks.
There are issues, however. The time on the sat has to be encoded and sent to Earth stations where it must be decoded and processed. That takes time, even in the fastest computers. So, there is an inherent delay built into the signals, both from travel time for the signals and the decoding/encoding processes. That delay must be accounted for and adjusted. It is a delay not a dilation.
Einstein groupies are a pain in the butt to science. They spreads absolute bs based on Einstein’s error re space-time. There was no need to introduce his bs since Newtonian physics covers it adequately in the macro space in which we live. In the atomic space, it’s not all that important since corrections can be made at the macro level that encompass all errors.
In electronics, there are all sorts of errors take place at the atomic level related to errors in semiconductor quality control and heating issues, etc. All those errors are handled at the macro level by systems like feedback systems.
In some Macintosh amplifiers, they have about 7 different forms of current control in the power output circuit. They even detect how quickly the current is changing through the output transistors, and knowing how quickly they should change with audio amps they can tell the current is rising too fast. That allows the control circuit to shut of current from the power supply to save the output circuit.
That is the same kind of techniques used in satellite communications in GPS systems. It is idiotic to presume there is instrumentation checking for time dilation since there is no known electronics that can deal with such a fantasy.
BTW…if what he claims is true, that vehicles are controlled by satellite signals, you won’t find me traveling in one. One would have to be seriously naive to trust such a system.
More from the deluded Einsteinian…
“After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newtons nave idea that masses attract each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moved matter along the curving pathways embodied in spacetime paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves”.
***
Newton’s naive idea that masses attract each other????????
Seriously, this author is ready for the looney bin. Where is the proof that Newton was wrong, let alone naive? What we are witnessing here is the scary descent of science into the ridiculous. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that a mysterious space-time is driving the universe. On the other hand, there is loads of evidence that gravity drives it.
All one has to do is step onto a bathroom scale. It is gravitational force attracting you to the Earth that operates the scale. Einsteinians would have us believe the scale operates due to some mysterious, undefined space-time.
According to the author, Einstein has claimed gravity serves only to move matter along the curved pathways of spacetime. Would someone explain where one can find these pathways of space and time?
Is the world going completely mad?
C’mon, Bordo.
Just take your meds.
Everything is going to be fine.
Willard, please stop trolling.
TEXANS USED TO BE BRAVER: SpaceX celebrated Starships 1st launch. Some locals called it truly terrifying.
https://instapundit.com/
“Closer to ground zero, the 33 engines of the rocket’s main booster left a literal crater in the concrete at Starship’s launch pad. Debris large enough to crush a car (opens in new tab) was sent flying in every direction, and while the tower was left standing, the launch complex is in need of some major clean up efforts.”
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-launch-debris-terrifying
I, of course, have my weird ideas of how to prevent it.
In terms of my pipelauncher, I didn’t think it was much a problem
with normal rockets. But with a starship, I thinking tossing it away from the pipelauncher. Or roughly speaking the rocket would lit about 100 meters above the ocean surface. Here is a picture of crater:
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-rocket-crater-concrete-launchpad-upon-liftoff-2023-4
But in a world without pipelaunchers, I was thinking of copper pipes
filled with flowing water, and about 3 layer with outset space.
But after looking at crater, at least 6 layers.
> doesnt matter if its twins, triplets, quadruplets or quintiplets, they all age according to an internal mechanism not the speed in a spacecraft.
Lower and lower and lower and lower:
https://theconversation.com/how-to-test-the-twin-paradox-without-using-a-spaceship-25458
Willard,
Lower and lower and lower and lower?
Please stop trolling.
Yes, Mike Flynn – Bordo’s Limbo.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSGB09ktsy0
Willard,
Lower and lower and lower and lower?
Please stop trolling.
Yes, Mike.
Lower and lower and lower and lower.
An infinite descent.
By contrast, your contributions would represent a constant.
Willard, please stop trolling.
your article is just more proof of how many idiot we have on the planet.
This comment of yours is just another illustration of how Very Special your are, Bordo.
Not relatively speaking. You are the absolute unit of a crank.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Now say which triplet who departs Earth, one in the direction of Alpha Centauri, one in 180 degrees opposite to that (opposite direction) and one who remains on the Earth at the center?
For the triplet who remains on Earth, both the 2 moving ones are the same ‘age’ but for each moving one who see the other moving one travelling a larger distance in the same time how can they both be the ‘same’?
Symmetry matters and is different to asymmetry.
Are you suggesting that time dilation does not exist, Richard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Are you suggesting that you cannot answer the question?
What question, Richard?
Which triplet is younger after the trip mentioned in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1478824
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1478957
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479057
Willard only addresses the symmetry, not the asymmetry.
Richard fumbles over another formal concept.
In relativity The concept “simultaneous” has no meaning, especially when applied to accelerating objects in different locations.
The question has no answer while the twins are in motion. You have to compare their elapsed time after they return to Earth.
The twins when compared on return to Earth is asymmetrical. The triplets (2 of which experience the same as the twins) are symmetrical.
So which, if any, are younger and why?
The the two travelling triplets should have clocks that agree with each other. Both clock should be slower than the one on Earth.
The clocks of the travelling triplets cannot be compared directly, however. We need to compare them with the clock on Earth. The paradox is thus resolved by applying transitivity.
So do you think that the triplet moving away from the Earth sees the other triplet moving further (and hence faster) i.e. different in velocity to Earth, during their whole trip apart?
This is the true asymmetry question. How does it match to the symmetry (which is all you have addressed)?
When the triplets return to the Earth we can compare ALL the clocks directly.
If you want, we can transmit a light pulse for every second that passes (on each moving or static frame). Do you think that the moving pair will see the pulses at the same time or different from the Earth and the other moving triplet?
Richard,
The asymmetry is between the travellers and the Earthling, so I am not sure what you mean when you say that it should be between the two travellers.
I suppose that the two spaceships have the same speed and the same magnitude. I then infer that the accelerometers in each indicate the same quantity. Time dilation only varies with magnitude, it is directionless.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Time dilation only varies with magnitude, it is directionless.”
Well, thats informative – not!
That would be a new-age retard version of saying precisely nothing whilst trying to appear clever, would it?
You really have no clue about any of this, have you? Maybe you could paste something from Wikipedia which doesnt support you – again!
Carry on.
Nothing or no one could inform you of anything, Moron Mike.
Keep calm and drive using your GPS mindlessly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The asymmetry is between the travellers and the Earthling”
Willard is wrong as usual. The travelers are symmetrical wrt the Earth but asymmetrical wrt each other.
Each traveler sees the other one as different to the Earth (and hence at a different, slower, timescale). Reconciling that with the symmetry that the Earth perceives is the whole problem.
“Time dilation only varies with magnitude, it is directionless”
Indeed. But the magnitude between each moving triplet and themselves is larger than there is to Earth. That is the whole point.
Information travels between the three triplets at the speed of light in the inertial reference frame. This affects what each observer sees.
Let’s give them names. Alice, travelling towards Alpha Centauri, sees her own clock running normally. She sees Bob’s clock on Earth running slow and and Charlie’s clock running even slower.
Bob sees his own clock running normally while both Alice’s clock and Charlie’s clocks run slow.
Charlie sees his own clock running normally. He sees Bob’s clock runs slow and Alice’s clock running slower than Bob’s.
Indeed ET, indeed.
Now explain what would happen if the Hafele-Keating experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment was done N-S instead of E-W. Which of the N-S clocks would be slower and why?
Please note, we can assume that the same relative velocity between planes is obtained both N-S and E-W.
Richard is wrong as usual:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Semon/publication/1972681_Two_Examples_of_Circular_Motion_for_Introductory_Courses_in_Relativity/links/00b7d53343d650ab39000000/Two-Examples-of-Circular-Motion-for-Introductory-Courses-in-Relativity.pdf
Willard is just unable to answer either question. Which is younger?
Richard just cannot understand one formal concept.
On the contrary I understand the principles all too well. You still are unable to answer simple questions but just suggest that others have answered them for you without being able to quote what they say in either case.
Symmetry is aRb = bRa.
If a is Alice, b is Bob, and R the belief that the other person is younger, then the triplet paradox expresses that symmetry.
The situation is paradoxical because “younger than” is usually believe to be asymmetric. It is also paradoxical because a third observer, Charlie, could see that *both* would be justified in believing that the other is younger.
The triplet paradox, like the twin paradox, is a veridical paradox because it only appears so. Like all the other variants on the twin paradox, it *has* a solution. Its interest lies in the fact that the usual solution to the twin paradox does not work in that case.
However, many solutions exist – v. the paper I just cited.
And asymmetry is like how a and b see R as being different to each other one. Symmetry is like how R sees a and b are similar.
Willard says that a and b are the same age as each other, even though they have travelled through different distances/velocity as observed by each other.
That only works for the center, not for each edge.
> Willard says that a and b are the same age as each other
It’s actually Werton-London & al who says it:
Op. Cit.
The calculations are offered in Appendix B.
So the moving pair are the same age as each other even though they have observed larger distance/velocity as obtained by each other.
As I said before, that only holds for the center, not the edge.
Please note, neither you nor who you quote says what the moving triplets clocks show when compared to each other.
“It is interesting to note that in this approach the resolution is not obtained by directly comparing the clocks held by the two traveling triplets; rather, it comes from comparing each of the traveling clocks with a third clock, the one that remains on Earth.”
Now directly compare them.
> neither you nor who you quote says what the moving triplets clocks show when compared to each other.
That was covered earlier in the paper:
One paragraph earlier.
I paraphrased it two comments above, when explaining the paradox behind the triplet paradox.
You explained nothing. You just said if we take it from the point of view of the Earth, all is satisfied. You even excluded a direct comparison of the moving clocks when they meet back up on Earth.
“Now directly compare them. ”
You can’t compare them.
You can use the light or radio telemetry to compare how they behaved in the past, but you cannot compare them in real time until they return to the same location and velocity.
That requires the godlike power to send information faster than light. You can calculate what the clocks are doing if the spacecraft are moving as you expect, but you can’t measure anything remotely.
“You cant compare them.”
Of course you can if they are in the same room. How can they show the same results if there has been a past velocity between them? How can they not be different to the Earth clock which has not moved?
> You explained nothing.
Which part of
you do not get, dummy?
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“If a is Alice, b is Bob, and R the belief that the other person is younger, then the triplet paradox expresses that symmetry.”
Belief has nothing to do with it.
You demonstrate your lack of understanding of reality. You are retarded enough to believe that the Earth is warming due to some mythical effect which you can’t even describe, in spite of the reality of four and a half billion years of cooling,
Do you really expect anybody to believe that a retard like yourself is to be regarded as an authority on relativity? Not only retarded, but deluded into the bargain!
Willard has yet to explain 2 things, how to deal with the fact that he has not answered how to view things from the moving triplets (where they see the other moving faster/further than the Earth) and the whole second question https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251 about who is younger N or S.
Willard just claims that symmetry equals asymmetry without any further examination.
Richard has yet to understand that what he’s looking for is the actual question he is actually asking.
[W] Symmetry is aRb = bRa.
[R] Willard just claims that symmetry equals asymmetry without any further examination.
Moron Mike,
You say –
“Belief has nothing to do with it.”
Don’t take my word for it:
Cheers.
Asymmetry sees things from the edges, not the center.
Willard fails to answer
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251
aRb and bRa are different when seen from the edge (i.e. different directions).
Asymmetry is aRb => NOT(bRa).
If Bob is older than Alice, then Alice is not older than Bob.
“If Bob is older than Alice, then Alice is not older than Bob.”
But apparently Bob is the same age as Alice. Despite then having different timelines.
Got a useful insight into N and S now?
> but apparently
Yes. Alice and Bob have the same (justified) belief. Yet only one can be true, according to our mundane understanding of how aging works.
That is the paradox.
Does the paradox invalidate the theory of relativity?
There are 3 different possible viewpoints
1. A = B which both are less than or equal C
2. A less than or equal C less than or equal B
3. B less than or equal C less than or equal A
It might be worth considering A equals C equal B
The paradox has been solved, Richard. I already told you the solution.
Read the paper. One of its authors wrote a book on relativity theory.
The paradox has not been solved just be saying we can ignore the 2 asymmetrical viewpoints.
Willard has yet to answer
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251
Say, UK to South Africa, with a fixed clock at each destination. Which is younger of the moving clocks and why?
With a different emphasis:
Do you remember having read that paragraph recently, Richard?
So Willard skips answering https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1480095
“Do you remember having read that paragraph recently”
I remember reading that the moving triplets see each other as being the same as them even though they have experienced different velocities.
“It is interesting to note that in this approach the resolution is not obtained by directly comparing the clocks held by the two traveling triplets; rather, it comes from comparing each of the traveling clocks with a third clock”
Thus ignoring the moving triplets experience completely. Just compare things to the fixed Earth based one instead. Talk about making things fit to a given point of view.
“If you want, we can transmit a light pulse for every second that passes (on each moving or static frame). Do you think that the moving pair will see the pulses at the same time or different from the Earth and the other moving triplet?”
Pulses can help to see who is experiencing an acceleration and two different reference frames: the two traveling triplets.
They see fewer pulses while traveling out, more pulses traveling in. This change happens when they accelerate, and makes clear that they are the ones changing their reference frame.
The traveling triplets emit few pulses but both receive many more pulses from Earth. They both experience a symmetrical time dilation and are equally younger than the Earth triplet.
Transmitting pulses every period is interesting as when 2 frames are moving away from each other less pulses are received than when they are moving closer to each other as greater/lesser distances have to be covered. Please note that the fixed, central, position must continuously receive pulses from the moving pair at the same time, always.
“This change happens when they accelerate”
If you involve different frames moving past each other with information being exchanged immediately as they pass then no acceleration is involved. Ever.
“They both experience a symmetrical time dilation and are equally younger than the Earth triplet.”
But they also see the other moving triplet at a faster rate than the Earth and thus see them as being asymmetrical.
Asymmetry cannot equal symmetry, ever.
What you perceive and can measure may not be what is the case, Sometimes.
What is the question is not the answer. Most of the times.
“Asymmetry cannot equal symmetry, ever.”
Not sure what you are getting at here.
It seems you agree that the two travelling triplets are equally younger than the non-travelling triplet, when they return to Earth.
What is the controversy or issue here then?
Willard still fails to answer
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251
So is N or S the younger of the clocks?
Nate also fails to answer
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251
So is N or S the younger of the clocks?
“It seems you agree that the two travelling triplets are equally younger than the non-travelling triplet, when they return to Earth.”
No I don’t. Each moving triplet will see the other moving one as travelling further/faster than the central Earth one. That is the asymmetrical position.
Richard refuses the answer. What up he is looking for is the question, formulated in a way that would refute relativity theory.
“when they return to Earth.” they are equally younger, is what you did not dispute, RLH.
You havent made clear what your issue is.
So Willard which is younger?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251
So is N or S the younger of the clocks?
“‘when they return to Earth.’ they are equally younger, is what you did not dispute, RLH.”
Wrong.
“You haven’t made clear what your issue is.”
Which of the moving triplets are younger? Likewise which of the North/South clocks are younger?
Neither of which you have answered.
Nate’s answer is that 2N (approximately) = N.
> Wrong.
Again, with emphasis:
Richard might try to deny that the clock indicates age.
Yet again Willard fails to answer
Which is younger?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479251
This is the same as the question I posted earlier just with asymmetry apparently being OK but symmetry not so.
Willard believes that 2N (approximately) = N.
Which of the moving triplets are younger?
I answered you. They are equally younger when they return to Earth, because they experienced the same magnitude/duration of acceleration.
You can count the pulses the moving triplets receive from Earth and see that they must have received an equal number.
You can count the pulses they sent to Earth and see they sent an equal number to Earth, which is less than what Earth sent to them. Thus they are younger, and equally so.
“Likewise which of the North/South clocks are younger?”
Not interested.
“Nates answer is that 2N (approximately) = N.”
Nope, and weird, RLH.
wee willy…”The whole paragraph:
Does anything other than drivel and slobbering come from Binny? An acceleration forms a force? Have you gone stark, raving mad? What the heck is an acceleration without a force?
These are not your words?”
***
Yes, they are my words. Do you see the question mark following “An acceleration forms a force?”. I am posing a question to express my incredulity at the preposterous statement that acceleration can cause a force.
Of course, acceleration cannot create a force. If you are talking about g-force, which some claim is due to acceleration, no one calls it a g-acceleration. If you are riding in a rocket-driven spacecraft, you might feel a pressure of 5-g’s on your body, but it is not the acceleration causing the pressure. It is the motors supplying the force that causes the sensation of pressure. If the motors stop suddenly, the pressure is gone, as is the acceleration.
Force and pressure go together, not acceleration and pressure.
Immediately…instantly…shut off the motors and the acceleration stops. It’s the force causing the acceleration.
There are other situations where you may feel a g-force, like when turning sharp corner. If you cut the motor, the car will fly off the road in a tangential direction and your feeling of force will cease immediately. Of course, you’d better brace yourself for a crash in case the brakes don’t do the job. The instant the motor is cut, and the car starts moving tangentially, the pressure is gone. The pressure came from the door trying to drag you off the tangential path.
Come on, Bordo.
Are you really unable to grasp that your question was merely rhetorical? Is it because you argue from incredulity four times before breakfast each day thatt you cannot recognize it anymore? Do you at least realize that, were it a real question, you would not have spit at Binny?
Are these questions enough for you to get that question marks may not imply an interrogative stance? Why are you you so cranky all the time?
Tell us about your hi-fi system instead.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“If you cut the motor, the car will fly off the road in a tangential direction and your feeling of force will cease immediately. Of course, youd better brace yourself for a crash in case the brakes dont do the job.”
Ah come on Gordon, no it won’t.
It’s the front wheels that are causing the acceleration. Which is causing the force from the door.
bob, please stop trolling.
Bit of a brain-teaser for anyone interested. We know that degrees F are related to degrees C by the equation…
F = 9/5C + 32.
Conversely, C = 5/9(F – 32)
That locates us on the temperature scale between C and F and vice-versa.
Suppose we just want to know the number of degrees C compared to so many degrees F? How would you do it?
Say F = 3.5 degrees. How many degrees C are equivalent, and how would you solve it? I did it after some head scratching and maybe it’s just me who took so long.
Again, I don’t mean 3.5 degrees on the F scale I mean 3.5 degrees anywhere on the F scale. Say the number of degrees between 70F and 73.5 degrees F. How many degrees C does that represent?
Gordon, it’s just the slope of the line — 9/5.
F = (9/5)C
C = (5/9)F
C = (5/9)(3.5) = 1.94°
clint…good point and on the mark. I had gotten myself into it from a numerical POV.
If you use the full equation for a line, y – yo = m(x – xo) where c is on the y-axis and F is on the x-axis you have…
C – C0 = m(F – Fo)
so, m = (C – Co)/(F – Fo)
=(100 – 0)/(212 – 32) = 100/180 = 5/9
The usual form for that is C = 5/9(F – 32), and you have to multiply by 5/9 to get C = 5/9F – 5/9(32) = 5/9F – 17.8
In that form, y = mx + b, the b is the y-intercept, so the equation tells you the line crosses the y-axis at -17.7C. That is, when F = 0, C = -17.7
In the other form, when F is y and C is x, F = 9/5C + 32, when C = 0, F = +32.
Then I started thinking deeper, which is usually when my troubles start. ☺ ća;
0C is a degree of measure. If you start counting at 0C then 100 degrees ends at 99C. Therefore there must be 101 degrees. Same in Fahrenheit. So, the slope has to be (101 – 0)/(213-32) = 101/181 = 0.55801, which is nearly 0.56.
I realize there is some ifi-ness here. The counting method above applies to digital logic in binary. If you count in binary from 0 to 127 you get 128 discrete combinations. With degrees temperature you have an analog counting system.
Still, in decimal…in the Celsius scale, 0 is counted as 1. This is not a situation where 0 is NULL, it is an actual temperature. If 0C is 1, then….
0 – 9 = 10
10 – 19 = 10
…..
90 – 99 = 10
leaving 100, therefore total number of degrees = 101. If that’s right, then the line in F = 9/5C + 32 is wrong.
***
I am not sure about this, input is welcome.
***
Another issue that comes to mind. If 100C is the temperature of boiling water and 0C the temperature of freezing water, Is there not an issue at either extreme? Apparently the freezing process starts around 4C although ice will not form at 4C. However, does freezing actually begin at 0C on the nose?
Same with boiling water. 100C is rated at the maximum temperature of liquid water and it’s not supposed to get hotter. Is that written in stone. If it’s not for freezing and boiling then 0C and 100C are not really good set points.
What I am talking about is trivial and won’t affect most of the science we do. I am just curious.
> I dont like the lapse rate theory overall because it denies the effect of gravity in cooling with altitude
Lower and lower and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
Willard,
You might like to reconsider your worship of Wikipedia, which provides incomplete and misleading information from time to time.
How does gravity “support” a “parcel of gas”?
Just quoting random stuff from the internet is the province of the retarded.
Mike Flynn,
You might like to consider the possibility that Bordo rants about stuff so basic a cursory glance at encyclopedic entries reveals how cranky he is.
Cheers.
Willard. please stop trolling.
Massive iceberg discharges during the last ice age had no impact on nearby Greenland, raising new questions about climate dynamics
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/24/massive-iceberg-discharges-during-the-last-ice-age-had-no-impact-on-nearby-greenland-raising-new-questions-about-climate-dynamics/
–Instead, the researchers found that these Heinrich events caused rapid warming in Antarctica, at the other end of the globe.
The researchers anticipated Greenland, in close proximity to the ice sheet, would have experienced some kind of cooling. To find that these Heinrich Events had no discernible impact on temperatures in Greenland is surprising and could have repercussions for scientists understanding of past climate dynamics, said study co-author Christo Buizert, an assistant professor in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences.
If anything, our findings raise more questions than answers, said Buizert, a climate change specialist who uses ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to reconstruct and understand the Earths climate history. This really changes how we look at these massive events in the North Atlantic. Its puzzling that far-flung Antarctica responds more strongly than nearby Greenland.–
Maybe land ice, doesn’t cool?
What is temperature of Mars if completely covered by 100 meter of H20 snow?
I’m sorry, but it’s going to be a very cold spring in the US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/04/30/0600Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-97.85,48.58,562
THE COLUMN: Bust Go the Boomers
https://the-pipeline.org/the-column-bust-go-the-boomers/?fbclid=IwAR3hNCUsl1od_4s9FKR6AI8mn2WIj1HnGTSb9Yi6rx1Zr1PULWp7YHAt6sQ
Meh.
The worst thing was worring about global warming- otherwise not much different than other times.
I doubt China will be as stupid as to invade their island, but Russia
was pretty stupid. I think they would do it if they faced a crisis-
and I think it will take at least 5 years before this happens.
But they will probably continue threatening to do it.
But world should not allow them to threaten, and the continuous, North Korea type threatening probably will create crisis, quicker.
Arctic ice looks very good.
https://i.ibb.co/tPdzzQW/masie-all-zoom-4km.png
An influx of Arctic air is beginning in central Europe, which will stretch into early May.
It’s the Sun stupid
https://bit.ly/3LxrpaJ
Dang! Is that why the GHE cannot stop the surface cooling at night? Lack of sunlight?
Whod a thought?
In fact, the atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly depends on the surface temperature of the oceans and on the status of the biosphere, although it might also be suddenly altered by volcanic activity.
Diatoms in the oceans thrive better in spring and autumn, so they prefer cooler water.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
> Here we show that the Earth system has continued to accumulate heat, with 38161 ZJ accumulated from 1971 to 2020. This is equivalent to a heating rate (i.e., the EEI) of 0.480.1 W m−2. The majority, about 89 %, of this heat is stored in the ocean, followed by about 6 % on land, 1 % in the atmosphere, and about 4 % available for melting the cryosphere. Over the most recent period (20062020), the EEI amounts to 0.760.2 W m−2.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/
Prolly the suburban island effect.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For anyone who is interested in this “accumulate heat” retarded nonsense, I will quote a little of Wilhelm Wien’s Nobel Lecture in 1911.
“There are however further difficulties. The energy elements increase with decreasing wavelength, and an oscillator exposed to incident radiation will, at low intensity, need a very long time before it absorbs a full energy element. What happens if the incident radiation ceases, before an entire energy element has been absorbed? The difficulties implicit in answering this question have recently induced Planck to reformulate his original theory.”
The lecture is easily found on the internet.
Wien demonstrates that accepting the then current hypotheses and theories can lead to realising that, if observations do not support the consensus, the consensus is wrong. An example is Max Planck reformulating his theory, when it failed to explain observed reality.
Do retarded SkyDragon cultists ever accept reality? No, they just keep claiming that they are right, and reality is wrong. Ask a SkyDragon cultist to describe the GHE in a way that accords with reality, and all you are likely to get is diatribes about being “anti science”, threats of imprisonment or death, evasion and diversion.
Not much “science” there, is there?
Hence quantum theory.
There are two varieties of quantum theory, the variety Bohr created and the variety he destroyed. Bohr’s original form of quantum theory, that explained the relationship between EM and electrons in atoms, was a brilliant insight. He he been smart, he would have retired on top. Instead, he will go on to be revealed as the clown who led the charge into the sci-fi variety, where electrons are claimed to communicate over great distances.
Alan Longhursts Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science”
“Finally, a climate science book that readers will learn from. Many readers here are well versed in at least some of the myriad atmospheric and oceanic forces that add up to the complex coupled non-linear chaotic system (IPCC TAR Chapter 14) that is the Earths climate.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/25/alan-longhursts-doubt-and-certainty-in-climate-science/
I have not read it. But it might something to read if you are interested global climate.
test
Typical for Scafetta papers
” A new study exposes the uncertainty in solar activity reconstructions, but suggests solar models explain climate changes far better than atmospheric CO2 concentrations. ”
One must be dumb to gullibly follow an article based on such a contradiction.
Sez Bindiclown who thinks you can power a light bulb with ice
See the dumb ankle-biting, stalking dachshund Eben, who can’t stop lying.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Do you use Barry’s Energy Funnel to concentrate the energy from ice to power your lamps ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479326
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Larry Williams is one such follower.
It is more a matter of gullibility.
Twas a response to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479296
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why do we have the cargo cult of global warming?
Is it because US military showed up at island with primitive
people?
Is it because people live in technological world, and many people
are clueless about the world they live in?
Or is largely about not understanding Venus.
Or could say, it’s mostly long story of many stories stitched together, a unification many cults, designed unify into global
religion, kind of like Christianity around 400 AD?
Or just sort of a train wreck.
There is no cargo cult, just your denial of a whole body of scientific evidence?
The body if scientific evidence that higher CO2 levels could has global warming or the claim that present CO2 levels cause global average surface to increase by 33 C?
But in terms of scientific understanding we are in an icehouse global climate.
In regard to common sense, air temperature at 1 atm of pressure which is 15 C, is cold.
And some facts, the ocean surface air average temperature is about 17 and land average is about 10 C.
Europe’s average surface temperature is about 9 C and Europe would be about 10 C colder, if it wasn’t warmed by tropical waters.
Canada’s and Russian average temperature is about -3 C, and China is about 8 C.
Though India’s average temperature is about 25 C, Florida average is about 23 C, and where I live it’s about 15 C.
By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.57.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.54 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.
If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide could be 800 ppm or higherconditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
And the cause of the mid-Pliocene higher temperatures and higher CO2 was….?
And because the Black Death happened homicide is not possible, right?
Global average temperatures around 19C and CO2 around 500ppm are Earth’s normal state, with free circulation of warm water through the Arctic.
Much of the Pliocene reset was due to plate tectonics. The Isthmus of Panama and the Bering Strait closed, cooling the Arctic and allowing the Arctic sea ice and ice sheets to form. Increased ice albedo lowered the temperature and caused carbon sinks to take up CO2.
Add changes in Earth’s orbit and we moved from warm Eocene conditions through the intermediate Pliocene climate into the current Ice Age.
EM,
You wrote –
“Global average temperatures around 19C and CO2 around 500ppm are Earths normal state, with free circulation of warm water through the Arctic..”
When did God give you this revelation?
It doesn’t seem to be in the Bible. Is it basis for some other religion or cult?
Maybe you were just having ecstatic visions.
Willard,
You wrote –
“And because the Black Death happened homicide is not possible, right?”
Sigh. If you say so Wee Willy, if you say sol
— Entropic man says:
April 26, 2023 at 4:56 PM
Global average temperatures around 19C and CO2 around 500ppm are Earths normal state, with free circulation of warm water through the Arctic.–
Earth normal state is a greenhouse global climate- or 70% of the time it was in greenhouse global climate.
19 C is normal for icehouse global climate, or average temperature of the ocean less than 6 C and Earth global average temperature could be warmer than 19 C.
A greenhouse global climate has an ocean with an average temperature of 10 C or warmer.
Currently we in the coldest time of the 33.9 million year old Icehouse global climate or it’s called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age- one five Ice Ages which generally last tens of millions of years. And since Earth is billions of years old, Ice Ages are rarer, and Greenhouse global climates are far more common.
In earlier and recent interglacial periods, in the thermal max period or peak interglacial, average global temperature were 17 to 18 C and sea level were more than 4 meter up than present sea levels.
And these warmer parts of the interglacial period lasted several thousand years. Or was Not a century or so of warmer average temperatures.
I say sol, Mike.
I say sol.
Good for you.
The dystopianists claim we’ve permanently changed the climate pattern with CO2 and will stay in this interglacial. And, this is a bad thing? We can survive warm. We can’t survive cold. Billions of people will die when this interglacial ends. We’re on the deck of the Titanic, worrying about our card games.
Humans survived all the species they helped lead to extinction:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aao5987
That includes many lineages.
Why stop there?
Troglodyte is sure to be on the right side. Or at least its adjacent.
Teh Donald said so.
“Smith et al. show that biased loss of large-bodied mammal species from ecosystems is a signature of human impacts…”
***
Why doesn’t Smith take wee willy with him, and track down a polar bear, without any means of self-defense, and see what the large-bodied mammal thinks of him and his buddy. Of course, wee willy would likely talk the bear to death.
It would not bother me in the least if polar bears, grizzly bears, cougars, wolves, sharks, crocs, and every killer species disappeared for good. They can take the mosquitoes and every other form of pest with them.
Bring back DDT!!! And to hell with Rachel Carson and the rest of her eco-weenie crowd.
Your sadistic fantasies are intriguing, Bordo.
Tell us more.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“We cant survive cold. Billions of people will die when this interglacial ends.”
One could argue, it’s already ended. You also argue Holocene didn’t even start. But a glaciation period is long time with ups and down- but assuming, billions dying when coldest. Something like the most recent, “Last Glacial Maximum”.
Well it just means Humans have less land they can use.
At the present, we have less land we can use, due to ice sheets and deserts. So we will have MORE ice sheets and deserts.
If we have ocean settlements, we have area to live in than we live in now, and it will better areas than anyplace we living now,
And all we need is cheap breakwaters, and I have a few ideas about much cheaper breakwaters, then we using currently.
We could also be living in Venus orbit- which would much better than
ocean settlements. And in terms area/volume- many Earths- like a thousand, Earths. And sunlight is actually, free energy. You don’t need any electrical grids. You get all electrical power you need, and you need less electrical power.
But this is depends, on whether Moon and/or Mars has mineable water, and depends upon unknown health effect of artificial gravity.
Considering that you don’t really need cheap breakwaters {it just makes it cheaper and faster to do] you could just make more expensive
breakwaters- and don’t have depend on unknown factors.
Of course another problem is cheap energy to live anywhere on Earth.
With expensive breakwaters, ocean settlement could still make it so your energy per capita is lower than living on land.
Though depends on how stupid you make breakwaters.
Also, there are many cargo cults. And maybe a few global warming cargo cults.
The one the news brays about, is one I am mostly talking about.
Starship Will Change Humanity Soon
Tomas Pueyo Apr 25, 2023
“But SpaceX will make it work. And when it does, what will matter is that its humongous.”
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/how-starship-will-change-humanity?utm_placement=newsletter
That simple way to say. Sea Dragon was plan, but if you made Sea Dragon [which was planned to reuse first stage] it also would have changed everything- because it makes Starship look small.
Anyhow bigness is a big deal.
Bigness allows reusablity. But it’s cheap even without reusablity.
Space Shuttle was big, it had to be big to try to make it reusable.
But Space Shuttle payload was only 25 tons, and though you repair the orbitor, it took months to do, and that was only thing it “tried” to reuse. Of course the Space Shuttle could return payload from orbit, but it mostly return crew {up to 7}.
Musk [being crazy] tried to reuse a medium class rocket, and it evolved into something that could put 18 tons into orbit- and 20 ton was big rocket {not compared to Saturn V or Space Shuttle- but compared all large commercial rocket in the world- Chinese, Russian European never have a larger rocket- unless count, Buran which was Soviet copy of the Space Shuttle. Soviet did a test flight with Buran and gave up on it.
At end says:
–Conversely, I dont think deep space is as viable. Tourism, deep-space mining, or Mars colonization are not businesses. This limits their potential a lot. I will cover this in the premium article this week–
Well, you think $100 to LEO is cheap.
How about $1 per kg to GEO?
And also drop it to $1 per kg to LEO
“Starship Will Change Humanity Soon”
They can’t even get the thing off the ground without it blowing up.
Although I admire Musk for his stance on Twitter and other matters, he named his child X, for short. Like other parents who won’t have to bear such a moniker, they apply the name to satisfy their own egos and have no consideration for the child.
As far as changing humanity, we must think laterally. What happens when some of the sats he has launched begin losing orbit and crash to Earth?
One negative about Musk, for me, is the blind faith he places in technology. When you create a car that has no driver, you are demonstrating a disregard for the limitations of control systems, especially on our road systems, that are highly congested. When you fly 50,000 satellites, as he plans to do, you are playing with the same irresponsible mindset.
We have a fully automated rapid transit system in Vancouver but it runs on an elevated guide-way, not on the roads or the highways.
“They cant even get the thing off the ground without it blowing up.”
It was actually, ordered to blow up. Range safety. Though if they didn’t, it could crashed, and, blow up.
Of course few rocket engines blew up in the launch. Good know that safety aspect, worked. And it got thru max dynamic pressure [Max Q}.
And made Huge crater of concrete pad under the launch mount.
My idea is you have say 4″ diameter copper pipe spaced 8″ and have another row 4″ below it, center in gap. And then rows of 4″ copper pipe.
So make gases go thru spaces, but no projectiles can thru any gap and it defuses the hyper velocity flow of rocket thrust and it should lower temperature, a bit. The pipes and flowing water and designed so the steam generated doesn’t cause too much pressure against to pipe walls. The pipe will survive the temperature because the water.
Or can’t make pipe red hot, if there water in it- you can’t have water in pipe if you want to solder it- as any plumber knows.
“As far as changing humanity, we must think laterally. What happens when some of the sats he has launched begin losing orbit and crash to Earth?”
I wouldn’t worry sats, but could worry about the first stage from rocket falling on your head. The little sat burn up, the massive empty stages, not so much. And plan with Starship, is land the first stages to reuse them- though get more payload, the first stage may be expended, or they could land on your head.
Or we having space rocks which are few tons [about 1 meter on diameter, falling on Earth at high velocity [higher than orbital speed] every month for billions of years. Or to hit the surface they need to about 10 meters in diameter which explode of various smaller chunks hit the surface at terminal velocity, denser cannon ball like hit, hit like cannonball, and things density water [like human body, around 200 mph. So in spacesuit, you deorbited, you be cooked, and you would hit surface at about 200 mph. The heat would kill you, before hit the ground. And probably get more than 10 gees of de-acceleration and could spin at some crazy speed. So probably cooked and in pieces hitting the ground.
“One negative about Musk, for me, is the blind faith he places in technology. When you create a car that has no driver, you are demonstrating a disregard for the limitations of control systems, especially on our road systems, that are highly congested. When you fly 50,000 satellites, as he plans to do, you are playing with the same irresponsible mindset.”
Well, it could lead to less death and injury to accidents.
Cars probably have kill more than using horse did- but maybe not, but more people are using cars than people used horses.
One might make the argument that Musk cars can go faster and encourage other car companies to make massive electrical cars/trucks.
Rather than the norm of under powered [and small, quite ugly} electrical cars.
“We have a fully automated rapid transit system in Vancouver but it runs on an elevated guide-way, not on the roads or the highways.”
You could do this kind of stuff with ocean settlement and/or make denser and walk or bike anywhere local- and “rapid transit system”
can be various types including short distance ferries. Long distance- suborbital.
Environmentalists Want to Make Their Religion Official
“By now it is hardly original to point out that environmentalism has become a religion, with the climatistas being a full-fledged cult.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/04/environmentalists-want-to-make-their-religion-official.php
I am against the ideas we had about Church and State.
Such as opposed to ten commandments in public space and etc.
Whole point was not have a State have religion- like the Brits have, for example.
Their religion is dystopianism. Environmentalism is only a means.
I think they would be happier living in an Ocean settlement.
Sheesh, Stephen, I had to get my dictionary out. Dystopian?…a society based on imagined grievances.
I agree, except they go beyond imagined and into a world of psychoses. I think people like Greta Thunberg are certifiable, as are the current mob pushing for crossdresser’s (trans) rights. When adults start pushing for children to be mutilated to appease an idiotic notion that a male child is actually a female, that’s severe mental illness.
wee willy, aka willy the clown, has posted more rot from his authority figure.
“It [lapse rate] corresponds to the vertical component of the spatial gradient of temperature. Although this concept is most often applied to the Earths troposphere, it can be extended to any gravitationally supported parcel of gas.
***
Lapse rate theory fails to acknowledge that pressure in the atmosphere is ordered into a negative gradient by gravity. The negative gradient produces a natural negative temperature gradient. We are talking about a static condition.
On top of the static condition there are convection currents, which are superimposed on the static atmosphere. Lapse rate theory implies that the convective currents are creating the negative temperature gradient and the negative pressure gradient.
I have no problem with the notion of a lapse rate, it is the interpretation with which I have issues.
Bordo.
Here’s you a few days ago:
[B1] I dont like the lapse rate theory overall because it denies the effect of gravity in cooling with altitude.
This is false.
Here’s you today:
[B2] I have no problem with the notion of a lapse rate, it is the interpretation with which I have issues.
Can’t you keep your story straight for just a week?
You’ve been ranting on this website for a decade.
I’m sure you can do it.
C’mon.
My statements are consistent. It is your brain that lacks the ability to see that, likely because you have rushed your reply in order to try making me look foolish. Alas, being inept as you are, you end up looking foolish.
In B1, I claimed not to like the lapse rate theory because it denies gravity as the root cause of declining temperature with altitude. I did not claim that the lapse rate theory was incorrect with its rate of cooling with altitude, just the explanation for it.
In B2 I confirmed what I have just said.
C’mon, Bordo.
Here’s a free lesson, just because I like you –
The first claim is about the lapse rate theory.
The second claim is about its interpretation.
Two different things.
Next time I’m going to charge you.
“Next time Im going to charge you.”
[laughing at retard]
Moron Mike,
That will be all.
Oh really, retard?
You wish.
Do I, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”Its the front wheels that are causing the acceleration. Which is causing the force from the door”.
***
Have you ever driven a front-wheel drive in slippery conditions? I touched the brakes once on a highway in a puddle of water and did a 360.
If you are in a curve with 4 wheels gripping the road, it is the force of the 4 wheels on the road that produce the turning force and throw you up against the passenger-side door. It’s true that it’s better to apply some acceleration in such a curve but too much or too little will cause problems.
It’s also the front wheel that direct the motion with the drive wheels, front, back or all four, providing the driving force. Cur the motor and you have no driving force or means of gripping the road and the car want to move in a straight line, not a curve.
“Have you ever driven a front-wheel drive in slippery conditions? I touched the brakes once on a highway in a puddle of water and did a 360.”
Your incompetence in driving does not confront me.
The force of gravity from the weight of the car provides enough grip to turn the car.
You are saying that if you come off of the accelerator pedal, you will have no control of the car.
bob d…”Your incompetence in driving does not confront me”.
***
Makes no sense at all, Bob, care to re-state?
—-
“The force of gravity from the weight of the car provides enough grip to turn the car”.
***
Gravity serves to provide the resistance between the rubber tires and the road surface. It is that resistance keeps you on the road in a tight curve, or any curve for that matter. Why do you think race cars have really wide tires?
Gravity provides traction as long as you don’t exceed the friction provided by the tires. The car follows the curve controlled only by that resistance. If you brake too much, the car will try to follow it’s straight-line, tangential motion and tend to go off the road. If you accelerate too much, you lose the tire resistance and the car skids.
Of course, if you slow down enough, as you should, that won’t be an issue.
—-
“You are saying that if you come off of the accelerator pedal, you will have no control of the car”.
—
That’s right, Bob, and anyone who has driven fast into curves knows that. If you accelerate too much you lose control and if you don’t, you lose control. Keeping a car on a road on curves depends on hitting the right acceleration for the curve.
Many a biker has bought it by hitting curves without knowing the resistance offered. If their is gravel on the road, the biker loses traction and off he goes into the weeds.
In part 3, of course, I am talking about entering a curve faster than normal and for what would be regarded as safe.
> There are two varieties of quantum theory, the variety Bohr created and the variety he destroyed.
I think I found the perfect gift for Bordo:
https://physicsworld.com/a/beyond-the-quantum-woo-niverse-getting-to-grips-with-the-fundamentals-of-quantum-mechanics/
Sigh!!! Wee willy quotes yet another authority figure. I see nothing in the article that suggests the author even begins to understand quantum theory. What he references, like entanglement theory, is not serious quantum theory. As I suggested, it represents the sci-fi component offered by Bohr after his popularity went to his head. Both Einstein and Schrodinger shunned Bohr’s later theories as representing non-physical science.
Basic quantum theory is very simple, relatively speaking. It is a basis of chemistry atomic theory and is taught in 1st year chemistry classes. It is also a basis of electronics, where students need to learn about valence electron theory and other finer theories of the electron.
Basic quantum theory is about the electron and its relationship to the nucleus and to products it creates like most electromagnetic energy (light) in the universe. The problem is that no one can get close enough to the electron to do any measurements so scientists had to approach it using the probability of finding an electron in a certain location around a nucleus.
That information is not very helpful however till it comes to offering approximate shapes of molecules. It was actually Linus Pauling, a genius in chemistry, who connected x-ray diffraction principles to modified quantum theory to predict the shapes of molecules. Ergo, quantum theory could not make the predictions without a highly experienced and intelligent chemistry expert to guide them.
Therefore all your Bohm’s, your Schrodingers, your Heisenberg’s, de Broglie’s and so on, who offered their high fallutin theories could do nothing without the genius of Pauling to offer a practical solution to the actual shapes of molecules. Of course, Pauling gets no credit for that because the theoretical physics crowd are desperately afraid of chemists. When Pauling visited England in the 1920s, hoping to have a talk with Schrodinger, the latter hid out, refusing to meet him.
That explains why Einstein’s ridiculous theories about space-time still persist to this day, even though they make no sense at all. I only wish Newton was alive today to shut up this crowd of ne’er-do-wells.
Gordon Robertson
Do you have a source for you statement?
YOU: “When Pauling visited England in the 1920s, hoping to have a talk with Schrodinger, the latter hid out, refusing to meet him.”
This source says the two did indeed meet.
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/mm/feature/biographical-overview
Gordon Robertson
I have to clearly state you do not understand science at all. It is an evidence based system of understanding. All the things you reject are based upon real evidence.
I keep giving you the real evidence and you keep rejecting all of it in favor of your simplistic made up reality.
It is sad you have not learned anything in years on this blog. There are many intelligent people who have taught you things but you choose to ignore them./
The reason is very clear why you reject real evidence based science. You are a true simpleton, kind of dumb in thought. You are very arrogant and think yourself brilliant, smarter than nearly all scientists. You can’t understand more than the most simple ideas (kind of like your buddy Clint R who only can grasp orbital mechanics as a ball on a string analogy).
Since you are not able to understand the evidence based science and rather than see the real truth that you are not a very smart person, you hide in this fantasy of made up ideas you cobble together in which you are s super genius and the rest of the science world are idiots. It is an ego based issue with you. That is why you don’t learn, because you can’t.
If I give you a clear example of time dilation experiment you don’t understand it and instead of forming the correct conclusion, that you are too stupid to understand it, you reject it and consider the brilliant people behind the experiment to be idiots.
Truth is you, Clint R and Swenson are very stupid people with below levels of IQ, zero logical thinking, no learning ability. Your egos survive by projecting your stupidity on everyone else around you and you view yourselves as these brilliant minds far smarter than anyone else.
People who study real science know their own mental limitations so they don’t have to pretend to be what they are not.
If you come clean and see yourself as a stupid person you might finally be able to learn something. Your arrogance prevents any assimilation of complex science from getting into your thoughts.
I must say, Norman, that’s the longest ad hom attack I have ever seen?
Please do offer your proof of time dilation again and I will be glad to point out the holes in it. I have already given you the first hole. There is no scientific evidence that time exists outside the realm of human thought. We humans invented it based on the rotation of the Earth and if time dilates, the planet has to change its angular speed.
Is that not scientific enough for you?
Gordon Robertson
https://tinyurl.com/27xdxyd3
replied below at 10:17 PM
Come on, Bordo.
Did Pauling meet with Schrodinger, yes or no?
There is no third chance.
“There is no third chance.”
There’s no chance at all that any rational person might mistake you for anything but a retard.
Moron Mike,
Enjoy –
https://pswscience.org/meeting/hilberts-space-aspects-of-one-century-and-prospects-for-the-next/
“There is no third chance.”
There’s no chance at all that any rational person might mistake you for anything but a retard.
Why is there “no third chance”? No answer?
No wonder. Beware, retard at large!
Still here, Moron Mike?
So be it:
https://www.nature.com/articles/4681036a
Keep going!
Wandering Wee Willy,
Why are you babbling about irrelevancies?
You said “There is no third chance.”
What are the first and second chances? The fourth?
There is no chance at all that you are not suffering from some form of mental retardation, being unable to accept your environment.
Go back to trying to troll. You might achieve your aim of annoying someone who is not retarded – you never know!
You are an irrelevancy, Mike.
Bordo could have said that meeting with Erwin in Zurich ended in disappointment for Linus.
Instead we had another just so story.
Long live and prosper,
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Bordo could have said that meeting with Erwin in Zurich ended in disappointment for Linus.”
Or he could have claimed that you were not retarded at all, or any number of things.
But he didnt, did he?
Maybe you could learn how to be annoying, but I doubt it. Most people overcome their feelings of annoyance, when they realise that they are dealing with a retard.
Keep trying though. You seem to enjoy trying.
Moron Mike,
What are you braying about?
From the horse’s mouth:
http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/bond/audio/1977v.66-gugg.html
For a moron you are not very bright, are you?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Bordo could have said that meeting with Erwin in Zurich ended in disappointment for Linus.”
Or he could have claimed that you were not retarded at all, or any number of things.
But he didn’t, did he?
Maybe you could learn how to be annoying, but I doubt it. Most people overcome their feelings of annoyance, when they realise that they are dealing with a retard.
Keep trying though. You seem to enjoy trying.
Mike, Mike,
Why are you trying to deny this historical fact – is it because you didn’t know about “c’mon, man”?
Perhaps you should sit that other one out.
> I see nothing in the article that suggests the author even begins to understand quantum theory.
C’mon, Bordo.
I see no evidence from your comment that you know how publishing works. It’s just a small review. I’ve quoted from it because it introduces the chapter titles.
We have yet to see any evidence you understand quantum theory, but that’s just par for the course.
How would you recognize evidence that I know anything about quantum theory when you don’t even understand basic physics?
Good question, Bordo. Very good question.
How about – you would not be saying obviously wrong stuff at the pace that you do?
I mean, come on.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I mean, come on.”
Do you know that there is a wonderful language known as English? Maybe you could think about learning it, sometime.
Moron Mike,
See for yourself –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-F2dwURXrc
Long live and prosper.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…from Wien’s Nobel Prize talk…
There are however further difficulties. The energy elements increase with decreasing wavelength, and an oscillator exposed to incident radiation will, at low intensity, need a very long time before it absorbs a full energy element. What happens if the incident radiation ceases, before an entire energy element has been absorbed?”
***
Have not found the speech yet. Have not looked that hard, however.
I have not read Planck closely enough to understand what Wien is talking about. For what I do understand, Planck regarded all EM frequencies as simple oscillator, each one operating at one frequency throughout the spectrum.
This was all done before Bohr figured out the oscillators are represented by electrons in atoms, that respond differently at different temperatures. In fact, Planck acknowledged, had he known about electrons it would have made is work much easier.
Wien seems to be claiming it would take a very long time for a lower frequency oscillator to absorb a full energy element. Then again, all he had at the time was a thought experiment. What I find mind-boggling is how electrons can emit billions and billions of discrete EM frequencies across the EM spectrum.
It just occurred to me, perhaps in a moment of stupidity, that maybe they don’t have to. Pure frequencies emitted can combine in some cases to produce the equivalent of overtones in music.
For example, if a tonic, say middle-C is hit on a piano at the same time as the fifth, a G, the ratio of the two sounds is 3:2, meaning the G gives of 3 cycle (hz) in the same time as the C gives off 2.
How do we know that is not going on in a star when super-heated plasma made up of hydrogen and helium in which the electrons and nucleii are no longer together, give off a swatch of EM emissions related to electrons and nucleii have a broad range of transitions?
It’s hard to take in that basically two elements, H and He, with only a few electrons, protons and neutrons between them can produce such a huge bandwidth of radiation. Surely the same thing is going on as in music where a few frequencies are being modulated into billions of frequencies.
In music, an A above middle-C is 440 hz. When that note is struck, overtones are given of which are multiples of that frequency, for example, 880 Hz, 1320 Hz, 1760 Hz, 2200 Hz, etc. Each harmonics has a lower amplitude, reducing exponentially.
If you produce 440 Hz on a signal generator, no harmonics are produced. However, on a piano, a string vibrating at 440 hz will produce the above harmonics as well.
I think it is highly unlikely that hydrogen and helium atoms alone in a star could produce the billions of frequencies emitted as EM. I think with the tremendous heat involved, harmonics may be produced with sufficient amplitude to fill it out.
Gordon,
A quantum of energy is not restricted to any particular frequency at all.
It just means that energy comes in discrete “packets”. The “packet” may be any size at all, just as a physical parcel may be any size or mass. There are literally an infinity of possible energy levels. Take, for example, an analogy often used, comparing photons to bullets. A bullet may weigh anything at all. It is literally impossible, try as you might, to even make two physical bullets precisely the same weight. Planck’s constant might lead you to think that there is a limit to the divisibility of energy levels, but then along comes Heisenberg, and uncertainty and infinity reign again!
As with sound waves – the interval between 440 Hz and 441 Hz contains infinitely many possibilities 440.0000000001 Hz is perfectly valid. There are infinitely many frequencies between it and 440 Hz, and so on.
An object can radiate an infinite number of frequencies of photons between say 20 C, and 20.0000000001 C. It doesn’t matter whether it is CO2, concrete, or lead.
Many physics professors, like delusional SkyDragon cultists, just ignore reality, and plough on regardless. Still none of them can actually describe the GHE in any way that acknowledges reality, but they believe in it anyway.
Oh well.
Swenson,
Have you heard of Max Planck?
Bumbling Bobby,
When I wrote “Planck’s constant might lead you to think that there is a limit to the divisibility of energy levels, . . . “, which Planck do you think I was referring to?
Is your inability to read due to retardation, or some other mental defect?
Try to improve your trolling – it’s only retard standard at present.
Yes Swenson,
It seems you have heard of him, but don’t understand his work.
Bog standard.
Bobby buffoon,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
Have you heard of Max Planck?”
Then you wrote –
“Yes Swenson,
It seems you have heard of him, but dont understand his work.
Bog standard.”
Are you retarded, or do you just like posing stupid gotchas to demonstrate how stupid you are, by admitting you knew the answer all along?
Bog standard, indeed. You work your way deeper into the bog with each misguided attempt to troll.
Yeah Swenson,
You need to read Planck’s works.
“An object can radiate an infinite number of frequencies of photons between say 20 C, and 20.0000000001 C. It doesnt matter whether it is CO2, concrete, or lead.”
This is incorrect,
“In many cases, such as for monochromatic light or for atoms, quantization of energy also implies that only certain energy levels are allowed, and values in between are forbidden.”
That’s Einstein, he was a little smarter than you Swenson.
Try learning some physics instead of drooling in your Maypo.
“A quantum of energy is not restricted to any particular frequency at all.
It just means that energy comes in discrete packets.”
***
Not according to the theory I understand. I am aware of packets in communications where what you say is true, or can be true, however, a quantum based on Bohr’s description has a discrete frequency, a fact that gave him the insight.
It was already known that hydrogen emitted and absorbed at one frequency only. That’s what led to Bohr conceiving his theory that electrons absorbed and emitted at one frequency only. It is inconceivable that a quantum of energy from an atom or group of atoms at a specific temperature could generate an array of frequencies. However, the Sun, with a broad rage of temperatures could conceivably do that.
However, your point raises an interesting question. If you look up sodium vapour lamps, you’ll notice they produce a yellow light. In articles I have read they claim the yellow is produced by a single frequency emitted by an electron in the sodium atom.
However, the colour yellow can be produced by combining the primary colours red and green. That’s how it works in the eye which has only red, green and blue receptors. Therefore, the eye appears to operate using colour addition.
Here’s a good explanation of colours and their related frequencies…
https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/light/colour-mixing.htm
However, it raises questions as to what we are actually seeing as related to Planck’s curve. Are our eyes seeing yellow directly or is it due to colour addition from red and green?
“It was already known that hydrogen emitted and absorbed at one frequency only”
Gordon, you may want to check that.
It’s not true.
Lyman, Paschen, Balmer etc
sorry…I stated that poorly. Obviously an electron emits at different frequencies depending on the number of energy levels through which it falls. I meant, it radiates a single frequency for each orbital level, not a packet of frequencies at each level.
Gordon,
As far as I know, hydrogen can have any temperature at all – which means that it radiates photons whose energy is proportional to the temperature of the matter emitting them.
So can all matter. Not just a matter of theory – try and identify a gas in a mixture at equilibrium by means of its radiation frequency. Not by shining something like white light through it, that’s a totally different exercise.
Or compress some air to 100 C, and convince yourself that the frequency of the radiation from the CO2 hasnt changed – just by being raised in temperature!
As to sodium vapor lamps, your eye hopefully contains three different types of cones, sensitive to different frequencies in different ways. Benham’s disk shows colours – but is only black and white. The light from sodium vapor lamps looks yellow to most people.
Very tricky.
Your observation is apt that this is very tricky.
I am no expert on this and by a long shot. However, you mentioned Wien the other day and his displacement law covers this I think.
lambda(max) = 0.29/T (cm/K) where …
lambda = wavelength in cm
T = temperature in K
This finds the peak of a spectral response so if T changes, the central wavelength/frequency changes. That suggests to me that the Balmer series wavelength in hydrogen should shift slightly as well.
In fact, when I took a year of astronomy, we studied the red shift and blue shift related to Doppler shifting related to light. Basically, when a star moves away from us or toward us, it’s known spectral region shifts either to the blue end of the spectrum or the red, depending on the direction.
That kind of puts the boots to the theory that the speed of light is constant. If it was constant, one would think there was no shift in its wavelength based on the velocity of an emitter of light. If we consider the Doppler shift that causes a locomotive whistle’s frequency/wavelength to change due to the speed of the locomotive as it approaches and recedes from our ears, we know that is due to the speed of the emitter relative to our ears. Is it not the same with light?
It is tricky because you’ll find diverging opinions on the Net some of which are clearly wrong. I have found that astronomers are the least reliable source when it comes to the application of physics.
Carrying on my ad hom based discussion with Norman re Linus Pauling and quantum theory, as applied to basic chemistry, at the following link there is an excellent set of lecture notes from Linus Pauling on the subject. This is how I learned it in chemistry classes. This method taught by Pauling is still used today in undergrad chemistry classes.
BTW…note that scientists actually explained things subjectively in those days rather than rely solely on math. When you use just math, you end up with idiotic theories like the Big Bang theory.
At the base of each page of notes is a link to the next page. You can click on the page to zoom in.
http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/bond/notes/1935a.6-ts-01-large.html
It’s interesting that the basic theory in chemistry was formed before quantum theory, a la Schrodinger was formed. Why current quantum theory has forsaken the tried and true chemical scientific method in lieu of the current bs., based purely on mathematics, is beyond me.
Quantum theory, a la Schrodinger’s math, cannot explain the basic chemistry, it can only confirm it using probability theory. Now that we have satisfied that yearning to satisfy frustrated mathematicians, why don’t be get back to the real science and find the tools to make the research work in a Newtonian world?
Theoretical physicists in the 1920s, like Heisenberg, de Broglie, etc. have served to obfuscate the theory out of proportion with their hypothetical nonsense. For example, Pauli’s Exclusion Principle hypothesized that, “no two electrons in the same atom can have identical values for all four of their quantum numbers. In other words, (1) no more than two electrons can occupy the same orbital and (2) two electrons in the same orbital must have opposite spins”.
The reason they can’t have the same values is that we defined the values without consulting the electrons. How can that be physically realized? How do two electrons know to have opposite spins? In his notes, Pauling reveals that the electrons in orbits should be regarded as a charged sphere. That would mean the electrons not only orbit in a plane, the plane also rotates to form a sphere.
This crap (not Pauling’s good chemistry) was obviously produced to offer philosophical explanations for a theory but no one has ever seen it or measured in operation. In fact, it makes no sense. If you read Pauling on this and get his insight, it comes across as ridiculous, although he was too classy to claim that. He did mend Schrodinger’s equations to make them work.
It was Pauling who rescued the theoretical nonsense of the theoretical poobahs by adding real science to it.
Currently reading a book on 19th century characters. It starts out with Queen Victoria and segues in Darwin’s obsession with his beard. The really interesting thing was Darwin discussing a fair amount of theory with his barber who bred dogs on the side.
I think people who regard Darwin as a genius for his theories on evolution have no idea what he was like as a person. Furthermore, they have not the slightest idea of what proof he had or how he formulated his ideas.
Darwin had issues as a child and was supported by his father into adulthood. In other words, he lived a life of fantasy which he brought to his theories of evolution.
norman…thanks for link…
***
It is super-easy to defeat the logic in the video. The proof is based on Einstein shining a light vertically. That is real, it is happening. When we view it from a stationary position, and the vertical action turns into a diagonal line, that is an illusion. The human eye and mind lacks the ability to follow the vertical action of the vertical light beam and it appears to move diagonally rather than vertically.
Re-stated…a vertical beam does not begin moving diagonally because a human mind is observing it. The diagonal motion is an illusion created by the mind.
The following equation with the right angle triangle from which time dilation is drawn, has two major problems. One, the hypotenuse is based on an illusion and cannot be real. Two, time has no existence. It is derived by humans and is based on the rotational period of the Earth. Ergo, if time dilates, the angular velocity of the Earth must change.
Einstein should have known this but he allowed himself to be drawn into an illusion about time. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, pointed out that Einstein’s theory is not even a proper theory, but a collection of thought experiments. Had Einstein based his theory properly on mass and the force that produces acceleration, he may have gotten that. However, he dealt in kinematic, treating acceleration and time as independent entities. Major mistake.
The Muons prove nothing. Time has nothing to do with their motion. Same with the Twin Paradox, humans don’t age based on time, they age due to biological processes.
ps. you must take care when you extract time from an equation like s = at and treat it as an independent variable. You can see from that equation alone that time is used to measure an interval of distance and in acceleration as a measure of rate change.
If I have a distance s and I measure its instantaneous rate of change as ds/dt I get its instantaneous velocity. If I take the derivative of the velocity wrt tie I get dv/dt which is the acceleration of the particle moving a distance, s.
In the video, he extracted t as an independent variable and expressed it in terms of the velocity and the speed of light. You can’t do that because time has no existence. Time is strictly a parameter introduced for the benefit of humans and their need to measure change.
If, on the other hand, I know that I am traveling at 100 km/hour and I know I have traveled 100 km and want to know how long it took, I can use…
s = vt as
t = s/v = 100 km/(100km/hour) to calculate I have been traveling for 1 hour. The hour, of course, is an imaginary unit known only to humans, so no harm is done.
When you discard Newtonian mechanics by Einstein’s drivel, only because he is Einstein, that is beyond silly. We have moved into the area of poor mental health.
Willard,
How are you going with a description of the GHE? One that accords with observed fact – for example, the surface cooling at night.
Too hard for you?
Maybe you could just provide an irrelevant link to something which doesn’t provide an answer, and hope nobody will notice your desperate retarded efforts.
Off you go, now.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for asking –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Crucial error in the first few minutes, that trapped IR warms the greenhouse. She fails to explain how that works and obviously she makes the same mistake as other alarmists by confusing heat with IR. She also fails to point out that the glass traps rising molecules of heated air which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
BTW, we willy, how dos that work? How does trapped IR warm air? Better still, let’s compare her claim to the atmosphere. CO2 is claimed to ‘trap IR’, hence it is claimed to act like the glass in a real greenhouse. So, CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere is supposed to be the equivalent of a solid pane of glass. However, CO2 can absorb only about 7% of surface radiation which would be the equivalent of a small shard of glass where the pane should be. The rest of the IR in the greenhouse would sail straight past just as it does in the atmosphere.
If the panes of glass in a greenhouse were replaced by panes 7% the size of a full pane, all the heated air molecules would escape. We have known sine 1909 that is the case after R.W. Wood, an expert on gases, explained that. So, we know a greenhouse warms due to the glass blocking natural convection wherein heated air rises.
Of course in higher atmosphere the heat does not “escape” it diffuses globally, and CO2 at 300 ppm is close your number of “7%” as is 400 ppm. Or CO2 is weak greenhouse gas, but perhaps somewhat significant from 0 ppm to 200 ppm.
And doesn’t do much with Venus when it’s 950,000 ppm.
> She fails to explain how that works
Wanna bet, Bordo?
C’mon, I’m sure you wanna.
Stupid Wee Willy,
Maybe you could just provide an irrelevant link to something which doesnt provide an answer, and hope nobody will notice your desperate retarded efforts.
Off you go, now.
I’m sure I could, Moron Mike.
I prefer a relevant link with an elegant explanation of the greenhouse effect instead:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Play dumb, ask again!
That’s what you do best.
Whacky Wee Willard,
The link you keep pushing (from a self described “content creator”, no less), does not contain any description of the GHE which accords with observed fact.
If it did, you would be quoting it all over the place!
You could link to the accumulated nonsense from the IPCC with just as much effect.
No description there, either.
You say you prefer “an elegant explanation” of something that nobody can actually describe in any realistic way! Why should I take notice of the “preferences” of a retard who doesnt even know what he is talking about.
You are stupid as well as retarded.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
Why this jab about content creators?
Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist, as in: she has a PhD in theorical physics.
How about you?
Nevermind – nobody cares if you once carried water at Enron when you were younger.
Wistful Wee Willy,
A physicist who recently wrote “Since people are always surprised about my miserable employment situation, no I am not tenured. My institution doesn’t even have tenure track. And in any case, they don’t pay me. I’ve been paid by research grants since 2015.”
Can’t find an institution prepared to pay for her to disseminate her ideas. What a pity!
She also wrote “There are basically no jobs in academia that it would both make sense for me to apply for and that I’d also want to do. It’s been foreseeable for a long time that my luck getting research grants would run out eventually, so I can’t say I’m surprised.”
Too brilliant to be employed, do you think? I wonder.
Appealing to the authority of an unemployed physicist (or, as she says, self employed), who doesn’t even describe the GHE, just makes you look retarded.
A jab? From Sabine Hossenfelder’s initial web page – “Physicist, Author, Content Creator”. Don’t you like facts?
Moron Mike,
Sabine makes almost 10K per month on her Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
And that’s notwithstanding the other streams of income. To give you an idea, a YT “content creator” who has 1M followers makes more than 10K per month. Sabine has more than 850K.
When will your sabbatical end, btw?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
witless wee willy…”in 1926, he went to Europe on a Guggenheim fellowship to visit the architects of quantum theory: Bohr at Copenhagen, Arnold Sommerfeld at Munich and Erwin Schrdinger at Zurich”.
***
Where does it say Pauling actually met Schrodinger? It says he intended to visit the architects of quantum theory. I read in another article that Schrodinger declined the meeting. And, no, I am not going to bother finding the article to placate someone whose sole purpose is to disrupt the blog on behalf of alarmists.
Not once have you attempted to join in a debate using scientific reasoning, all you do is rush off to authority figures to cherry pick what they claim.
As far as I know, Schrodinger was nowhere near Zurich during the years Pauling was in the UK. He was at Oxford later until he was kicked out for keeping his wife and his mistress in the same residence. Later, he admitted a preference for teenage girls since he felt their innocence a good match for genius. In other words, Shroddy was a pervert.
A facetious saving grace is that he preferred teenage girls, many of the Cambridge/Oxford crowd preferred teenage boys. Homosexuality was an openly practiced fad at those universities in those days.
Would not surprise me if some of the authors of quantum theory were miscreants like Schrodinger. Birds of a feather and all that.
The theory itself is quite useless on the face of it. It does not explain the workings of the atom, it merely provides a probability function to locate a probable distribution of the probabilities of finding an electron in a certain spacial region around a nucleus.
That information is useful to chemists when it comes to predicting the shape of a molecule but Pauling was able to do much of that using x-ray diffraction. Like Clausius with entropy, Pauling seems to have used quantum theory only to formalize his findings using other means.
> Where does it say Pauling actually met Schrodinger?
Right here, Bordo:
And also here:
I’m sure you can find these quotes on this page somewhere.
C’mon.
Willard,
If you left off the stupid attempts to be snarky at the end of your comment, it might do you some credit.
Just providing facts in answer to a question wont make people think you are retarded, you know.
Mike,
Bordo fabricates historical facts on a daily basis. You might not care about this. I do, enough to make an effort to correct the record.
Who knows what sociopaths like you care about?
Enjoy your evening,
Willard,
If you left off the stupid attempts to be snarky at the end of your comment, it might do you some credit.
Just providing facts in answer to a question wont make people think you are retarded, you know.
Mike Flynn,
If you left out moronic remarks from your comments, there would be nothing left.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who is Schoerdinger??? Where did you copy that from?
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s a typo. Roy’s parser rejects umlauts.
They’re quotes you’re supposed to have already read.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Schoerdinger” has nothing to do with umlauts. It is simply spelled incorrectly, even though you tried to pass it off as a quote.
Come on, Bordo.
You responded to comments without reading the quotes.
In your case, reading them would not change anything.
No big deal.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”Its the front wheels that are causing the acceleration. Which is causing the force from the door”.
***
A quick look around the Net indicates to me that even some university profs fail to understand Newton’s laws of motion. I just read one who claims that when a body stops accelerating it moves at constant velocity and force equals zero.
That’s nonsense. If I am driving a car on a highway at 100 kph, after having accelerated to that speed, if I take my foot off the gas it will immediately begin to decelerate. Therefore, force is required to maintain velocity where external opposing forces apply. Had the author claimed the sum of the forces is zero, that would have made sense.
At 100 kph, anyone who sticks a hand out the windows knows there is considerable air resistance against one’s hand, and there is also road resistance to the tires and internal resistance in automobile parts like driveshafts, axles, internal motor parts, etc. One must keep the gas pedal depressed to overcome those resistances to motion.
As far as your point is concerned, acceleration is not a force, or a cause of motion, it is the effect of a force. That is, acceleration is caused by a force it is not a force in itself.
If you are traveling north on a straight, level highway, at considerable speed, and you suddenly see a road leading west that you need to take, and you suddenly jerk the steering wheel left to make the turn, what happens to a passenger sitting on the front seat by the passenger door?
That person is moving due north and as the car suddenly turns west, that person’s body want to keep moving north. Since the car seat is now trying to move west, the resistance on the passenger’s butt from the seat will tend to start moving the person west as well. If the person is wearing a seat belt, as he/she should, that will help with the turn. Such resistance is a force, not an acceleration.
However, the person’s upper body still wants to go north and it is pivoted on the person’s butt. Since the door also wants to move west, it pushes on the passenger’s upper body, directing it west, hence the person feels a push from the door, trying to guide his/her body around the turn. That again is a force, not an acceleration. To the passenger, however, it feels as if he-she is pushing against the door, which satisfies, Newton III, but there is no real force applied by the passenger’s body. It’s like pushing on a wall, does it really push back?
If there was an acceleration on the passenger’s body at any time, that person would start moving faster than the car, which is essentially impossible. By applying a slight amount of force via the gas peddle during the turn it would help the vehicle move in the new direction with more force than could be applied via the effect of its momentum alone. Provided the tires did not lose their grip, this would help the car on its motion westward.
Gordon,
“I just read one who claims that when a body stops accelerating it moves at constant velocity and force equals zero.”
Of course this is true, and in accordance with Newton’s laws.
Your counter example
“Thats nonsense. If I am driving a car on a highway at 100 kph, after having accelerated to that speed, if I take my foot off the gas it will immediately begin to decelerate.”
There are still forces on the car, even with the foot off of accelerator pedal, so the car is still accelerating, even if the value of the acceleration is less than zero.
“Such resistance is a force, not an acceleration.”
Force and acceleration go hand in hand, you need a force to have acceleration, in accordance with Newton’s laws of motion.
In order to turn the car to go west when it was going north, a force must be applied, and as a result the car must accelerate, even in the case that the turn is gradual enough that the speed remains constant.
Speed being a scalar and velocity being a vector, you must have acceleration to change velocity.
Didn’t you take first year college level physics?
bob…”Force and acceleration go hand in hand…”
***
yes…force causes acceleration but acceleration is meaningless without an impelling force. No mass can accelerate without a force and acceleration cannot exist without a force.
—
“There are still forces on the car, even with the foot off of accelerator pedal, so the car is still accelerating, even if the value of the acceleration is less than zero”.
***
Not accelerating…decelerating… which is the opposite of accelerating. In other words, with the foot off the gas pedal, you begin slowing down, not increasing velocity.
—
“Speed being a scalar and velocity being a vector, you must have acceleration to change velocity”.
***
Speed is an average value, in this case the average velocity, hence a scalar. If I drive 100 km in an hour, my speed is simply distance/time = 100km/hour. That tells me nothing about my instantaneous speed nor does it tell me anything about the direction of the instantaneous speed. For that, we need a vector quantity that specifies the instantaneous speed and the direction which are both regarded as velocity.
Acceleration does not change velocity, it is only a measure of that change. Without a force being applied, there can be no change in velocity.
If you are driving down a highway maintaining 100 kph and you take your foot off the gas, the vehicle immediately decelerates. That’s because there are forces opposing the motion and to overcome them and maintain a constant velocity you must supply a force to drive the vehicle against those forces.
Note that the vehicle decelerates when that driving force is removed. Momentum alone cannot maintain the velocity.
Come on Gordon
“Acceleration does not change velocity, it is only a measure of that change. ”
Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity with respect to time.
A force causes the acceleration which causes the change in velocity.
“Not acceleratingdecelerating which is the opposite of accelerating”
Like I said, deceleration is just a negative acceleration.
Acceleration requires an aiding force and deceleration requires an opposing force.
Don’t worry Bob, Einstein got it wrong too and he has managed to fool a whole slew of scientists along the way. Space-time is based on the notion that acceleration and time can cause something to happen.
Completely bass-ackwards science. It happens when you base science on thought experiments without realizing how easily the mind can fool itself.
The irony is delicious. They will eventually have to come back to the forces causing the acceleration and re-introduce gravity as the cause of it. Of course, they will claim credit for discovering gravity while conveniently erasing Newton from the history books.
Gordon,
I don’t think you will ever get it, and continue being completely wrong all the time.
Let me get this straight, Bob. If you have a mass sitting there, minding its own business, it can suddenly start accelerating without a force being applied. Or, as you seem to be inferring, something called acceleration can come out of the blue and act like a force, to move the mass.
That’s what Einstein seemed to think except he took it to extremes. He seemed to think the same phantom acceleration could cause lengths to change and time to dilate. Today, some of his groupies are vying to replace gravitation as a universal force with the same phantom acceleration.
test 4
wee willy….on the Twin Paradox, or as Chico Marx put it, a pair o’ ducks.
Clocks are not a measure of time.
C’mon, Bordo.
I didn’t know Chico knew Mike Flynn and you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
test baloney
Here’s our pair o’ ducks.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bordo is busy ranting over his phone and drives right through a red light.
In court he claims that the RED light looked GREEN to him because he was approaching the light and the radiation was Doppler Shifted into the green part of the spectrum.
How fast was he going and was his defense crankier than his usual rants?
For context:
Are you claiming that a red or green light is moving so fast away or towards me that its colour has shifted from red to green, or vice-versa?
Besides, any time I have unintentionally run a red light, for whatever reason, all you hear in the vehicle is a stream of profanities regarding my stupidity. Cops only show up when I intentionally do something that stupid and it never gets to a judge. I just pay the fine.
An unusual defense in court regarded the failure to stop at a red light is that I did not like the colour.
Come on, Bordo.
I am saying that it is possible to use the Doppler shift as a pedagogical tool.
According to this calculation:
https://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/AY4/notes4/node2.html#:~:text=If%20a%20light%20source%20is,the%20Frequency%20and%20Wavelength%20do.
you would be going at 110,000,000 miles/hour.
So not the best excuse.
So what is the measured Doppler shift between the various triplets (see above)?
I did not know you were a relativity theory denier, Richard.
Answer the question then Willard.
Richard also denied I answered him a few times already.
So you should have no problem with repeating the answer (or referring to it). Mind you, you were not able to say what the Doppler readings for the Earth and the other moving triplets was before so good luck with that.
Richard also denies pulling a Pupman right now.
Willard is not able to admit he doesn’t have an answer (or actually gave one earlier).
Willard says the the moving triplets have no difference in clocks between them but that they do have a Doppler reading that shows that there is a velocity between them at the same time!
rlh…”Willard is not able to admit he doesnt have an answer (or actually gave one earlier)”.
***
That’s wee willy’s escape sequence. In lieu of an Esc button to get him out of predicaments, he uses obfuscation and obscurity.
Richard will say just about anything to follow up on his Black Knight bit.
Willard is just unable to admit he doesn’t have an answer (or actually gave one earlier)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1480696
Richard will just say anything instead of reading one paper on the twin paradox.
Willard will say anything to avoid answering the question. After all, Doppler will not be able to measure the differences in velocity between fixed and moving triplet as the clocks say the moving pair are both the same.
According to him that is.
Richard gets weirder and weirder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1480622
Richard is getting weirder and weirder.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1480622
“They are equally younger when they return to Earth, because they experienced the same magnitude/duration of acceleration.”
But did they show a Doppler difference between them and the Earth?
In other words, were the other moving triplets moving away/together faster than the Earth?
In other words, Richard designed GPS software and is utterly clueless.
Willard is totally unable to answer the questions.
Richard is unable to realize that he has been answered more than five times now.
Willard needs to realize that avoiding the question is not an answer. Is there a Doppler difference between the moving triplets and the Earth based one?
Richard needs to realize that he his concealing his cranky conception of relativity theory by playing the Riddler.
Is there a Doppler difference between the moving triplets and the Earth based one?
Richard still has to puzzle Stack Exchange’s forum, e.g.:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/383248/how-can-time-dilation-be-symmetric
He should know by now how well his Riddler’s act would be well received over there.
So if the 2 moving triplets are symmetrical (i.e. identical) then there is no Doppler difference between them.
Perhaps Willard might like to help fund a project to determine if North or South re-run (say UK to South Africa) of the Hafele-Keating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment) West/East shows the same time difference between the moving clocks and ground that it did.
Perhaps Richard could cut his losses and read the damn page I just cited for a change.
As the page you quoted did not address Doppler at all, how would that help?
It just said that from the Earth’s point of view all is well.
And nothing that Willard has said so far addresses North/South Hafele-Keating either.
Richard continues to play dumb.
Same for the Doppler shift, which only measures relative distance anyway.
Actually Doppler measures relative VELOCITY.
Nothing that Willard has said so far addresses North/South Hafele-Keating either.
Richard will not read this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
I am sure ne knows where he is going with this anyway.
“The Doppler effect or Doppler shift (or simply Doppler, when in context) is the apparent change in frequency of a wave in relation to an observer moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
Nothing about distance there.
Still nothing that Willard has said so far addresses North/South Hafele-Keating either.
Richard refuses to acknowledge the following:
Richard still does not tell us where he is going with his riddle.
Distance (in Doppler) implies red shift to translate velocity into distance.
Still nothing that Willard has said so far addresses North/South Hafele-Keating either.
Richard forgot to mention that he already offered his riddle to the world:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/464809/hafele-keating-experiment
He also forgets to mention where he’s going with this.
They are equally younger when they return to Earth, because they experienced the same magnitude/duration of acceleration.
But did they show a Doppler difference between them and the Earth?”
It really is hard to tell where you are going with this RLH.
Obviously the Doppler shift would be stronger between the two travelling twins than between one traveller and the Earth.
So what?
Go through the full analysis, and tell us what you find is a problem.
The article misses the point, claiming the speed of light does not change during a Doppler shift. However, we know the cause of a Doppler shift with a locomotive is the speed of the locomotive which adds to the speed with which sound moves, That’s what compresses the sounds waves to give them a higher frequency. As the locomotive passes and moves away, it stretches the wavelength causing a lower frequency.
This is a problem of relative motion. The horn on the locomotive is emitted a pure sign wave at say 1000 hz. There is a known distance between wave peaks at that frequency which is the wavelength. Because the locomotive is moving, when it emits the 1 Khz tone, the wavelength become compressed, producing a higher frequency tone. In other words, the cause of the compression is the motion of the emitting body.
Why is it not the same for frequencies in the light spectrum? I get it that light emitted from a star moves at a constant velocity but why can’t that velocity be added to or subtracted from the speed of light? I don’t think Einstein ever explained that. He may have been referring to the difference is mass between a small particle and the massless EM field of light.
A problem Einstein had when he made the claim is not having enough scientific evidence upon which to base his claim. His work was done initially circa 1905, over 10 years before Bohr discovered the relationship between light and the electrons in atoms that emits it. I think Einstein may have presumed the speed of light is a constant. Another problem may have been that nothing moves fast enough compared to the speed of light to measure the difference in light speed emitted from it.
There may have been politics involved. It is known that Einstein did not approve of Bohr’s latter theories in the quantum field and perhaps he dismissed Bohr’s theories of the EM/electron relationship till it was too late to backtrack without losing face. Or maybe his theory on the speed of light has been misunderstood.
At any rate, if the sine wave representing a locomotive whistle can be compressed due to the motion of the locomotive, why can light not be similarly compressed/rarefied due to the motion of a star, which could be moving away from us at 50 km/s, or toward us at the same speed? In other words, light itself could be moving faster than its currently claimed constant speed.
> There may have been politics involved.
Let’s hope Bordo is better at reading between the lines as he is at reading the lines!
wee willy tries to be clever using quips but he’s not even good at that.
C’mon, Bordo.
If your rant contains gems such as:
that means you’re not even trying.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Upthread, caught troll Norman trying to slur me again:
…(kind of like your buddy Clint R who only can grasp orbital mechanics as a ball on a string analogy).
Truth is you, Clint R and Swenson are very stupid people with below levels of IQ, zero logical thinking, no learning ability. Your egos survive by projecting your stupidity on everyone else around you and you view yourselves as these brilliant minds far smarter than anyone else.
Is troll Norman obsessed with me, or what?
I’m obviously doing something right…
clint…you have to admit that Norman is good with the ad homs and insults. He’s not just your average flamer, he puts a lot into his insults. Not much else, but good insults.
Now, if we were bothered by insults….
That’s why this is so much fun, Gordon.
They’ve got NOTHING except their troll tactics. The more they troll, the more they reveal themselves. Norman is in full-time meltdown. Just recently, E. Swanson clearly indicated he didn’t know the difference between 1LoT and 2LoT!
wee willy…”Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist, as in: she has a PhD in theorical physics”.
***
Coulda fooled me, she talks like someone who is completely misinformed about basic physics, especially thermodynamics. She begins her video with a whopper about IR blocked by glass in a greenhouse being recirculated to heat up the greenhouse.
That goes beyond basic ignorance into fraud when you use it to make money from it and to scare people into following your environmental religion.
Bordo did not fool me.
He still speaks like a crank with pseudologia fantastica.
Everything is fine.
wee willy has still not explained how IR blocked by glass in a greenhouse can warm it.
Bordo has yet to explain why he made so many elementary blunders in this page.
wee willy has still to explain why he thinks I have committed blunders.
Come on, Bordo.
Most of your blunders are rather self-explanatory. Take when you claimed that I made up these quotes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1479978
For some reason your conspiration ideation relies on Erwin and Linus not having met, which should obviously false to anyone who studied the history of physics.
You also mention a trip to the UK for some reason. Is it because you confuse it with Fritz London?
re Chico Marx…aka Chicolini in the movie Duck Soup…
Prosecutor : Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes.
Chicolini : Hey, I got an uncle lives in Texas.
Prosecutor : No, I’m talking about taxes – money, dollars!
Chicolini : Dallas! There’s-a where my uncle lives! Dallas, Texas!
> His work was done initially circa 1905, over 10 years before Bohr discovered the relationship between light and the electrons in atoms that emits it.
Bordo’s limbo continues:
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einsteins-1905-paper-on-the-photoelectric-8e3
Why is the effect called “photoelectric” again?
To his credit, Einstein reasoned that EM of a certain frequency could cause electrons to be dislodged from atoms on the surface of a material. Still. electron theory was in it infancy and no one had yet related the electron to EM.
Einstein’s photoelectric effect is about valence electrons, the outermost shell of electrons in an atom. Although Bohr’s theory in 1913 applied only to the hydrogen atom it presented a generalized theory that was later applied to all electrons in all atoms at all orbital levels. At the time Einstein produced his theory, no one knew the direct relationship between EM and electrons. Had Einstein been aware of the relationship, he would surely have said so, and won himself a Nobel.
Einstein’s photoelectric theory involves the absorp-tion of EM by the outermost electrons in atoms, the valence electrons. He knew nothing about the emission/absorp-tion of EM (light) as claimed by Bohr. Therefore, he would have known nothing about the relationship between the speed of light and a moving body from which the light was emitted.
As I understand his reasoning, it’s that light has no mass and nothing with mass can move faster than light. However, Newton’s theories put no limitation on mass re acceleration/velocity therefore a large enough force should be able, theoretically, to accelerate a mass past the speed of light. Whether or not such a force exists is the question and it is ingenuous to claim nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
Cool story, Bordo.
Have you ever considered that if you want to lecture on something you need to study it?
We’ll have to change wee willy’s name to ‘dodger’, based on the way he dodges questions using inane replies.
C’mon, Bordo.
Your comment does not contain a question, whereas the comment to which you just replied contains one.
Perhaps you should click on the links I provided Richard before placing your bet.
rehashing the effect of pseudo-science…
“[GR]I just read one who claims that when a body stops accelerating it moves at constant velocity and force equals zero.
[Bob D]Of course this is true, and in accordance with Newtons laws.
***
This is not intended as a shot at Bob, we take our shots at each other and hopefully more in humour than out of spite. However, it demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic physics that is common and extends into climate alarm.
In Newton II, f = ma, there are only two real phenomena, force and mass. The third, acceleration, is meaningful only to humans even though it represents a property of a mass to which a force is applied, provided the force can move the mass and move it sufficiently to cause its velocity to change wrt time.
Without a force that can move the mass, acceleration has no existence. It is not a real phenomenon, it is merely a property that describes the motion of a mass. Acceleration is a property of a mass and belongs to the mass, it is not a unique phenomenon which can be separated from the mass.
There is nothing there that can cause a mass to do anything. To make matters worse, a unit used as a measure of acceleration, the second, has no existence either. Nor has the metre, another human invention.
To make matters considerably worse, Einstein based his theory of relativity on thought experiments involving accelerations and velocities without seemingly considering the very forces and masses involved. As a result, modern scientists are now trying to replace gravitational force with space-time, which represents to me, an all-time low in human intelligence. Space-time is an intangible, something unable to be touched or grasped, something not having physical presence.
Newton went to a great deal of trouble to discover and document the gravitational forces that bind the universe together. Now theorists, led by Einstein, want to overturn that reality and replace it with nonsense based on thought experiments.
This is the problem with science today and it has led to inane theories in climate science that are based largely on consensus. No one can prove that trace gases in the atmosphere are having any significant effect, yet theorists, using a similar vague logic to Einstein, have convinced government that a catastrophic danger exists that has no basis in physics.
Acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time.
If acceleration is zero, there is no change in velocity.
If there is no force on a body, there is no acceleration.
Basic Newton’s laws, what part of that do you not understand Gordon?
Here is an Einstein quote
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
That experiment has not been done yet.
“If there is no force on a body, there is no acceleration”.
***
That’s what I have been trying to get out of you Bob. Acceleration is caused by force but force is not caused by acceleration.
Yeah, but you still said this
“A quick look around the Net indicates to me that even some university profs fail to understand Newtons laws of motion. I just read one who claims that when a body stops accelerating it moves at constant velocity and force equals zero.”
In order to stop accelerating the force must be zero.
I thought that would be obvious.
“In order to stop accelerating the force must be zero”.
***
It would be more apt to claim the net force must be zero in order to stop accelerating and maintain a constant velocity. After all, that’s what acceleration is about, overcoming opposing forces. The driving force can never be zero while trying to maintain a constant velocity.
That leads to the question, if you were in space with no opposing forces and you applied a force to a mass, would it keep accelerating indefinitely? If so, it should, in theory, be able to eventually exceed the speed of light.
The problem here is whether such an empty space exists, Even the emptiest-looking parts of space have hydrogen atoms floating about.
Another question posed by Dayton Miller is whether an aether exists in empty space that limits the speed of light. Einstein denied this aether but how does he explain that a mass can never move as fast as the massless electromagnetic energy? And why would he claim that if Miller is right, his theory of relativity is wrong?
Guess what? More recently it has been discovered that empty space is teeming with neutrinos. Perhaps that represents the aether, along with any other undiscovered sub-atomic particles.
> Space-time is based on the notion that acceleration and time can cause something to happen.
Another episode of the Bordo show:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
wee willy dodger…”Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time”.
***
When, if ever, will you Einsteinian groupies get it, that time has no dimension and, in fact, has no existence? When will you get it that the three dimensional geometry of space is based on the human invention of Cartesian coordinates? We can overlay all the coordinate systems on space we want but there is nothing there to represent them.
Ergo, spacetime is a figment of the human imagination. There are no 4-dimensions there, only what the human imagination imposes. To claim the ‘spatial expression’ was independent of one-dimensional time is an indication of mild mental illness.
here’s a simple example. Set up a 3-dimensional x,y,z coordinate system. From the centre at 0,0,0 drawn an vector from that position to any point in the x,y,z system, Call that vector time and now we have x,y,z,t as a 4-dimensional system. If the tip of that vector represents the position of a particle, then as the particle moves, the x,y,z,t vector will track it.
But what is happening? In real space, the physical coordinates x,y,z don’t exist, they are relative to the human mind. The time parameter is based on the second defined by the rotation of the Earth, ergo, time is a derived quantity that must be constant due to it being based on the Earth’s rotational period.
I have just described spacetime. You can claim, all you want, that the t-parameter is a dimension but if it represents nothing, what exactly is it doing? If the t-parameter changes due to tracking a moving particle/object, it is changing based on our artificial Earth-bound system of time, not due to the real reason the particle/object is moving which involves local forces and masses.
To make matters worse, for some unknown reason, Einstein adopted the claims of Lorentz, that the definition of time we use on Earth is inadequate therefore he developed a multiplier related to the speed of light.
Here is wiki’s representation of the Lorentz transformation, the basis of Einstein’s relativity theory….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Note the ‘v’ (gamma) shaped expression halfway down the page called the Lorentz factor. It is stated as…
v = 1/(root [1 – v^2/c^2]
That is your time dilation factor and there is no physical basis for it anywhere in the universe. The reason there is no basis for it is that we humans based time on the rotational period of the Earth. If Lorentz was talking about a time, it was not the time we use on Earth, it was an invention based on his imagination.
correction…above, I referred to a the vector drawn from 0,0,0 to a particle object a time vector. That is incorrect. That vector represents the special coordinates of the particle/object and is a 3-d component. Time would be another arrow representing the change in position of the vector as it tracked a moving particle/object.
It is far easier to see that using a 1 dimensional system. If a particle is moving along the x-axis, between x = 5 and x = 10, that portion of the x-axis represents its motion. We are interested in the change of velocity of the particle between x = 5 and x = 10. Therefore, x = 5 unit over that interval.
We know that distance = s = velocity x time = vt, but where is t represented along the x-axis? We can do it only by representing the distance, s, as a function of time.
Hopefully it becomes painfully obvious that time cannot be represented in a simple 1-D system without relying on the human imagination and its invention of time. What we are doing essentially is observing a particle moving along the x-axis and timing it using our invention, the clock.
It would appear that Einstein and Lorentz got themselves caught up in mathematics without considering the physical reality.
> When will you get it that the three dimensional geometry of space is based on the human invention of Cartesian coordinates?
Good grief, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)
What’s an error of two thousand years between cranky friends?
Awaiting the point you are trying to make.
Come on, Bordo.
You cannot be that dumb.
But riddle me this. How can time be an invention that dates back from a certain point in time?
wee willy…”How can time be an invention that dates back from a certain point in time?”
***
Go into your imagination. Should not be difficult, you live there most of the time. Pick a date from the past. Now go farther back and pick another date. There, you moved through time but it was all in your mind.
That’s where time resides, in human minds. There is nothing in the real world that represents time. Clocks generate time based on a human definition, based on the rotation of the Earth.
Now come back to the present. It’s very difficult to remain in the present because a basic function of the mind is to dig in memory to explain whatever is happening around us. That means constantly flitting from the now state into past states in memory. With some training you can remain in the ‘now’ world for lengthy periods. That state is called ‘awareness’.
When you are in a state of awareness, there is no time or need for time. Unfortunately, most people are seldom is a state of awareness. Rather, they constantly ruminate by recycling old thoughts from memory. That’s what you are doing with time, you are recycling events and giving those rehashed events a reality.
I should note that due to the way we have developed, and our need to survive, we have become dependent on our illusion of time. At one time, a human would arise at first light and go out to do what they needed to do in order to survive. When it got dark, he/she would retreat to shelter. No need for clocks.
However, we have become accustomed to clocks and schedules and we now live according to clocks. We have become so inured to clocks that we think they are measuring something called time.
> Pick a date from the past. Now go farther back and pick another date. There, you moved through time but it was all in your mind.
C’mon, Bordo.
Date. Time. Not the same thing.
A date is not time???? I have asked you to explain where time is and no reply thus far. Carry on with your illusion.
Patience, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
You are not ready.
C’mon.
wee willy…there comes a time in life when we need to put this philosophical bs away and become aware of reality. You can conjure all sorts of theoretical realities but when push comes to shove, you need to put the fairy tales to bed and …LOOK!!!!
So, where is this philosophical time and space you talk about? Show me.
Physicist David Bohm preferred the word actuality because the word reality can represent mental definitions. You can talk about ‘my reality’ but actuality is reserved for what is actually there. And there is something there despite what some philosophers think
I told you about my conversion into the world of actuality. I was at an awareness seminar, which I really enjoyed. At one point I got into a fairly heated exchange with the guy leading the seminar about truth. That led to the meaning of ‘real’, at which point he banged on the wall with the side of his fist and asked me, ‘is that real’?
I waffled, going into philosophical bs because it does come down to what we mean by real. A wall can be real as a solid amalgam of atoms, or it can be real as a individual atoms making up the whole. However, I was missing the point of the seminar which was ‘awareness’, not philosophy.
After I had waffled enough, he challenged me to walk through the wall if it wasn’t real. To which, I replied, like the posters here who argue the Moon rotates on a local axis, that it might be possible for me, somehow, to fit the atoms of my body between the atoms making up the wall.
As I drove home that night, the light went on. No…I could not walk through the wall in this incarnation. I got it…the relationship between philosophy and what ‘might be’ and ‘what is’.
I did not close my mind off to possibilities but I did get it clearly that some things are very real for us humans. However, it was not till several years later that I really got it re things like time. Just as some things are very real, some things are not. Time is one of those things, it is entirely imaginary.
Becoming aware of that freed me up so much. Suddenly, a lot of things began to make sense. I am sorry you are still struggling with issues like time and hopefully the light will go on for you one day as well.
We are separated in this life by thoughts and ideas. There is no way for any human to not be alone. In ideas and thoughts, that form images, we can create an artificial bond, however, that leads to loneliness. We bond with someone and they leave, or die, and we feel left alone. The irony is that we are alone anyway but fool ourselves into believing we are somehow bonded to or part of another, or a group of others.
Gordon all good for you. But your personal feelings about time are not science, and are not the same as everyone else’s personal feelings about it.
Science has to transcend what one individual feels, and must be defined in terms of observations that anyone can reproduce.
Cool story, Bordo:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/david-bohm-quantum-mechanics-and-enlightenment/
David seemed to believe in the past and in the future, which means time exists for him.
nate…”Gordon all good for you. But your personal feelings about time are not science”.
***
Problem is, science does not address issues like time, in fact, science avoids the question. We had two physics classes in 1st year engineering. One course was divided into semesters, where we studied Statics in the first and Dynamics in the 2nd. In the Dynamics text, they had definition in the Preface and many phenomena like force and mass were defined but nary a word on time.
Einstein is even more confused about the meaning of time, space, and mass. In an explanation he gave for his relativity theory, he stated this…
“The ratio of the masses of two bodies is defined in mechanics in two ways which differ from each other fundamentally; in the first place, as the reciprocal ratio of the accelerations which the same motional force imparts to them (inert mass), and in the second place, as the ratio of the forces which act upon them in the same gravitational field (gravitational mass)”.
re f = ma
“It is only when there is numerical equality between the inert and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body”.
In part 1 above he is referring to f1 = m1 a1 and f2 = m2a2. If f1 =f2 then
m1/m2 = a2/a1
I am beginning to wonder if Einstein was all there or whether, as Louis Essen claimed, he did not understand measurement. It appears he did not since comparing two masses using acceleration rather than force is a fundamental misconception of the laws of motion.
According to Newton, mass is a property of matter related to a gravitational field, which means gravitational force. It is force that determines mass, not acceleration. Acceleration is merely an indicator of the effect of a force on a mass. Therefore, although mathematically correct, the relationship m1/m2 = a2/a1, does not describe the reality.
That leads to part 2 above where Einstein talks about a comparison between inertial mass and gravitational mass and talks about acceleration being independent of the nature of the body. For me, this is an indication of his flawed reasoning in his relativity theory.
There can never be numerical equality between acceleration related to a so-called inert mass and a so-called gravitational mass. Mass is mass is mass…as claimed by Newton.
“David seemed to believe in the past and in the future, which means time exists for him”.
***
Being a scientist he needs to use the word time to communicate. All of us do. We also use the words sunrise and sunset with reference to apparent solar motion and we are wrong.
A quote from Einstein on time…
“The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criterion of “earlier” and “later,” which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time. This in itself is not measurable. I can, indeed, associate numbers with the events, in such a way that a greater number is associated with the later event than with an earlier one; but the nature of this association may be quite arbitrary. This association I can define by means of a clock by comparing the order of events furnished by the clock with the order of the given series of events. We understand by a clock something which provides a series of events which can be counted, and which has other properties of which we shall speak later”.
It is apparent that Einstein is befuddled with the concept of time. He explains that time appears to individuals as a sequence of events that cannot be measured yet later claims a clock outputs a series of events that can be counted and compared to the other events as to duration.
Overall, he is admitting he has absolutely no idea what time is or what it means physically.
Gordon straightens out Einstein on time and space.
Its about time someone put him in his place!
The problem is that Einstein’s ideas, unlike Gordons, led him to make very specific, quantitative predictions, that are testable.
They have been put to the test many times, and over and over again they have passed.
So whatever Gordon’s vague complaints are, they don’t undo those successes or explain them away.
Ireneusz:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/04/23/how-the-disinformation-industrial-complex-is-destroying-trust-in-science/#comment-989639
“The climate is changing due to changes in the Earths position relative to the Sun.”
–
Yes, very much agreed!!!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Palmowski posted at Climate Etc:
” You can watch in real time how fast the average temperature is dropping in the Southern Hemisphere and Antarctica. ”
with, as usual, a link to a SINGLE DAILY situation:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/input/gfs_world-wt2_t2anom_d1.png
*
How can you agree to such a nonsense? Don’t you understand that Palmowski intentionally confounds daily info and trends?
Look at e.g. UAH’s LT trends for SH and SoPol during
– 2003-2022 (the last 20 years)
– 2013-2022 (the last 10 years)
and come back to us when you’ll have obtained them out of UAH’s data
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj
and compared them to the full UAH era, i.e. 1979-2022.
It is everything all right with what Ireneusz wrote.
–
Bindidon, please come back, when you understand the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
***
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
I perfectly understand your ‘Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon’.
Especially when you WRITE:
” Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster! ”
That is 100 % correct, Vournas!
binny…”Dont you understand that Palmowski intentionally confounds daily info and trends?”
***
I don’t understand that, Ren posts accurate science. You, on the other hand, create graphs that are clear lies. You have had the temerity in the past to post graphs showing UAH and NOAA in lock-step. You are an alarmist twit who gets upset over Ren’s accurate science because it contradicts your alarmist lies.
Robertson
” Ren posts accurate science. ”
Firstly, it is no ‘science’, and secondly it is irrelevant because no one can watch anything on the base of one SINGLE DAY.
*
” You have had the temerity in the past to post graphs showing UAH and NOAA in lock-step. ”
You are as usual an ignorant boaster who lacks any technical skill and never was able to do the trivial task of downloading data and posting graphs representing that data, let alone would you be able to process raw data by your own.
*
Try to learn, Robertson, why you are and keep utterly wrong, as I have shown here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
Try to finally grasp that
— your simple-minded view
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
is of course wrong because you dumb ignoramus compare NOAA’s anomalies computed wrt the mean of 1901-2000 to UAH’s anomalies computed wrt the mean of 1991-2020
while
— this graph
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
is 100 % correct because here, the anomalies are computed wrt the mean of the same reference period.
*
You are an incompetent person who still does not understand what any 12-year old child could easily explain.
Of course Ren posts good science. You are unable to recognize it because you don’t understand science.
Duh!!!
thanks Roy, great post and very neat model
–>2. a constant yearly CO2 sink (removal) rate of 2.05% of the atmospheric excess over 295 ppm
is the 2.05% just backfitted or is there some physical model that predicts this rate?
it certainly bodes very poorly for the years after 2100, when much smaller amounts of fossil fuels will remain to emit
the exact emissions decay rate is unknowable due to the unknowable path of extraction technology (as so many foolish predictors have learned), but if we reach CO2 equilibrium by 2070 the temperature trend may reverse
and given that the 1979-2023 temperature/agriculture trend is about as benign as anyone in 1979 could have hoped for, by 2170 we might finally have a real climate crisis
fortunately by then economic expansion will probably make such geoengineering issues tractable, if not trivial
td…”it certainly bodes very poorly for the years after 2100, when much smaller amounts of fossil fuels will remain to emit…”
***
Do you have any evidence for that? Last I heard we had 200 years of fossil fuel and counting. We have been drilling over a small portion of the solid surface and have not looked much under the ocean.
Thus far, the eco-weenies are having their way with their outright lies. However, when people get the drift of what it means to have no oil available, there could be a revolt or two.
yes I agree, I would emphasize again the exact emissions decay rate is unknowable due to the unknowable path of extraction technology (and related technologies)
ultimately everything is a question of price
e.g. in some technologically plausible scenarios cheap abundant micro-fusion suddenly makes everything other than hydro obsolete, causing fossil fuel prices to fall below extraction costs so that emissions quickly fall to nearly zero
in others perhaps all nuclear is banned, and fossil fuel extraction also becomes more efficient, opening new reserves for exploitation and increasing emissions for centuries to come