Home/BlogThis is to remind folks about commenting controls here that might very well impact YOU…
- I have quite a few banned terms that will get your comment ignored. These are meant to minimize bullying, although your use of such terms might not involve bullying at all.
- Comments posted with an unrecognized name or email address will go to moderation, and depending upon how busy I am, I might not get to it for days. This means if you fat-finger either your name or your e-mail address (or, like me, accidentally include my middle name), the comment goes to moderation. Yes, I just had to approve my own comment.
…maybe I need to hire an AI bot….
That’ll depend on how you train it. : )
Can you please include
“I knew you cult id1ots”
in your banned phrases?
Thanks.
Quite understand the restrictions but it would be a great help to tell us the terms you wish us not to use.
It’s a bit like having a hidden speed trap camera. It may help state revenues but it does nothing to reduce speeds at a danger point on the road.
If you object to something , please help us comply with your wishes.
I recall some years back WUWT banned the word “liar”. Unfortunately that meant that posts including “familiar” or “familiarity” which are quite common in calm discussion, resulted in post mysteriously vanishing.
Everything works fine in here
Good idea. I have been guilty of using certain words but I prefer to talk plain science. I don’t regard the usage of certain words as bullying. I do it out of sheer frustration when a poster makes an obviously dumb alarmist comment and cannot or will not offer a scientific basis for the comment.
I had been trying to clean much of the negative up before your intervention, but thanks anyway.
**”I prefer to talk [very] plain science”**
Correction. The level of “science” you talk Gordo is indeed very plain.
Could you publish a list of those words?
no, that would ruin the mystery.
I have to admit that the guesswork does add a bit of excitement. Did I just use a bad word, or is there some other problem? I can also see how it keeps people honest and prevents them from using words that might be bad, or that somehow refer to that particularly bad person who nobody wants around.
The one that bothers me the most is absor.p.tion
That’s particularly true when the r-p or p-t combo works fine with other words.
Let me try an example.
corporation or adept.
The most worrying thing is when you fall into the ‘internal system error’ trap.
You have not only to correct what you want to post; you need also to save it somewhere, quit the blog and restart it.
Recently, I even had to clear the Firefox cache :–(
Strikes me that the internal error is some kind of internal conflict between someone working on the system or WordPress doing the same. As I say, it’s a very difficult problem to work through. Pays to save your work in a text editor as you go.
The fewer of your useless posts make it through the better
Aaah, the lurking dachshund came by and left a nice little poo.
Talking about yourself again Blinny?
Still no moderator keys and hat for you .
Suck up harder Bindidong Suck up harder
Ironically, this article was about discouraging internet bullying.
Dr, Spencer.
It may be worthwhile to append to each of your headline posts a short paragraph describing your comment policy.
The amount of bullying and abusive commenting that goes on here only serves to undermine the seriousness of your posts. You’re probably aware that this site is known as “Roy’s Bodega” in certain circles.
This will not stop bad behavior but at least it will be clear that you don’t condone such behavior, because you don’t, right?
You’re may be familiar with this message from another site that shall remain unnamed:
I would hardly consider RealClimate as a source of inspiration.
or ‘andthentheresphysics’ either.
or Eli for that matter.
“This will not stop bad behavior but at least it will be clear that you dont condone such behavior, because you dont, right?”
What sort of bad behaviour are you slyly accusing Dr Spencer of condoning?
ark…”The amount of bullying and abusive commenting that goes on here only serves to undermine the seriousness of your posts”.
***
Come on. You come on to Roy’s site, where Roy is at best a luke-warmer with conditions, knowing Roy is the target of every alarmist crank out there, and you post alarmist gibberish
When you are called on it, you call it bullying. You are an alarmist tr0ll trying to push alarmist propaganda and you get sore when people call you names. At least, I try to append scientific reasoning with my comments about you and you come back whining about my reasoning with no rebuttal.
Why don’t you offer a disclaimer as to what your real aim is posting here.
“Youre probably aware that this site is known as Roys Bodega in certain circles”.
***
What a whiny comment. You come across like the type of adolescent who would rat on everybody is school. Sounds like Eli Rabbett’s site.
You have this attitude that you can come onto a site and post scientific gibberish without being challenged. and when you are challenged you lack the scientific expertise to respond effectively, so you whine.
Not sure why I should be insulted by “Roy’s Bodega”. Also, the only reference to that phrase I could find through Google was on AndThenTheresPhysics, which talked about a Sky Dragon Slayer posting here. (And I do wish the SDSs would go away; my discussion moderation terms have apparently caused them to largely give up using my blog as a soapbox).
Dr. Spencer.
Point taken; although I would add from personal experience that not much science is discussed in a bodega either.
My larger point stands, though. It’s good practice to post your Comments Policy somewhere on the site so as to make clear that you don’t condone the bullying, abusive language, and off topic posting that plagues the comments section.
Alternately, we’ll always have Samuel Butler’s admonition, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
Best regards.
A,
You wrote –
“Its good practice to post your Comments Policy somewhere on the site so as to make clear that you dont condone the bullying, abusive language, and off topic posting that plagues the comments section.”
You have become the authority on “good practice”, have you? Maybe Dr Spencer is actually capable of determine his blog policy all by himself. He is the final arbiter, you know.
Whiny, woke, types generally claim that their feelings are hurt when they cannot find facts to support their assertions. They fall about the place, feeling offended, bullied, abused – and so on. Their fragile egos cannot abide any disagreement – all the while claiming their right to have opponents tortured, jailed or executed, for pointing out facts.
You have your opinion, I have mine. Both are of equal value, unless someone demonstrates otherwise. Dr Spencer’s censorship is applied lightly, it appears.
I really have difficulty understanding why some people are so afraid of reality – one instance might be the reality that someone might disagree with them. No amount of argument, discussion or even violent argument will change a single physical fact – no matter how passionate the discussion participants are about their views. Nature simply doesn’t care!
Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Reality always wins eventually.
Shielding people from reality helps nobody in the end. That’s my opinion, anyway. Most disagree, obviously.
Roy…I realize there are clowns who advertise themselves as the SDS but I have found some of their articles, like from Claes Johnson or Pierre Latour interesting. I recall your interaction with Pierre and found it interesting. That’s what science is about, is it not?
Johnson is an eminent mathematicians and Latour a chemical engineer who has a lot of experience with heat processes. Not sure what SDS reps you had here, it would be before my time. I don’t agree with special interest groups taking over another person’s blog but there are alarmist currently posting here who obviously disagree with your position on climate science.
From what I have read from Johnson and Latour, they are actually more aligned with your POV even though you obviously disagree with them on some points.
What do those have in common? Hmmm..
Nevrmind, wrong spot..
Ok, I might do that.
The time I get to spend here is rapidly decreasing due to work load, but that’s not all bad!
Roy, I appreciate this forum. Yes, often the topics veer off, and some abuse this blog, but the public needs to see the effect a cult has. There are commenters here, usually anonymous, that claim such nonsense as “ice cubes can boil water”, among other things.
Your liberal moderation policy allows such nonsense, and again, I see that as good. The public needs to see how science is being so perverted.
I do agree with the restrictions of several past commenters, such as the infamous Cxttxn.
Thanks for this blog, especially the science and data you present.
Looks to me like you lost your dance partner Willtard
Dang, you mean I don’t get to ignore him anymore?
clint…”Roy, I appreciate this forum. Yes, often the topics veer off, and some abuse this blog….”
***
Written by the lead abuser, who has appointed himself Roy’s second in command. It seems every blog has a house ijit who thinks he runs the blog.
Gordon, have you paid attention to the word count?
Reality is scary, huh?
The science is we are in a cool interglacial period and it’s an Ice Age.
Though it’s redundant say, in an Ice Age and to be in a interglacial period- or can’t be in interglacial period and not be in an ice age.
Also we have been for couple million years in the coldest time of the 33.9 million year icehouse global climate {or latest one of five known Ice Ages that Earth has had}. And it seems the Last Glacial Period had “dangerously” low global CO2 levels. Or Earth’s life was near starvation levels of global CO2 levels and we had far more deserts at this time.
Currently 1/3 of Earth’s land area are deserts, or we have recovered from a dry period which had more deserts, but in last 5000 years the desert areas have increasing due to global climate getting colder.
gb says: “The science is…”
Sorry gb, but that ain’t science. It’s all opinions, beliefs, assumptions, and imagination. You can believe it if you want, but it ain’t science. It’s “cargo cult” dogma.
Science is observable, testible, verifiable, repeatable, and does NOT violate the laws of physics. IOW, real science is reality.
What is observable is that a surface air temperature of 15 C [59 F]
is a cold air temperature.
That 25 C [77 F] is an air temperature within range what is called room temperature.
And that the tropical region on Earth stays around room temperature and there exist plants which called tropical plants which require temperatures near room temperature and the tropical region has always
been warm- otherwise tropical plant could not exist.
And that regions outside to the tropics is and has been colder but
but in warmer periods of past interglacial periods, regions outside the tropics has been a lot warmer than they are now. But such warmer periods of interglacial periods are rather brief, such as thousands
of years, and most the time- tens of thousands of years, it’s been colder.
Clint R
I wish you would follow your own advice on science. You come up with a really bad idea that nitrogen gas reflects IR back to Earth’s surface. This is a very poorly thought out idea. There is NO evidence to suggest it does and there is quite a bit of evidence that it is false and wrong. Yet you believe it blindly without a shred of evidence.
So if you start following your own advice it would be a good thing.
Norman,
Before talking about reflection, you might like to comment on “A STRONG INFRARED RADIATION FROM MOLECULAR NITROGEN IN THE NIGHT SKY*
JOEL STEBBINS,’ A. E. WHITFORD, AND P. SWINGS
Mount Wilson Observatory and Washburn Observatory”.
Most climate cultists assert that neither oxygen or nitrogen absorb or emit infrared radiation.
Here’s a sample of garbage promoted by a US university in a course –
“You have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation. They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.”
You probably believe stuff like this, and deny documented research which shows otherwise.
Over to you.
Swenson
Will you walk a new path today? One based on evidence.
The radiant energy you are finding here is very small and still considered insignificant with respect to Earth’s energy budget.
Here:
https://www.photonics.com/Articles/The_Night_Glows_Brighter_in_the_Near-IR/a50540
And here
https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/full/1998/01/ds1449/node6.html
It looks like it is in the range of one/millionth of a watt/m^2. One graph has it in W/cm^2 the other in W/m^2.
I do not see how this article in any way would support Clint’s unscientific made up claim that Nitrogen reflects IR back to the Earth’s surface (the way he claims it is a significant amount).
Also this radiant energy is emitted not reflected.
Poor Norman lamely inquires: Will you walk a new path today?”
Norman, is that a typical path a responsible adult would take, or your twisted perverted method of walking around a table?
Clint R
Still waiting for your evidence, some science, that N2 (Nitrogen gas) reflects IR. Have not seen any from you yet. I guess that’s never with you. Again I would ask you to follow your own advice and come up with evidence to support you highly unscientific and made up claim that Nitrogen gas reflects IR back to Earth’s surface.
Your own words: “Sorry Norman, but thats incorrect.
A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit though, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/yes-virginia-there-is-a-climate-crisis/#comment-1516428
Either you have evidence from somewhere or you just made it up. Again I know you will not provide any evidence because there is none. 15 micron photon will go right though N2 all the way to out to space. Happens all the time.
Sorry Norman, but that’s incorrect.
A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit through, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.
Have you learned to walk yet?
Norman,
You are obviously confused. You are referring to a very, very, small part of the total IR energy spectrum.
About as silly as saying that a particular narrow frequency of sunlight has an intensity of one millionth of a Watt per m2. Totally true, and totally irrelevant.
At least you now admit that nitrogen does, in fact, emit IR. That’s a start.
Next, you might accept that the temperature of a sample of air has no relationship to the amount of CO2 it contains.
Nitrogen, like any gas can be heated, and allowed to cool.
Compress it rapidly to say 25 bar, it might reach 500 C. Leave it at that pressure, it cools.
Just like oxygen and CO2.
Try again.
norman…” You come up with a really bad idea that nitrogen gas reflects IR back to Earths surface”.
***
I posted that initially some time back. I got it from the chiefio site. Swenson was kind enough to post the link, perhaps from a different source, and here’s the link to the original post…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
It stands to reason that both nitrogen and oxygen are emitting at some frequencies since, as Swenson pointed out, all mass radiates. That’s an inconvenient truth for climate alarmists since they have tied their wagons to the CO2 meme.
We know that oxygen radiates in the microwave band, the NOAA sats used by UAH depend on it. However, radiation means the oxygen must cool.
From the article…
” After doing some sky observing, they found a large IR interference from the open sky. This was chased back to a Nitrogen band at 10,300 Angstroms. It varies over the night, dimming as the sky cools, and increases again just before sunrise. It varies with zenith angle too. It is strong and bright”.
10,300A = 1.03 um
putting it in the near-IR band from my calculations.
If you scan down the page it shows a neat graphic of the nitrogen spectrum. If N2 radiates at all these frequencies, it means it is dissipating heat.
You badly misunderstand the article.
The IR from the N2 is only “bright” at vary specific wavelengths in the cold, dark night sky (ie bright like the auras are bright at night). The IR from CO2 and H2O are bright across wide bands and detectable during the day (ie bright like sunshine is bright during the day). They don’t even look during the day because the 1.03 um emissions would be swamped by solar IR.
Also you seem to have missed this idea from the article:
“Let us suppose that, during the day, N2 molecules or other compounds containing N atoms are dissociated into N atoms by ab.sorp.tion of far-ultraviolet solar radiation. These N atoms will tend to recombine in the course of the night.”
These N2 atoms are not “dissipating heat” (not dissipating energy from ab.sorbed IR nor energy from collisions with surrounding gas). These emissions are from chemical reactions and instigated by solar UV hours before.
gb,
I intend no offense with the following remarks.
I support the thoughts of Richard Feynman who said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it”
I might be a bit picky, but “science” is often a latter day substitute for “the Almighty” in the minds of many. Not to be questioned, and any opposition is to be called “denial”, and treated as apostates.
I suppose that I use “reality” as Feynman uses “experience” above.
If reality is too much for some peoples’ feelings, I say bad luck for them. Nature doesn’t care about their feelings, and neither do I. I’m not a fan of censorship, and suppression of unfettered free speech.
However, I accept reality. As Winston Churchill said “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
Enough said.
What I mean by science, is something like, the planet Venus is called the planet Venus by science.
Some others might call it, something else.
So, science has agreed to call our Ice Age, the Late Cenozoic Ice Age
though it also called, Antarctic Glaciation.
There are various ideas about why we are in a cold period of time,
though it’s common to assume in has to do with geological changes of Earth.
But there different ideas of why we are so cold.
I don’t know of anyone who is saying Earth is in a warm period of time.
Al Gore is politician, and politician lie about many things, it is generally agreed that whenever their lips move, they are lying.
Winston Churchill also said:
–No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms …–
Of course US is suppose to be a republic.
But it’s fair to say, politicians can’t keep a republic- it’s up to
it’s citizens to do that.
On topic of Venus- it’s got more than 3 times more nitrogen than
Earth’s atmosphere has.
We have also detected 5,483, exoplanets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets
And of those, over 200 have directly imaged [rather than detected-
mostly due to their gravitation effects on their stars].
And it’s hard to detect trace gases- though can be done if orbiting a planet. So, Venus has:
“Atmospheric composition (near surface, by volume):
Major: 96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)
Minor (ppm): Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 150; Argon (Ar) – 70; Water (H2O) – 20;
Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 17; Helium (He) – 12; Neon (Ne) – 7”
And Mars has:
“Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.1% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.59%
Argon (Ar) – 1.94%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.16%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.06%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) – 0.08”
According to science.
But question was, does it seem possible to detect nitrogen in an atmosphere of a exoplanet more a light year away, if atmosphere had more 50% of atmosphere being nitrogen?
“So, science has agreed to call our Ice Age, the Late Cenozoic Ice Age
though it also called, Antarctic Glaciation.”
“Science” has not agreed to call anything. Some scientists may have agreed on a description of certain facts, but to say “science” has said something is using the word incorrectly.
In my opinion, of course.
For example, one definition of an “ice age” is “any geologic period during which thick ice sheets cover vast areas of land.”
Unfortunately, no help is given to say what comprises “geologic period”, “thick” or “vast”.
Even amongst “climate scientists” there is currently disagreement about the status of the weather pattern characterized as El Nio! A sample “The UN has just declared a major weather change to be official, as has the US, which will affect Australia. But the BOM has other ideas.”
And of course, things like “global surface temperature” – not global, not the surface, and not the temperature of the air! So “science says . . .” is just an appeal to unspecified authority, hoping nobody will challenge any unsupported assertion, no matter how ridiculous.
–Unfortunately, no help is given to say what comprises geologic period–
“The geologic time scale or geological time scale (GTS) is a representation of time based on the rock record of Earth. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
from it:
“Period: Millions of years to tens of millions of years ”
–History of the geologic time scale
While a modern geological time scale was not formulated until 1911 by Arthur Holmes, the broader concept that rocks and time are related can be traced back to (at least) the philosophers of Ancient Greece. …”
A scale is completely different to a period, of course. I don’t know what your point is, though. For example, some may consider that the Earth is in an ice age, as ice sheets cover vast areas of land. Others may say it is not
What difference does it make? As Shakespeare said “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Some people might claim that “a reduced rate of cooling” is really “getting hotter”, I suppose, but it makes no difference to the fact that the Earth does not magically get hotter because the air contains CO2!
“CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature” is a “scientific” paper.
If “science says”, maybe “science tells lies”, too. Or maybe “science says, then says the opposite”.
Not at all satisfactory, is it?
–For example, some may consider that the Earth is in an ice age, as ice sheets cover vast areas of land. Others may say it is not–
What others?
In science, all it takes is one.
SpaceX Starship Booster Static Fire Prep & Amazing Innovation with Hot Staging, Chandrayaan-3 Update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpG_os5BkhI
A lot in video.
The new telescope in L-2, India lunar missions. And SpaceX stuff.
Not counting delays from FAA, it seems we going to get another Starship test launch before end of August.
It seems to me, there is more risk with this second attempt- as a lot
new elements involved- the new deluge system and hot fire second stage separation- plus probably more changes- and also new self destruct- which may or may not be used, but anything new added, is simply more risks added. The deluge system will protect the pad, how will effect the most important aspect of it, a success take off.
It’s so complicated, only a launch can “test it”.
Though the static fire which in up coming, helps in this regard. Though this test may indicate more changes are needed and one will have to do a series to static fires, which adds months to test launch date.
So, that Musk says there about 50% chance the test launch getting to orbit, seems about right. And probably about 50% chance it will have test launch before August ends- but for any new rocket, 50% is pretty good chance of launching on any date.
We have two lunar mission which going launch {before end of year- and both were planned to launched last year. I give it 50% one of two will launch before end of 2024, and less 25% both them will successful launched this year.
The India one, has been launched, and next part in landing on lunar surface {in couple months} and since tried before, probably better than a 50% chance that there is no major problems {it lands, rover works, etc}. And American landers have same issue, do get to orbit anytime soon, and then. land and work on the Moon.
gb, since you believe this is your blog, have you sent annual funding to Spencer?
gb…ignore this ijit, he has been banned in the past for similar behavior. I know you will ignore him, just supporting your decision if you do.
Gordon, I enjoy your obsession with me.
(The pills aren’t helping, huh?)
How’s it going down at LGBTQ headquarters? I hear your opinions are highly valued down there. It was tweeted on Twitter.
Indias Chandrayaan-3 lander arrives in lunar orbit
https://spacenews.com/indias-chandrayaan-3-lander-arrives-in-lunar-orbit/
“Final descent and the soft landing attempt is set for Aug. 23. The primary landing site is in the vicinity of the lunar South Pole region, located at 69.37 degrees south latitude and 32.35 degrees east longitude. No previous Moon mission has landed at a lower latitude.”
Or 20.63 degrees from south pole,
And a degree on moon is about 30.3 km or 625 km from the lunar S pole.
Eastern Pacific got Cat 4 hurricane, Dora. And has tropical storm, Eugene:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
And on Atlantic side, it doesn’t have anything:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Solar wind
speed: 346.2 km/sec
density: 0.21 protons/cm3
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 100
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Updated 05 Aug 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.67×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.0% Low
48-hr change: -0.8%
Tonite, my night low temperature forecast is 67 F and Sun high is 103 F but most of week will below 100 F and cloudy with no chance of rain. It seems Eugene could have some effect, here, but it’s not likely.
It is guessed that in hours, Eugene will be Cat 1 hurricane- and it’s not suppose to last long. So, it might effect my weather- even something exciting like thunder and lightening {but not greening the desert or something significant}.
California water levels are still high. Out of state water:
Lake Powell is well off it’s peak, but:
“Total releases for water year 2023: 7,351,053 acre feet
This is 98.01% of the minimum required of 7,500,000 acre feet”
And still higher than normal, but you can’t say it’s high, it would take years or perhaps evenually get lower than normal.
Lake Mead is still going up, and:
“Total releases for water year 2023: 6,673,410 acre feet
This is 74.15% of minimum required release of 9,000,000 acre”
It seems both will exceed “their minimum” and rainy season will begin again- but might not rain or it might pour. It might be nice if could predict such things.
The sun:
Daily Sun: 06 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 369.9 km/sec
density: 0.06 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 100
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.67×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.0% Low
48-hr change: -1.2%
I see no spots coming from farside, and spots are leaving nearside.
Flares haven’t hit, yet [or missed].
More active, but less spots.
We were promised big spots are a coming- I still guessing it’s fading rather than growing, but we should get some more fireworks- and perhaps a big one or two.
In Central Pacific, Dora is a Cat 4 hurricance
But nothing forecasted in Eastern Pacific or Atlantic:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Daily Sun: 07 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 482.7 km/sec
density: 4.10 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 101
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 174 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
48-hr change: +0.3%
Lower sunspots, but sun is moderately active, still.
As far as know, the promised big spots are still coming
but not seeing any coming from farside, and spots are going
to farside. There are small spot which might grow {or fade}.
My guess has been, it’s fading, but in terms spotless, at least another month
Russia to launch Luna-25 on Friday, first moon mission in 50 years
by Robert Schreiber
Berlin, Germany (SPX) Aug 07, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_to_launch_Luna_25_on_Friday_first_moon_mission_in_50_years_999.html
“After a long hiatus of nearly fifty years, Russia is gearing up to return to the Moon with its Luna-25 lunar lander, setting the stage for a new era in lunar exploration.
The Russian space agency announced Monday that the Luna-25 lander, powered by a Soyuz rocket, is set for an August 11 launch from the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia’s Amur Oblast at 2:10 a.m. Moscow time, The mission marks Moscow’s first lunar endeavor since the Luna-24 mission in 1976.”
Cool.
Testing, testing…
Please explain why an empty test comment is posted immediately, but substantive ones disappear.
Test it again
thanks
for some reason it really didn’t like my comment about the trailing linear trend doing a better job of prediction than models
btw this might interest you, Roy, if you haven’t seen it already
By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. Its as if the world suddenly lost the cooling effect from a fairly large volcanic eruption each year, says Michael Diamond, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University.
https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth
dovetails nicely with the 2021 CERES analysis showing radiative balance dominated by shortwave, which of course you are already aware of https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297
of course they don’t say it but clearly evidence for sub-2.0 ECS has piled up rather dramatically over the past few years
TallDave
Varenholt was a German person with a scientific education in the chemistry context, was responsible for many administrative tasks, and was later on a politician.
After having been Environment Minister in the Hamburg federal townstate, he moved to the private industry and was heavily pushing the renewables there.
Then he suddenly radically changed his mind like a 100% wryneck.
Not quite the type to trust.
Is a calculation possible to equate the warming effect of the Tonga water eruption to an equivalence of increase in ppm of CO2, and if so is it sufficiently large to dwarf the effects in models of fossil fuel use?
Yes, its possible and no, it’s not a large effect.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Testing
Testing again
What are you some kind of testickle ??
Did you post a couple of comments at CFACT at this URL earlier today?
https://www.cfact.org/2023/08/14/cfact-helps-nd-landowners-put-breaks-on-co2-pipeline/#comment-6254667590
IF not, someone is impersonating you and posting comments.
yes, it was me. What I said there is no different from what I post on my blog. Don’t know why I’m expected to be a denier all the time. -Roy