Home/Blog
That title might trigger some people, so let me explain. Yes, in a warming world due to increasing CO2 there will be a statistical increase in “unusually warm” years. But assuming the warming is entirely due to steadily increasing CO2 causing a slight (currently ~1%) energy imbalance in the climate system, then the warming that results is about ~0.02 deg. C per year.
Anything different from that small 0.02 deg. C per year warming is due to natural climate variability.
This can be easily demonstrated with a simple 1D energy balance model. Anything different is due to natural weather and climate variability.
If we take our UAH global lower tropospheric temperature product as an example, 2023 was a whopping +0.51 deg. C above the 1991-2020 average. Using our trend of +0.14 deg. C per decade as a warming rate baseline, then 2023 should have been +0.25 deg. C above the baseline, but instead it was twice as warm as that. So, about half that warmth was natural (AGAIN… assuming the background warming trend is 100% due to humans).
So, when we get a really warm year (like 2023, and probably 2024) then something other than CO2 is mostly to blame. All of the media and environmentalist hype is just noise. Really warm years will be offset by cooler years (which no one reports on because it’s not newsworthy) so that the long term temperature trends remains ~0.02 deg C per year of warming (+0.014 deg C per year in our satellite data).
Again, this assumes CO2 is 100% to blame for the long-term warming trend, and the 0.02 value assumes a climate sensitivity on the low end of IPCC projections, which is consistent with observations-based diagnoses of climate sensitivity; change it to 0.03 if you want, my point still stands.
It’s really that simple.
Dr. Spencer writes: “Again, this assumes CO2 is 100% to blame for the long-term warming trend,”
The report
Stochastic assessment of temperatureCO2 causal relationship in climate from the Phanerozoic through modern times
by Demetris Koutsoyiannis ,
states:
6. Conclusions
The premise of this study is that the climatic system is very complex and subject to perpetual change due to numerous processes, either internal or external to it. The fact that one of them, namely the relationship of climate with atmospheric CO2, is highlighted in the last decades does not correspond to its actual importance as a climate driver. The promoted importance is a non-scientific issue, related to the narrative that humans, through their emissions by fossil fuel burning, are responsible for the changes we see in climate.
However, changes occurred in the history of Earth and the data sets used here, going back to the entire Phanerozoic eon (the last 541 million years), clearly show the perpetual nature of change. Furthermore, the consistent stochastic methodology for causality identification further developed in this study, as opposite to inconsistent deterministic methods, clearly supports a single conclusion: While there is a close relationship between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concertation, it is temperature that leads, while [CO2] lags. That is, the causality direction is 𝑇→[CO2] and not the opposite, as emphatically promoted in the last decades. This is the case not only in the distant past and on large time scales, but also in the recent period covered by reliable instrumental records. This happens not only at the monthly or annual time scale, but also at the decadal time scale, which can be resolved by the existing data sets. Notably, the results of the method application on the decadal time scale with instrumental data are even more conclusive than those on the annual time scale. This is similar to what the proxy data for the Common Era suggest.
In conclusion, both the paleoclimatic and the instrumental data confirm the same causality direction 𝑇→[CO2] for all time scales, from very large to very short, and all periods. The mechanisms responsible to this causality direction are physical, related to the interaction of oceans and atmosphere, but mostly are related to the biosphere processes. Did human actions, such as fossil fuel combustion and other presumed ‘unnatural’ actions, reverse directionality, as the popular claim is? Perhaps, but no analysis based on observational data has shown that. Rather, such claims are based on imagination and climatic models full of assumptions. However, as shown in [22] the causality direction in time series produced by climatic models is opposite to that of the real-world data.
Alarmists claim that earth’s energy budget 0.6 watt/sec-m^2 imbalance explains why the earth is getting warmer. But is there an imbalance? Stored photosynthesis chemical energy isn’t accounted for in the budget. Googled sources indicate about 32% of the earths surface is covered by plants that use about 3.76 watts/sec-m^2 for photosynthesis, which computes to 1.2 watts/sec-m^2 being converted to chemical energy. This more than offsets the 0.6 watts/sec-m^2 shortfall in outgoing infrared radiation.
Dr. Spencer.
What is a “1D energy balance model”? Is that the same thing as a one-layer model?
No, it can have many layers… there’s just no horizonal variations and thus no circulations in the atmosphere or ocean which cause the real-world response to be much more complex, with large variations that would occur even without an imposed energy imbalance like that from increasing CO2.
Anything different from that small 0.02 deg. C per year warming is due to natural climate variability. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.
That is a false statement.
It assumes knowledge of, or guesses, how much warming since 1979 was manmade. That knowledge does not exist. So the statement is false it is not based on data. Science requires data.
Speculative attribution is not data.
Afte 27 years of climate science and energy reading, 2024 is the first year during which I have observed climate skeptics, who I previously trusted, making false or deceptive statements. Leftists have ramped up their reign of error, so perhaps conservatives are getting desperate?
Spencers UAH reflects +0.015 degrees C. warming per year since 1979 so I have no idea why he uses +0.02 degrees C. per year.
Nothing in the UAH numbers explains what caused the warming. Causes could range from 100% natural to 100% manmade. There is evidence of both. And no need to guess a percentage. I would say 100% natural, or 100% manmade, are the least likely guesses based on evidence collected so far.
There is enough evidence to say manmade causes of climate change are adding to natural causes of climate change for the first time.
Why would there be heat spikes and flat trends in a long term rising temperature trend?
The simple answer is that every El Nino creates a temporary warming spike while every La Nina creates a temporary flat trend.
So what?
The annual temperature change is the net result of ALL causes of climate change: Global, regional and local causes. CO2 is one of many causes of climate change, some of which may still be unknown, especially feedbacks.
Reduced SO2 emissions cause warming too
Increased UHI causes warming too
Measurement errors seem to only cause warming in the present, and cooling in the past.
I do not need any Ph.D. scientists or average US temperature statistics, to tell me that our SE Michigan winters are warmer, with far less snow than in the 1970s. This warmer winter trend has been happening for decades.
Late 1970s
Driveway snow shoveling about once a week
2023 / 2024 winter
Driveway snow shoveling one time for ten minutes
Same driveway since 1987
Four miles south from 1977 to 1987
Do I care what caused our warmer winters?
No. I celebrate warmer winters and retired my snow shovel this year.
The predictions of bad news climate change, wrong since the 1970s, are a fig newton of overactive leftist imaginations.
–Richard: I clearly stated my assumption, multiple times, so your initial assertion is wrong. -Roy
Dr. Spencer.
To understand the temperature trend we need to understand whats causing the energy imbalance.
Since the only way that the planet can lose energy to the vacuum of space is radiation, and the planet’s radiating temperature is fixed, “in a warming world due to increasing CO2 there will be” a rise in the radiating altitude.
Using a relatively simple multi-layer (“1D“) atmospheric model, it is possible to demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes the infrared emission height to rise. This is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, where additional CO2 leads to greater a b s o r p t i o n of infrared radiation in the lower atmosphere, thereby requiring radiation to escape from higher, cooler altitudes.
IMHO.
Thank you Ark, for admitting that it is your “opinion”. But, opinions Ian’t science.
It’s your opinion that because CO2 absorbs infrared, it can therefore heat the surface. But, almost all mass can absorb some infrared. But “absorbing” is NOT “heating”.
It’s confusing for people that are unfamiliar with thermodynamics, so let’s make it simple. An apple on your table is absorbing infrared. Does that mean you can heat your house in winter with apples? Why not? They can absorb infrared, just like CO2.
Can you understand how silly this CO2 nonsense is?
Arkady Ivanovich says:
Since the only way that the planet can lose energy to the vacuum of space is radiation, and the planets radiating temperature is fixed, ”in a warming world due to increasing CO2 there will be” a rise in the radiating altitude.
Using a relatively simple multi-layer (1D) atmospheric model, it is possible to demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes the infrared emission height to rise. This is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, where additional CO2 leads to greater a b s o r p t i o n of infrared radiation in the lower atmosphere, thereby requiring radiation to escape from higher, cooler altitudes.
————
You have completely missed Dr Spencer’s point. He did not address any gradual change in emission height.
What he said while not advocating or rejecting your statement is that the believed gradual retention of energy by CO2 does not account for short term variations.
If we want to look logically at the recent record short term mean global energy peak. We should note.
The recent anomaly .8c minus the previous record anomaly in 1998 of .44 = .36c
.36c divided by 26 years times 10 years = .138C/decade.
Thats closer to the NOAA STAR satellite record of .139c/decade than to the UAH .153c/decade. Of course there are going to be variations in intermittent temperature peaks without any detectable change in a long term energy model; but its clear one cannot attribute that ”expected” peak to replicate itself as evidence of what is causing the change.
All it suggests, which most of us already knew, is that the mean temperature of the globe is still likely in a slight warming phase and that the fact that it is a peak is one reason it is really difficult to tell what and how many causes there are of changes in global mean temperature. Smoothing them out via longer termed smoothing algorithms doesn’t even produce a curve that matches CO2 emission changes. Hiding that was the main purpose of manufacturing artificial hockey sticks.
As Dr. Syun Akasofu said that to understand a subset of change such as anthropogenic change one must understand natural change. It’s glaringly true we don’t understand that or much worse we don’t want to understand it. there is a lot of evidence of the latter being the most true.
Richard Greene,
I may have been on this earth a few more years than you. Yes, I will agree that also in our area, winters are warmer now than they were in the 1970s, but I also can tell you that they are cooler than what they were in the 1950s, and the summers are cooler than what they were in the 1950s. That is not only my memory, but also it matches the temperature record for our farm. And our farm records also match the temperature record for the nearby government research station. Also, the government research center also matches our farm’s record for nine straight days over 100 degrees in 1936. (We have not had nine TOTAL days of over 100 degrees in the last 25 years!)
By the way, we have better corn (and other) crops now because the summers are wetter and have fewer days of extremely hot temperatures. Our yields are also helped by higher CO2 in the atmosphere.
@Clint R says
“absorbing is NOT heating. ”
___________________________________________
CO2 is “selectiv” absorbing.
It is very permeable for shortwave radiation from sun, and less permeable fr longwave radiation from the ground. That results in heating.
Thats no “opinion”. Thats physics.
Fritz Kraut says:
”CO2 is selectiv absorbing.
It is very permeable for shortwave radiation from sun, and less permeable fr longwave radiation from the ground. That results in heating.
Thats no opinion. Thats physics.”
Fritz apparently has never taken a physics class and actually believes what he concluded is mandated by physics when anybody that knows anything about heat transfer knows that there is nothing in realm of known physics that makes that have to be true.
Has anyone considered the huge quantity of explosives let off in the Ukraine since 2014 and the middle east since about 2019??
I hadn’t considered explosives, but lets do that now.
Google says in WW2, there were 3 million equivalent tons of TNT exploded or 3 megatons. Nuclear testing apparently was the equivalent of 545 megatons. So lets assume Ukraine hasn’t used more than that and use it as an upper limit.
How much energy is in 545 megatons of TNT? 4.184 gJ in 1 t so 2.8e18 J for 545 mt. Lets use two years as our time span which gives us 72.3 gW.
NASA says earth gets 4.4e16 W per day, so taking a real upper limit you are looking at 0.00016% of a days solar input.
Personally, I’d look for another cause of warming after you thoroughly check my assumptions and algebra!
I don’t disagree with the general point. But I think it ignores a couple of possibilities.
The rate of change caused by CO2 could be accelerating.
[which there is no evidence of… yet…. and could only be gleaned after a few decades – Roy]
Or
The larger than expected response to the current El Nio could be caused by the increased warming of the oceans.
[But you are invoking a natural source of climate variability… which is part of my point. -Roy]
I prefer not to make any assumptions about the cause of these record temperatures at this point.
Dr. Spencer’s plot from a couple of weeks ago indicates that the rate of change isn’t increasing.
“Dr. Spencers plot from a couple of weeks ago indicates that the rate of change isnt increasing.”
That de[pends on which bits you are looking at. I don’t think you can say that there is any significant evidence of acceleration at this point. But you can’t rule it out anymore than you could rule out deceleration after 2000.
Please show either of the above can cause what has been seen in the record over the short term.
“which there is no evidence of yet. and could only be gleaned after a few decades Roy”
Yes. I’m not saying there has been acceleration. I doubt it myself, and would require significant evidence. I’m just saying that it’s a possibility that has to be considered before ruling out climate change as a factor in the record temperature.
“But you are invoking a natural source of climate variability which is part of my point. -Roy”
Well it’s not natural if the warming oceans are caused by human activity.
Looking at the CO2 graph here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
The rate of change looks lower in the 60s versus the 2020s.
Lay a straight edge connecting the first and last data points.
The fact that points on the curve lie below the straight line indicates acceleration.
If my Calculus instructors can be trusted.
How do CO2 emissions cause oceans to warm? How does any human activity cause oceans to warm? Recall 70% of earth surface and average 2 miles deep is a lot of ocean.
“Well it’s not natural if the warming oceans are caused by human activity.”
IF is a big word that essentially says ‘the cause is CO2’ and humans are to blame.
Bob,
I don’t know about the 60’s because that’s not on Dr. Spencer’s plot. But rates of change look lower now than before on his plot.
I was referring to the change in CO2 concentration.
Roy’s graph is too noisy to tell.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-07-16.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-07-16.gif
Climate is so complex a useful predictive model is impossible. A few examples might help explain why. Black body radiation increases with temperature, so the earth cools faster as temperature rises. Average temperature can be rising as heat energy falls, so temperature is a poor indicator of climate direction. Many positive and negative feedback loops with varying periods are involved in climate, along with known and unknown cyclic cosmic inputs. Convection of heat to clouds which radiate vaporizing energy into space is highly significant and cloud formation is poorly understood. CO2 is beneficial for plants and if its causing significant warming, and it’s doubtful it is, there’s no proof or even the slightest indication that warming would cause more harm than good for the environment or humanity. Even if it was, the solutions being mandated won’t fix it and are causing environmental and economic damage that reduce the likely hood of developing realistic solutions. In other words, AGW is a hoax propagated by hysteria with no scientific foundation. The proof of this is critics questions aren’t answered, critics are denigrated and suppressed.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Roy Spencer and Everyone
RE: Heating of Air by Carbon Dioxide not Measurable.
RE: The Death Valley Project.
Using Google, you should search for “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”.
This is the website of the late John Daly.
From the home page, scroll down and click on:
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on:
“North America”, then click on “Pacific”, and finally scroll down and click on “Death Valley”.
The Figure shows plots of the annual average seasonal temperatures and a plot of the average annual temperature from 1923 to 2001. The plots are fairly flat and show no increase average temperatures. Thus, it can be concluded that carbon dioxide does not cause any measurable increase in temperature in Death Valley.
It would be of interest to obtain temperature data from 2002 to 2023 to determine any heating has occurred. In 2001 the concentration of CO2 at the MLO was about 370 ppm; it is now
427 ppm. Since Death Valley is a remote location, the concentration of CO2 should be about the same.
I have this proposal for Roy S. Can you obtain the recent temperature data and complete the plot average annual temperature?
Computing and plotting the average seasonal temperatures would be
quite a chore but is not needed.
If the plot of the average seasonal temperature show no increase, we can be confident that CO2 does not cause any “global warming” as claimed by the IPCC since 1988.
Harold, Global warming is just that — global! Checking one site is vastly insufficient.
“I have this proposal for Roy S. Can you obtain the recent temperature data … ?”
He already has it! He reports recent global temperature data (and regional temperature data) every month. These show a clear global warming trend. For the 27 regions, one is -0.003 C/decade (SoPol Ocean); the rest are between +0.02 and +0.29 C/decade. Again, a very clear trend.
Yep especially for Death Valley. Since increases in mean water vapor is blamed by mainstream science for the super majority of changes in climate, Death Valley almost devoid of water vapor will not likely show a significant change. . .except maybe for just the rare most habitable days there when you can put your rain pancho out to gather a few sips of water to live another day.
Did you check out John Daly’s website? He found a great many locations that had no warming to about 2003.
Since there is little water in the air, Death Valley is an ideal “experimental” site to test this hypothesis: The increasing concentration of CO2 in air causes a measurable increase in air temperature.
The “experimental” data showed no increase in air temperature to 2001. Thus, it can be concluded that CO2 does not cause a measurable increase in air temperature. Can this result apply to the rest of world? I say it can and there is no need to reduce the emission of
CO2
Most of the CO2 from released all sources is absorbed by the oceans where it is fixed by plants via photosynthesis. Plants on land fix much CO2. This why there is currently only about 0.8 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air.
There is slight warming of the earth, but it not due to CO2. This might be due to the reduction of air pollution. Cleaner air would allow more sunlight to heat the earth.
“Since there is little water in the air, Death Valley is an ideal experimental site to test this hypothesis: The increasing concentration of CO2 in air causes a measurable increase in air temperature.
experimental data showed no increase in air temperature to 2001. Thus, it can be concluded that CO2 does not cause a measurable increase in air temperature.”
Not really. The air in the desert is not stuck there. It circulates throughout the globe. So it cannot be considered in isolation.. The changes to this global circulation such as the jet stream matter, matter.
Nate denies that Death Valley would be a good test for CO2 on the basis it has a lot less water vapor. He must be covering up for what he secretly believes to be true.
Bill as ever, failing at the scientific method, ignores all confounding variables.
So now Nate claims without a shred of scientific evidence that Death Valley has as many variables as any other place. Sorry Nate but Death Valley has far less moisture to deal with and as far as CO2 os concerned that makes up at least twice the net effect of CO2. Can you name another variable Death Valley has that makes it a worse place? Nope! I didn’t think so. Nate is just lying through his teeth again.
Bill cluelessly thinks deserts exist in isolation from the rest of atmosphere.
In any case, the point is Moot, since there has been similar GW in the county containing Death Valley to everywhere else..
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series/CA-027/tavg/12/6/1950-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1950&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1975&endtrendyear=2024
Oh well, yet another red herring.
Not so fast Nate. The link you have says these county temperature averages aren’t actually by county but but is the mean of a very much larger zone that includes several counties.
The correct database to look at for Death Valley would be the temperature record of Furnace Creek which we know goes back to at least the 1930’s.
Then show it.
Where does it say the data is from several counties?
Nate never gives a seconds worth of thought to checking to see if what he is going to claim as a source has anything much at all to do with the claim he is making. The only important thing to him is it has the right answer.
Instead he asks somebody else to verify his sources for him. what a joke!
In addition it wouldn’t even matter as Inyo county is mostly mountainous terrain with the Sierra Nevada mountain range with hundreds of if not thousands of small narrow valleys with creeks, resorts, towns, and the Owens River running down a large valley connecting many of the small valleys and creeks. This water shed provides Los Angeles with about 50% of its water needs and most of it is in the Inyo National Forest. the wide Owens River valley rises from about 2300feet near Ridgecrest Ca to near Lake Crowley with an elevation near 7000feet traveling highway US 395 up the valley approximately 150miles.
It was also the location of the Manzanar War Relocation Center where American citizens of Japanese ancestry were interned during WWII. This is in the center of the Owens River valley at 3900 feet of elevation. Inyo county also contains the highest mountain in the US 48 states Mt Whitney and is part of a short section of the most impressive mountain peaks in the nation. Mt Williamson is the 6th highest in the continental US and also in Inyo county.
In fact, the Sierra Nevada mountain range in Inyo County extending into the next county up Mono County is so rugged it has no vehicle access from the east to the west for about 200 miles through the entire 150 mile length of the county.
Its a very diverse county including heavily wooded forest, snow capped mountains, lush river and creek valleys, and the baddest place on earth in Death Valley. Inyo County is one of the most popular vacation spots for people in southern California and is especially well known for its outdoors activities.
Where does it say the data is from several counties?
You seemed to have evaded answering.
As ever, you just make it up.
“Instead he asks somebody else to verify his sources for him. what a joke!”
As usual Bill pulls a specific claim about the data from his ass. When questioned, HE fails to support his claim.
Thus we can safely ignore Bill’s posts.
The only thing you have made clear Nate is you that you don’t want anybody to do what Harold suggested.
So you threw anything you could find at the wall to try to head that off without any vetting whatsoever. what brings on this case of knee jerk reactions anyway? One would think if you were really and truly concerned about climate you would make an effort to educate yourself first and then use that to educate others. So what’s up with you?
“without any vetting whatsoever.”
Other than contradictory data from a legit source. While you offer ZILCH.
As usual you are full of sh*t Bill.
Inyo county isn’t contradictory data to Death Valley Nate. Only an ijit would think so if they had done even a shred of investigation about the various climates within Inyo County. There is no question in my mind that Inyo county is likely most climatological diverse county in the continental United States. . .thus mean county temperature means absolutely nothing wrt Death Valley. . .and I doubt that Inyo county has any weather stations on the highest peak in the Continental US in order to frame any kind of meaningful mean temperature range for Inyo county instead of just catering to people visiting popular locations where large numbers of people stay within the county.
So why are you so opposed to the investigation suggested by Harold. You are avoiding giving an answer to that.
You have a better source of data? If so show it.
Deserts only exist because of the global circulation of the atmosphere that brings dried, persistently high pressure air from elsewhere.
“temperature range for Inyo county instead of just catering to people visiting popular locations where large numbers of people stay within the county.”
Which would obviously would include Death Valley. The park is over half the area of the county.
Nate says:
”You have a better source of data? If so show it.”
—
Harold already did Nate. Aren’t you paying attention? He provided a instructions for a link to the Furnace Creek station that has been in operations for over a hundred years. If one wants to actually get down with it one needs the actual raw temperature readings so one can get away from the best science available adjustments currently climate models.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Deserts only exist because of the global circulation of the atmosphere that brings dried, persistently high pressure air from elsewhere.”
—
Gee doesn’t the whole world exist in the same way Nate? We have evenly distributed CO2 so the best place to see the effects is where the air is dry. The air is dry in Death Valley because the moisture all drops over Sierra Nevadas when forced to climb high enough to get over the summits with no reasonably low mountain passes that prevents any roads in the area. So thats why Death Valley is a good place to look to see any effect from CO2.
Of course one needs to consider the other ways in which Death Valley temperatures can change, such as planetary movement and solar activity before you can really learn anything about co2.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Which would obviously would include Death Valley. The park is over half the area of the county.”
—
Well the park is far bigger than what is know as Death Valley. It includes two mountain ranges and other dry valleys. And they have exactly one long term weather station in the entire park in the real Death Valley provided by Harold.
How many weather stations did they use to find the average temperature of Inyo county? Were they divided up evenly to cover the vast number of microclimates in the valley? Inquiring minds like such details.
“The air is dry in Death Valley because the moisture all drops over Sierra Nevadas when forced to climb high enough ”
Exactly. As I have been saying, the air came from elsewhere, and is subsiding and thus drying and warming in the desert. Its temperature will depend on the temperature and moisture content of the air flowing from elsewhere.
Turns out your knee jerk rejection of my post
“The air in the desert is not stuck there. It circulates throughout the globe. So it cannot be considered in isolation.. The changes to this global circulation such as the jet stream matter, matter.”
was premature..
Not sure where you are going with this Nate. Uh are you claiming that the CO2 drop out along with the moisture?
What part do you not understand about weather and climate depends on global circulation patterns?
A heat wave makes it hotter over a vast region.
The jet stream undulates northward for 1000s of miles.
The ocean is warmer over vast regions and affects the climate of land masses.
Yeah but you didn’t mention CO2. Have you come over to the dark side?
Still playing dumb then?
CO2 is one variable. But as I noted awhile back, there are several others that matter regionally.
It should be obvious that trying to ascribe all T variation to one variable, out of several, is poor science.
That is why health vs diet studies are so hard.
then why don’t climate models include the effects of the planets on global temperatures when clearly they have an effect and account for the variations that climate models fail to account for?
But what Harold is proposing is to test CO2 not climate variations. . .unless of course those climate variations are in fact negative feedbacks that diminish the CO2 effect before it can produce any positive feedbacks.
“But what Harold is proposing is to test CO2 not climate variations”
You missed the point, again.
“then why dont climate models include the effects of the planets on global temperatures when”
Because the people doing the modeling are real scientists.
When are you going to show us a calculation or a shred of real evidence?
Nate says:
”You missed the point, again.”
————–
that was Harold’s point and you are trying to desperately change the topic with no explanation for why.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Because the people doing the modeling are real scientists. When are you going to show us a calculation or a shred of real evidence?”
—————
Seriously! Do I really have to prove to you that gravity isn’t astrology?
“trying to desperately change the topic with no explanation for why.”
Looks like you didn’t read any of my posts. Or intentionally forgot them.
G’bye Bill.
Now Nate runs away again without being able to explain how he now thinks how CO2 warms the surface. He is a fleeing man.
Nah, just rediscovered that I can’t fix stoopid.
you have proven you can’t demonstrate how the radiation effects you claim for co2 operate so if you believe you can’t fix that it is time for you to move on.
You have proven that all previous discussions with you are gone from your brain, as if they never happened. Even the current thread!
I can’t fix your brain.
Nate you know you are lying.
You haven’t been able to give a single source establishing that CO2 is capable of making the surface hotter.
Your posts have no credibility.
Now stop baiting..
Nate it is you who lacks credibility when if you had any on this topic you could destroy my credibility for real by 1) posting a link to a successful demonstration of the M&W theory within the atmosphere or of proof of the 3rd grader radiation model within the atmosphere; and 2) show a link to where you had previously posted this in response to may challenges that you haven’t.
I would be done and you would establish your first iota of credibility. Instead though you ignore demonstrations of its failure within the atmosphere and all your lying buddies like Bindidon, Ball4, Tim Folkerts who lie like you are seen for the ignorant buffoons you all are.
“posting a link to a successful demonstration of the M&W theory within the atmosphere”
We’ve discussed MW theory at length several times. Each time you demonstrated a lack of understanding of it and mischaracterization of it, eg you claimed it was just math!
There is never proof in science. But the radiative forcing it predicts has been directly measured. The stratospheric cooling and troposphere warming it predicted are consistent with what has been observed.
“I would be done and you would establish your first iota of credibility.”
No you wouldn’t! There is no evidence that discussions with are retained in your memory.
There is no evidence that evidence I show you is accepted on face value. There is always an excuse to reject it.
See everybody I told you Nate couldn’t do that one simple thing to rescue his credibility and establish my claim to be wrong.
Instead he choses to discredit science by claiming: ”There is never proof in science.” which is not true. . .and instead he chooses to foist theory without proof as being solid science.
Its only solid science via political declaration and not by the scientific method. . .which apparently you no longer believe in.
And certainly ”discussing” a ”theory” has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. Nor does giving it political awards either. . .except in your own mind.
Dr Roy says: “An unusually warm year or two cannot be blamed on climate change”
True, but there is a converse that is ALSO true and should also be stated. An unusually warm recent year or two cannot be SEPAREATED FROM climate change.
1998 was an exceptionally warm year; the 13 month average peaked @ 0.33 C, or 0.42 above the linear trend.
2016 was warmer; 13 month average @ 0.39, but only about 0.21 above the linear trend.
2020 also had a 13 month average @ 0.39, but this was only 0.15 above the linear trend.
So despite 2016 and 2020 being ‘unusually warm’ (record-setting!), they were only moderately above the trend. Setting new records with only slightly unusual years can ONLY be blamed on climate change.
“Using our trend of +0.14 deg. C per decade as a warming rate baseline, then 2023 should have been +0.25 deg. ”
Your baseline trend to the full set of data is +0.153 C/decade, not +0.14 C/decade.
And a linear fit to the full data gives
+0.282 C in Jan 2023
+0.296 C in Dec 2023
This is about 0.04 C warmer than your figure.
Yes. 2023 was an exceptionally anomalous year – the highest ever above the baseline. But without climate change, the 13 month average for 2023 would only have been about 0.1 C higher than the previous record in 1998, rather than a whopping 0.4 C above the three previous records.
Without climate change, there is no way the 10 warmest months in your data would have all occurred in the past 10 month!
“Really warm years will be offset by cooler years (which no one reports on because its not newsworthy)”
And what sort of headline would such a report have? “Exceptionally cool year drops back to average.”
Folkerts, you’re still making the same mistakes:
“Setting” new records with only slightly unusual years can ONLY be blamed on climate change.
Are you defining “climate change” as a “natural warming trend”?
“Without climate change, there is no way the 10 warmest months in your data would have all occurred in the past 10 month!”
Did you not hear about the Hunga-Tonga eruption?
Clint, you fail to make any point here.
“Are you defining “climate change” as a “natural warming trend”?”
I define climate change as a changing climate. Whatever the reason, temperatures are warmer on average in the 2020’s than the 1980’s.
Further, I am using the same linear trend that Roy used to be consistent.
“Did you not hear about the Hunga-Tonga eruption?”
Yes, I have. That changes nothing about what I said.
1) That was two and a half years ago, so unlikely to only now be reaching its peak impact.
2) Whatever effect H-T had, it is STILL on top of a 40+ year general warming trend. H-T 40 years ago would not have created a record hottest year.
Folkerts, you were unable to get my point because It was too subtle for you. Let me be clearer — You don’t have a clue about the science here.
Hopefully that is clear enough.
And your juvenile attempt to define “climate change” as a “changing climate” proves me right.
Some of Clint’s posts from the past:
“Im guessing the HTE is over.”
Aug, 2023
“The HTE was real. Temps will settle down now that it is gone.”
Sep, 2023
“The HTE has ended ”
Dec, 2023
“With HTE long gone…”
Jan, 2024
“The HTE forcing is long gone…
I expect UAH temps to drop over the coming months”
Feb 2024
“HTE warming continues to abate.
Mar, 2024
Clearly Clint has no idea how or why HTE might cause warming. If he did, he wouldn’t have have a year-long track record of being wrong about the effect.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Your baseline trend to the full set of data is +0.153 C/decade, not +0.14 C/decade.”
Being stuck in full on inculcated mode Tim you are making an illogical argument.
Fact is the UAH ”trend” after there was 30 years of temperature estimates in the system has varied between .11 and .153 mostly due to natural climate change like the pause with the trend where the trend dropped to .11. Now after this peak we are at .153 and still going to go a bit higher before the effect of this peak wears off.
So the mathematical mean trend is .132 using .14 seems pretty conservative and your take makes no sense at all unless you actually believe that CO2 causes El Ninos, peak solar activity, and the position of the other planets in the solar system.
And for El Nino certainly there is a whole lot more going on than a tiny patch of the Pacific Ocean triggering such a response. A bunch of guys pushing a button on modtran once a month certainly isn’t a science effort worthy of what the world is investing in all this.
I love it! If you assume that “climate change is real and already happening”, then all of the data fits that narrative. On the other hand, if you simply allow the possibility that other factors may be involved, then the whole narrative falls apart.
Does the current scientific knowledge of the atmosphere, as related to climate, allow for a complete assessment of all climate related factors and their interactions, or is more study, more information, and more time needed to make accurate statements?
I think predictions about the future of warming, let alone climate change, are rather bold at this time.
Tim S
The problem is that the natural factors which might cause a long term warming trend are all monitored.
Separately and together they would cause a slow cooling trend. The only known factor for which you can make a scientific case as a cause of warming is increasing CO2.
Since the expected rate of warming matches expectations it (and it’s feedbacks) are probably the only warming mechanism active at present.
Ent, EVERY sentence is WRONG!
You just make up crap to support your cult beliefs, like your claim that “passenger jets fly backward”.
False beliefs ain’t science.
Probably less reliable than an Ouija board because its based on bogus computer models confirmed by biased temperature reconstructions. A crackpot theory, ‘scientific’ enough to convince average people we’re facing a crisis that requires a massive intervention. A non existent crisis orchestrated by evil people to gain power, causing a real crisis that could kill hundred’s of millions or billions of people.
Hello Entropic,
“The problem is that the natural factors which might cause a long term warming trend are all monitored.”
Really? Can you show me where the amount of increased uvb insolation of the oceans has been monitored?
More like completely ignored..
Ozone levels have been depressed for the last 4 years in a row..
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/SH.html
“Exceptionally cool year drops back to average.”
It cannot both be ‘Exceptional’ and ‘average’ at the same time. (However you define ‘average’).
If the average is derived from a trend line at any given time, then an exceptionally cool year in one period could be an average year at the same temperature but in a different period.
Over how long?
Tim S: “It cannot both be ‘Exceptional’ and ‘average’ at the same time.”
That is basically my point! An ‘exceptionally cool’ year during an ‘exceptionally warm’ decade will be pretty much at the long-term average.
There are not going to be any truly exceptionally cool years unless the long-term warming trend reverses.
Tim Folkerts, that is not my quote. You are welcome to reply to my comment above. I would be interested in your thoughts concerning circular logic as it applies to climate claims and climate data.
I remember when 2008 wiped out all the previous years of warming.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
What does Dr. Spencer, and other “spesialists” in here, think of this report that claims that the climate models used by Manabe and
Wetherald in 1967, and which is used in all the IPCC-reports, was invalid ?
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024-Nobel-Prize-Errors.pdf
It will take some time to go through some 60 pages, but some key quotes from the “Conclusions”:
*Physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity.
*The idea that an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration could warm the earth became accepted scientific dogma.
*For a CO2 doubling, the small temperature increases calculated at each step in their time integration procedure does not accumulate in the real atmosphere.
*The equilibrium climate assumption became accepted scientific dogma in the nineteenth century. Climate modeling has now degenerated past dogma into a quasi-religious cult.
*Climate data has been made to fit the pseudoscience of radiative forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity.
*The role of ocean oscillations in climate change has been neglected. The paleoclimate record has been distorted to fit the climate model results.
*Tree ring data was unilaterally selected to reduce the temperature increase related to the medieval warming period and create the well-known hockey stick plot used in the Third IPCC Climate Assessment Report.
*The contribution of fossil fuel combustion to the observed 140 ppm increase in CO2 concentration has been greatly exaggerated.
*Electronic controls theory has been used incorrectly to describe climate feedback effects. However other concepts in electronics such as the phase shift and the signal to noise ratio have been conveniently overlooked.
Thanks for sharing, Frank.
I’m not a ‘specialist’, but I can see that the ‘report’ is not peer-reviewed, and self-published to make it appear it has a loftier provenance than it does. Also, it tries to mislead with the very first two word on the front page – “Review Paper”.
Before I read a word of the substance, I have no reason to give it any credence.
What makes you think this author should be given time when they haven’t submitted their work to other experts for review?
I don’t think anything 🙂
I just want to hear what people that knows more of this than I do think about the document, whether it has any credibility or not.
barry, you’ve got that much right. The current “peer-review” system would reject anything that reveals the flaws in the GHE nonsense.
So, you’re correct in not reading a “word of the substance”. You don’t want to confuse your head with facts.
Peer reviews in climate science and evolutionary biology have lost their objectivity a long time ago. If the climate crazies control the peer review process what is the point? These two nebulous disciplines need to wipe the slate clean. They each need a Max Planck.
Gah, I started to flick through it. It meanders into politics and many things irrelevant to the primary contention. It’s disjointed, ignores relevant work (eg, where is Ramanathan and Coakley 1978? – absolutely crucial to the study), and seems to make all sorts of wrong-headed physical assumptions.
It would never pass peer-review just for the poor discipline in the organization of the argument.
“Ramanathan and Coakley 1978”???
barry that paper is about modeling of something that doesn’t exist! That’s like writing a paper on how to count unicorns….
One of the main papers mentioned in the study, Manabe and Wetherald, is also a modeling paper. It’s not the only one. But R&C is a seminal work in that line-up, and its absence is a big hole in (against) the argument.
Clint R seems to have read nothing more than the conclusions.
Otherwise he would have noticed that Dr. Clark incredibly dared to subtract fluxes!
This is absolute heresy in Clint R’s ideology-based world, deserving of being virtually “burned at the stake.”
But perhaps this only applies when “alarmists” add or subtract fluxes, he he :–)
Bindidon, please stop t-word-ing.
I think it’s clear that the recent spike had a lot to do with el Nino combined with the change in shipping fuels. That doesn’t alter the fact of a warming trend or its anthropogenic cause. You just can’t infer much from one or two years’ data when climate is by definition the average state over 30 years.
Elliott, have you retracted your “hate speech”, yet?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1676356
I might point out that this small increase amounts to 2C per century, which in addition to the warming to date would place us well over the “dangerous” level of 2C of total warming, if not limited. I happen to be hopeful that it will be limited.
I am curious if you have data, estimates, or just a silly talking point. What is so special or dangerous about 1.5 C or even 2 C. The best information I have is, that it is a political talking point from a climate conference. What is the science behind those claims?
Prior to the Paris Agreement, 2C was the consensus level of warming considered “dangerous” by, among other bodies, the UN. “Dangerous” is not a scientific term with a precise definition but an advisory from scientists to policymakers.
Elliott, please stop t-word-ing.
Wow, I had no idea that anyone – apart from some ‘skeptics’ – believed that there was no natural variability on top of a rising, CO2-driven temperature trend.
How much natural variability do you consider ‘normal’?
95% confidence limits for natural variability are about +/- 0.2C.
With the current surface data showing a warming trend of about 0.2C/decade it takes about 2 decades of data to show that there is a statistically significant warming trend.
Roy’s right.
The on-trend value for UAH should be about anomaly 0.25 this year, with natural variability oround +/- 0.2 you would expect an anomaly between 0.05C and 0.45C due to purely random variability.
With the 2023 average around 0.5C and monthly values exceeding 0.8C the current values are way outside the normal variability band.
Something unusual is happening, possibly a normal feedback process running stronger than normal, or possibly something new.
EM – Is it not the case that natural variability is something like a probability distribution, in which exceptional anomalies simply occur at a lower frequency by virtue of lying on the horns of the distribution?
I must be getting obtuse in my old age. Wasn’t that what I said?
Standard deviation for the natural variation is about 0.1C so you would expect 95% of monthly or annual values to be within 2SD or 0.2C of the trend.(though autocorrealation might be a problem if you dug deeper). That would be between 0.05C and 0.45C based on the current trend value of 0.25C for UAH.
April peaked at 1.05C which is 8SD above the trend line and extremely unlikely to be due to normal natural variation.
Entropic Man, please stop t-word-ing.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: EVERYONE
RE: ROY CLARK, Ph.D.
You should go to Roy Clark’s website at: http://www.venturaphotonics.com.
On the homepage, click on the menu bar in the upper right corner.
This brings up list of his papers. You should read some of these.
Roy Clark is optical engineer and designs precision optical instruments and lasers. There are diagrams of six instruments.
I have concluded that he really has a good understanding of the science of global warming and climate change.
The publication: “Science of Climate Change” is a legitimate scientific journal. You should go to the website.
PS: I am retired organic chemist with a B.Sc.(Hon), Ph.D.
Harold Pierce
And you guy think anyone here on this blog would be impressed by your bull$hitting friend Dr Clark?
” While I was searching the internet I accidentally obtained access to the secret NASA $hit$erver used by Bull$hit the Climate Bull.
This allowed me to download some of the Climate$hit files that revealed the Saga of Bull$hit the Climate Bull and the real story of the global warming fraud.
Unfortunately my computer hard drive crashed because of all the bull$hit. I was only able to recover some of the Climate$hit files.
Here is what I was able to recover on Bull$hit the bull and his $hitty friends, and on the Flat Ocean Society. ”
*
You must be exactly as dumb as you friend Dr Clark to think such fecalbull$hit stuff would be welcome here.
You should scroll up trough the comments and read my comment of
July 17. The late John Daly’s investigation of weather station data found that there was no global warming at many sites around there world up to ca 2003.
Do you visit WUWT? I go there everyday.
“PS: I am retired organic chemist with a B.Sc.(Hon), Ph.D. ”
Then you should know better.
Perhaps I should remind you of Clarke’s Law.
” When an elderly and distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct. When he says something is impossible he is probably wrong. “
Entropic Man, please stop t-word-ing.
I am ignoring your slanderous remarks about Roy Clark and me. You have never net Roy Clark or me so there is no basis for the offensive remarks.
I do have a few question. Who is the Bull$hit Climate Bull?
What are the Climate $hit files and what are they about?
What is the NASA $hit$erver? What did you learn about the “global
warming fraud?
Here is what I have figured out with respect to the alleged global warming and climate change. Since 1988, the UN, the UNFCCC, the
IPCC, and coterie unscrupulous scientists have been perpetrating
the greatest scientific fraud in recent human history. The UN’s objective is the transfer of large amounts funds from the rich countries (i.e., the big polluters) to all the poor countries.
The basis of this grand fraud is the claim by the IPCC that CO2 is the cause of recent global warming. To date there no proof that CO2 causes global warming. Do you agree with my analysis and conclusions?
You seem angry. Why are you angry? You check out my net comment.
Science does not do proof. It does evidence and probability.
The weight of evidence supports the CO2 AGW theory, making it the most likely explanation of the observed warming.
Ent, REAL science does not violate the Laws of Physics.
Your beliefs are invalid. Passenger jets do NOT fly backward, ice cubes can NOT boil water, and 15 μ photons from the sky can NOT warm a 288K surface.
“Since 1988,“????
Try 1827, the year Joseph Fourier published his memoir “On the Temperature of the Earth and Planetary Spaces,” introducing the study of planetary temperature as a significant topic in physics. He laid out a scientific framework that was largely correct for examining this problem. However, it was not until the end of the century that the field of physics had advanced sufficiently to apply Fourier’s concepts quantitatively.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), “What We Know: The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change.”
You can’t blame Fourier. The “physics” was still very young in 1827. Concepts like Thermodynamics, Entropy, Photons, etc., were yet to be formalized.
Thermodynamics — 1850 – 1920
Entropy — 1870 – 1950
Photons — 1920 – 1960
You need to blame people today that will believe anything in order to pervert reality.
“and coterie unscrupulous scientists have been perpetrating
the greatest scientific fraud in recent human history.”
You believe that 10s of thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists and physicists, who find the scientific evidence for AGW compelling, must all be unscrupulous?
That is implausible.
Dr Spencer,
Here is some data that could have rather profound implications.
This graph is simply the lower stratoshpere UAH monthly temperature data.
There are 3 prominent upward peaks. Thwo have been attributed to major volcanic events:
Steiner et al 2020. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0998.1
Explosive volcanic eruptions such as El Chichn in
1982, Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (Robock 2000) and also
minor volcanic eruptions after 2000 affect short-term
temperature trends in the troposphere and stratosphere
(Solomon et al. 2011; Stocker et al. 2019).
Solomon 2011. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206027
…
The third event at year 2020 lacks a plausible cause.
It is quite energetic, to show at this altitude clearly above a background. That background is unusual, being rather free of descrete events, whaich I take to mean that few events iin decades have been stroing enough to show above background.
…
Until this ringed peak 3 is assigned a cause, we have to admit the possibility that some events can happen and show a prominent peak, without us knowing the cause.
Of course, if the same applies to the more customary lower troposphere data, how do we know that all past attributions are correct? Note it is also possible that a single peak can be boosted if there are 2 events at the same time.
The situation is not tenable if one of those events is not capable of attribution.
(I do not know what caused peak 3.)
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahstratall.jpg
Geoff Sherrington
” The third event at year 2020 lacks a plausible cause. ”
You asked similarly at Climate Etc and later on at WUWT:
” The question remains of what causes the ‘different’ peak feature. It is one of only 3 strong warming features in the full 46 years of UAH data.
Volcanism is a candidate for the 2 stronger features, but there are no significant volcanic eruptions in 2019-2020 in the literature that I have searched. ”
*
Your question is of course legitimate. At that time, I was wondering too about these two strong peaks which become best visible when, as you yourself did already, we split the global UAH 6.0 LS data into its hemispheres:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFZn2IGQH_OTSCWvClCcZQ05NLCTEsX4/view
*
The first idea at a first glance was to link this LS peak to the extreme fires in your area from September 2019 onwards; but this made no sense, of course.
How could such extreme smoke, even if it was later felt as far away as Chile, rise so quickly from the surface up to the lower stratosphere, 25 km above?
*
The UAH LS month showing the highest global anomaly past the Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 was November.
Then an LS peak in September 2019 might similarly have its originating event (if it happened at the surface) five months earlier, i.e. in April.
*
The only report about the Sep 2019 LS peak in the SH known to me:
Dynamical evolution of a minor sudden stratospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere in 2019
Guangyu Liu, Toshihiko Hirooka, Nawo Eguchi, and Kirstin Krüger (2022)
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/3493/2022/
*
Using the UAH 2.5 degree grid data, one can show how the 9504 grid cells looked like in November 1991:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
Look at the the difference between November 1991 and September 2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-cmZOf9d-E37HvbXgKZi7Fotq3opPMC2/view
It’s amazing; but how to draw a conclusion out of it?
“Its really that simple.”
It’s really even more simple:
“The long-term manifestations of weather and other atmospheric conditions in a given area or country, now usually represented by the statistical summary of its weather conditions during a period long enough to ensure that representative values are obtained (generally 30 years). ” -Wiktionary
Climate is derived from weather, over an arbitrary region (not the globe) over a long term period – here, loosely over 30 years, 15 times your 2 year boundary. Weather is a small component of climate, not the other way around.
Now here’s something you don’t read every day:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/19/six-million-people-at-risk-extreme-heat-in-england-campaign-group-warns
When Elliott isn’t practicing “hate speech”, he’s “fear mongering”.
He’s vying for 1st Place in the completion for “Most Ignorant Cultist”.
His strongest competitor is Greta….
elliott has only one authority figure, the fake news rag, the Manchester Guardian.
Recent fresh snow has taken the natural depth to season highs and now visibility is good and nights will be cold enough for snow guns to powder the runs. Melt will be minimal in the next few days given itll only warm a little above freezing and a few additional flurries are possible. Some flurries are a chance as low as about 800 metres early on Friday. This weekend, another round of decent snowfall is expected but beware of reduced visibility. Thankfully, strong winds will ease during the weekend. By Sunday, expect to experience the deepest natural snow for the season to date, nudging close to 100cm at the higher resorts. Snowfall is expected to cease temporarily next week, but crisp nights will allow snow guns to maintain the runs. Visibility looks excellent on Wednesday when the cover should be in great nick. Looking ahead, there are indications of further snowfalls in the lead-up to the following weekend. Season-high depths are a fair chance, potentially going past 100cm for some.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/snow
Severe Weather Update: Strong and windy cold front to sweep across south-east Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/cXnwyMQ/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240719t1800.jpg
The blocking of the southern polar vortex is now evident over the southern Indian Ocean, where an ozone surge is visible. It is the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere that affects the polar vortex pattern and circulation in the stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/Z1S1WMb/gfs-t10-sh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/X7q9wXw/gfs-z10-sh-f00.png
“It is the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere that affects the polar vortex pattern and circulation in the stratosphere.”
I think it is more a case of ‘which comes first, the chicken or the egg?’.
For some reason, ozone waves are appearing over the Indian Ocean. They initially form in the upper stratosphere in the region of the great geomagnetic anomaly in the South Atlantic and move toward Australia in the lower layers of the stratosphere (opposite to the Earth’s rotation). Ozone is a heavy gas (much heavier than O2 and N2), so when ozone concentrations are high in a region, air pressure in the stratosphere increases and pressure in the troposphere rises.
https://i.ibb.co/djk5ycD/Screenshot-2024-07-19-20-42-15.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_SH_2024.png
Which is cause and which is causation?
Ozone is diamagnetic, so it is repelled by a strong geomagnetic field. During the winter season, ozone in the stratosphere is directed toward the polar circle and at the same time repelled by the strong geomagnetic field over the pole. Therefore, it accumulates in regions with a weakened geomagnetic field.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t01_sh_f00.png
A strong planetary wave has emerged in the southern polar vortex. It will gradually affect pressure changes in the lower layers of the stratosphere and may bring surprising weather to the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JAS_SH_2024.png
Melting polar ice sloshes to the Equator, slowing the Earth’s rotation and thus making your working day longer:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/15/climate-crisis-making-days-longer-study
From the Guardian fake new outlet…
“However, the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets due to human-caused global heating has been redistributing water stored at high latitudes into the worlds oceans, leading to more water in the seas nearer the equator. This makes the Earth more oblate or fatter slowing the rotation of the planet and lengthening the day still further”.
***
This is one of the more stoopid claims by alarmists. Why would water be redistributed from the Poles and Greenland to the Equator?
More pseudo-science from same fake source…
“The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, used observations and computer reconstructions to assess the impact of melting ice on the length of the day. The rate of slowing varied between 0.3 and 1.0 millisecond per century (ms/cy) between 1900 and 2000. But since 2000, as melting accelerated, the rate of change also accelerated to 1.3ms/cy”.
***
Computer reconstruction!!!????
That’s a program written by humans and prone to errors in assumptions. The observation/conclusion that the Earth has slowed 1.3 ms/century is about as stoopid as one can get. How is it possible to measure 0.3ms/century slow down over a 24 year period?
Only in a computer model programmed by alarmist ijits.
Go back to your job of cutting holes in Swiss cheese.
It gets worse…
“This present-day rate is likely higher than at any time in the past few thousand years, the researchers said. It is projected to remain approximately at a level of 1.0 ms/cy for the next few decades, even if greenhouse gas emissions are severely curbed.”
***
It is ‘LIKELY’ higher… and It is “PROJECTED’….
Typical model bs.
Science doesn’t do certainty, it does probability.
If you want certainty to go a politician or a priest.
Entropic Man, please stop t-word-ing.
Surface temperatures are slowly dropping in the equatorial Pacific, including in the Nino 4 region.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Tropical storms in the western Pacific will soon cause a drop in surface temperatures in the region.
https://i.ibb.co/9vxFr2C/himawari9-wv-mid-05-W-202407191630.gif
Cloud tops increase the action of the vertical temperature gradient until drops to -80 C. This is the local elevation of the tropopause.
https://i.ibb.co/sVQfZYp/himawari9-ir-04-W-202407191640.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Richard Green….”Anything different from that small 0.02 deg. C per year warming is due to natural climate variability. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.
That is a false statement.
It assumes knowledge of, or guesses, how much warming since 1979 was manmade. That knowledge does not exist. So the statement is false it is not based on data. Science requires data.
Speculative attribution is not data.
***
Roy did not say that. He said…”But assuming the warming is entirely due to steadily increasing CO2 causing a slight (currently ~1%) energy imbalance in the climate system, then the warming that results is about ~0.02 deg. C per year”.
I have never heard Roy state how much CO2 was warming the atmosphere, he has only said it contributes ‘something’ but he did know how much.
Gordon
Roy’s analysis of the temperature change due to increasing CO2 agrees with most scientists studying the problem, and even my own amateur calculations.
He agrees with the CO2 AGW paradigm. Where he differs from the consensus is that he thinks the consequences have been overestimated, and so the suggested policy response is excessive.
He’s right too about the jump in temperatures since mid-2023.
While the long term increase in CO2 generated the conditions which made the jump possible, the proximate cause is probably something else.
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/07/19/nitpicking-some-recent-claims-about-global-temperature/
Entropic Man, please stop t-word-ing.
elliott…”Prior to the Paris Agreement, 2C was the consensus level of warming considered dangerous by, among other bodies, the UN. Dangerous is not a scientific term with a precise definition but an advisory from scientists to policymakers”.
***
Isn’t that nice. Politicians send reviewers to IPCC reviews and the reviewers tell them what they want to hear. Very few question the outright corruption in the reviews.
Coordinating Lead Authors select the Lead Authors who select the 2500 reviewers, and the Lead Authors are politically appointed by governments. Does anyone seriously think that alarmist governments like the US, Canada, or the UK are going to send Lead Authors who are skeptics? Or that CLA’s who are alarmists will select Lead Authors who are skeptics?
For example, in the Climategate email scandal, one CLA, Phil Jones, implicated another ‘Kevin’, in a plot to block papers from skeptics.
Before the 2500 reviewers submit their findings, the Summary for Policymakers has already been written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors. When the report by the 2500 is submitted it is amended to suit the Summary. That’s the summary that politicians receive to advise them on policy.
How do you spell scam?
Gordon – How do you spell paranoia?
Cookers think the whole world is engaged in a conspiracy to make there lives miserable.
The only problem is:
1. Such elaborate conspiracies are impossible. Humans are generally incompetent.
2. Nobody dead or alive has ever admitted to being part of a conspiracy. The JFK conspiracy theories all died because nobody spilled the beans – not even on their death beds.
3. Cookers cannot believe their circumstances are mostly due to their own actions. It is much more comforting to blame others.
The same applies climate change deniers. It is a psychological condition that is immune to facts.
“their lives”
DMT,
please do not disparage Mr Robinson. He is a lovely patient of mine.
DMT, Nurse Ratchet, please stop t-word-ing.
A bullet traveling at 2,000 ft/sec will leave a 2 foot trace in a picture from a camera with a shutter speed of 0.001 second (1/1000). That is a fast shutter. Just sayin!
In the days when I attended air shows the shortest exposure my electromechanical Zenit could manage was 1/400.
I would not be surprised to hear that a modern digital camera might manage 1/000.
What might be surprising is that the photographer was lucky enough to hit the right 1/000 of a second.
My Nikon D850 has a top shutter speed of 1/8000 second. Nikon are famous for having a fast Titanium shutter with a flash synch-speed of 1/250 seconds, much faster than cloth shutters. In full sunlight, the “sunny f/16” rule says that you have an aperture of f/16 at the shutter-speed closest to the film speed. So for a D850 at its lowest marked rating of ISO 64 you’d have f/16 at 1/60 second. The film-speed equivalent of the D850’s sensor goes up to ISO 25,600. There is an envelope, therefore, in which one could be shooting (sorry) at 1/8000 second. You wouldn’t normally do it for people-shooting, though. You’d probably look for a medium speed and better quality and depth-of-field.
The Global Warming is an orbitally forced, slow millenials long natural PHENOMENON.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We are in the cooling phase of an interglacial.
For the last 5000 years orbital forcing has been pushing temperatures downwards and continues to do so.
We are not immediately aware of this because the slow natural cooling of 0.001C/decade is being swamped by the 0.2C/decade rise currently observed.
You’re wrong warming will continue in the northern hemisphere for several thousand more years until perihelion shifts to May. Then the extent and thickness of ice in the north will increase because less solar energy will reach the northern hemisphere in winter.
I put up this graph earlier. Note that temperatures started to decline 5000 years ago as we moved off the orbital sweet spot which allowed the Holocene Optimum.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
It’s quite a small sweet spot. Remember that of the 100,000 year glacial cycle only 10,000 years is usually spent in interglacials.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
You don’t have to wait until you reach the bottom of the cycle. The ice sheets start to reform very quickly once you pass peak warming.
That’s right, locally corrected by changes in the sun’s magnetic activity. There are constant changes on the Sun, even in short cycles.
https://i.ibb.co/9sRRKt2/Polar.gif
Unfortunately the solar insolation changes by about 1W/m^2 on an 11 year cycle. Even ignoring the lab in the climate system this would only change surface temperatures by 0.25C.. That’s far too small to explain the 1.2C so far observed.
The Svenmark cosmic ray effect due to the corresponding changes in the solar magnetic field has been tested by the CLOUD experiment at CERN and is too small to produce measurable climate change.
Please explain how you calculate the effect of variations in the Sun’s intensity and polar field on the long term trend in Earth’s surface temperature.I would like to check your calculation.
Changes in the strength of the sun’s magnetic field affect the climate through changes in the ozone zone. The resulting changes in the circulation of the jet stream lead to major climate changes, especially at mid-latitudes, as happened during the Little Ice Age. The cooling will mainly affect North and South America in winter, due to the weakening of the geomagnetic field. UVB radiation, on the other hand, which is high-energy, may increase and raise temperatures in sunny regions.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
The temperature above the 80th parallel in summer does not rise and will fall as the angle of the Earth’s axis decreases.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2024.png
Yes.
That’s part of the reason why we should expect natural cooling instead of the artificial warming we observe.
As usual, Vournas’ complete nonsense intentionally inverting the reality.
Entropic man is absolutely right.
All people having a sound brain have begun years ago to understand that we are since about 6000 years in a long, long cooling phase, interrupted by the famous ‘recovery from the LIA’, ha ha haaah.
Bindidon,
“As usual, Vournas complete nonsense intentionally inverting the reality.
Entropic man is absolutely right.
All people having a sound brain have begun years ago to understand that we are since about 6000 years in a long, long cooling phase, interrupted by the famous recovery from the LIA, ha ha haaah.”
(Emphasis added.)
–
Do you, Bindidon, intentionally insult Vournas, or do you not understand what Vournas is saying?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Attacking your character is an insult.
Saying that you are mistaken about an aspect of science is debate. (Though one should resist the temptation to be sarcastic)
The correct response is to do as I have done; provide evidence to support your case. Show that you are correct while Bindidon and I are mistaken.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“The correct response is to do as I have done; provide evidence to support your case. Show that you are correct while Bindidon and I are mistaken.”
–
Well, a planet has a spherical shape, right?
Earth is a planet, so Earth has a spherical shape.
The more solar energy Earth accumulates, the warmer the higher latitudes become.
Also, the higher is the latitude on sphere, the smaller is the area.
Which means that for the same additional portion of absorbed solar energy the Global Warming will be a more and more accelerated orbitally forced phenomenon…
Some centuries ago the Gulf stream was bringing its warm waters up to the 65 degrees.
As Ireneusz explains above:
“warming will continue in the northern hemisphere for several thousand more years until perihelion shifts to May. Then the extent and thickness of ice in the north will increase because less solar energy will reach the northern hemisphere in winter.”
Now the stream is flooding with its warm waters the Arctic area up to 80 degrees.
It will take some millenials this orbitally forced natural phenomenon to be reversed.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Gulf Stream is weakening.
https://www.sciencealert.com/confirmed-new-study-shows-the-gulf-stream-is-definitely-weakening
In your model that would be evidence that less heat is reaching the Arctic. Evidence that we are already moving out of the current interglacial into a colder period.
I understand very well what Vournas ‘says’: he persistently distorts reality, whether it is about the Holocene cooling since 6000 years, the greenhouse effect or, even worse, the rotation of the moon.
*
Why ‘even worse’ ? Simply because Vournas has never doubted the rotation of the moon in earlier times.
He did that first when the ignorant Robertson contradicted him about this rotation.
Since Robertson denies both the greenhouse effect and the rotation of the moon, and Vournas also denies the greenhouse effect, no one should have been surprised when Vournas suddenly started denying a few years ago moon’s rotation as well – what he himself had previously used as an argument for his ‘planetary rotational warming phenomenon’.
Ent,
“The Gulf Stream is weakening.”
Of course the Gulf Stream is weakening. Because it is reaching the end of its jorney!
The Gulf Streem what it did was to get more and more northern.
It is almost nowhere to move up the Globe any more. So the Stream is flooding the Arctic areas with its warm waters.
It is a naturally accelerating warming phenomenon!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
You cannot have it both ways.
” Bindidon is the Moons rotating about its own axis the idea supporter. ”
Wrong, Vournas: YOU and your friends-in-denial do support ideas.
I merely refer to exact computations whose result are denied by the usual people on this blog, for the one and only reason that they all are absolutely unable to technically let alone scientifically contradict them.
Bindidon,
“Since Robertson denies both the greenhouse effect and the rotation of the moon, and Vournas also denies the greenhouse effect, no one should have been surprised when Vournas suddenly started denying a few years ago moons rotation as well what he himself had previously used as an argument for his planetary rotational warming phenomenon.”
Bindidon is the Moon’s rotating about its own axis the idea supporter.
Maybe Bindidon will be kind enough to say, how, in his personal opinion, how it happens Moon becoming our planet Earth the permanent satellite?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Maybe Bindidon will be kind enough to say, how, in his personal opinion, how it happens Moon becoming our planet Earth the permanent satellite? ”
What does that have to do with the lunar spin, Vournas?
NOTHING.
Once again Vournas is pulling the wool over his readers’ eyes.
Ent,
“You cannot have it both ways.”
–
What I say – the earth’s greenhouse effect is very much insignificant. The earth’s atmosphere is a thin atmosphere.
CO2 is a trace gas in earth’s thin atmosphere, thus CO2 does not warm earth’s surface.
The small rise in CO2 content in earth’s thin atmosphere does nothing, because it is insignificant.
Bindidon may say, how CO2 does nothing, Vournas said it is insignificant, so it must warm earth surface at some extend.
No, Bindidon, insignificant means it is so small, it cannot be measured, and since it cannot be measured/detected it is like it is not exist.
Only in Bindidon’s theoretical thinking there is a CO2 warming effect on earth’s surface.
That is why, in order to save all us from the overheating, Bindidon’s alarming comments are so much misleading.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And, Bindidon is not only the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon denier.
No, Bindidon goes futher on, in his scientificall thoughts, Bindidon also denys the smooth planets have strong specular reflection,
haa ahh!!!
Please, Bindidon, do not deny everything.
Bindidon likes the idea Moon rotating on its local axis, because he believes in the old narative, which claims Earth was hit by a celestial body, the heavy impact sliced a good chank from Earth, but the chank did not got lost in the vast space areas, no, instead it started orbiting Earth once a month, and the narative continued – Moon rotates since once a month on its local axis.
Please, Bindidon, do not believe in old science’s naratives.
They said it rains diamonds on Jupiter. Do you also believe it, Bindidon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” Please, Bindidon, do not believe in old science’s naratives. ”
I don’t believe in any ‘old science’s narrative’.
The problem is on YOUR side, Vournas: YOU don’t acknowledge modern science’s results, THOUGH being YOURSELF 100% unable to scientifically contradict and disprove them.
Lookup the list below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
skip all what you woefully discredit and denigrate as ‘old science’, start with modern results, e.g. Mietelski (1968) / Moutsoulas (1970) etc etc etc, and try to disprove them.
Come back here when you succeed.
Please, Bindidon, do not believe in old sciences naratives.
They said it rains diamonds on Jupiter. Do you also believe it, Bindidon?
Come back here when you succeed.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
rɒdʒə!
christos…please ignore the ignorant frog-kraut bindidon.
Ignoramus Robertson is opinionated and egotistical to such an extent that he fails to realize he would not have written his post if Vournas were not a GHE and (in between) lunar spin denier like himself.
Blinny,
How many genders are there?
https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2024/07/19/crowdstrike-worldwide-outages-airlines-texas>“I didn’t do it! Honest!”
Almost the entire commercial internet went down yesterday, and my IT guy Roger is worried. “Not again! I hate jail!”
I couldn’t calm him down. But ClownStrike, some geek company nobody but Roger ever heard of, said it was Microsoft’s incompetence that caused it.
Governments, police dispatchers, and airlines were all shut down, thanks to Microsoft’s overpaid, incompetent staff who pushed out a security patch that made many Windows computers so secure their owners couldn’t access them. It also disabled the sound recording app Audacity.
No one running BSD, Apple, Unix, Linux, or any other operating system had a problem, unless of course they wanted to ride an airliner or call 911.
The software flaw in the Cloudstrike software update was probably created by one single individual somewhere. A simple error made unintentionally caused such widespread outages on a worldwide scale.
Kind of makes you realize how brittle everything actually is.
So, to me, this reads as an object lesson in not buying expensive corporate bloatware, because of the promises it makes.
Just saw on ArsTechnica, costs, so far, estimated at $24 billion. Probably will be dozens of billions when the blue screen dust settles.
Remember all the claims: Microsoft products have a lower total cost of ownership.
We saw something similar in England a few years ago. An upgrade to financial software used by the Royal Bank of Scotland crashed their system and no-one could access their accounts for a week.
While the immediate cause was a bad upgrade, behind it was the RBS decision to downgrade from a Western IT manager to a cheaper company in India.
As usual, you get what you pay for.
There are several lessons here. You came afford to skimp on IT; not can you afford to be too dependant on it. You need non-IT backups so you can continue to function when the computers go down.
Anyone remember E.M. Forster’s novel “The Machine Stops”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_Stops
In Belfast airport whiteboards appeared when the Departure screens went down. In a shop in my museum we went cash only and recorded transactions using pen and paper. Fortunately our elderly staff can still do mental arithmetic.
Personally, after the RBS fiasco, I now carry 400 in cash in an inconspicuous corner of my car to be sure, to be sure.
Incidentally, could someone suggest a suitable punishment for whoever wrote my predictive spell checker.
Send them to live in America?
https://www.xkcd.com/
It’s the fault of the companies who insist on using security services like Klown$strike. I have written to several companies using other such security service since they often prevent legitimate customers from accessing their sites.
That’s the week’s first coffee down the nose.
Elliott, please stop t-word-ing.
Moon Day 2024
On this day, July 20, 1969, the greatest scientific and technological feat in human history was achieved.
“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
And don’t forget it!
It marks an apogee in our cultural trajectory from which we have declined considerably.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXC5Uox70ro
I watched that live on a very grainy 13″ black and white TV. I remember Walter Cronkite getting emotional which was unusual for him. The video coming from the moon (which was rotating of course!) was very poor quality. I also remember the video of them leaving the moon, but that memory may be from a later mission.
The story of the landing is the most remarkable. Armstrong took manual control and maneuvered past a series of obstructions. He was the best pilot in the program and his time on earth in the “Flying Bedstead” test vehicle paid off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle
Tim S
You might enjoy snooping around here:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4029.pdf?emrc=78a378
Be careful, Tim S
You could be the subject of a very serious anathema when writing things like
” The video coming from the moon (which was rotating of course!) was very poor quality. ”
Don’t be surprised to see soon on your monitor
” Vade retro, Satanas! “
I well remember watching the event on TV in a class at school.
Mesmerising.
And, of course, the moon rotates.
Why else would it possess an equatorial bulge?
“Although the Moon looks quite spherical from the ground, it is flatter at its poles and wider at its equator, a trait known as an equatorial bulge. This characteristic is common; it’s usually caused by an object’s rotation around its axis”
Hopefully the endless, mindless, discussions here can now be dispensed with.
professor P
” Hopefully the endless, mindless, discussions here can now be dispensed with. ”
Oh really? You must be naive to think that the lunar spin denial gang will stop denying it just because you simply wrote
” And, of course, the moon rotates. “
This is worth reading even for those of us who lived through it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
Young people may not appreciate the fact that back in the day without internet or cell phone access, kids would go out of the house to meet their friends face-to-face. Whole families would gather together in one room to watch the same program on TV.
professor P, maybe you should look into the physics behind your “equatorial bulge”.
And, provide us with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”
Or, just hunker down in your false cult beliefs.
I know what you will do….
What equatorial bulge?
re the Moon and its alleged Equatorial bulge….even if it has one it does not mean it was formed by current spin. The Moon may have been spinning at some time in the past before it was captured by Earth and it may have been somewhat molten toward the surface. Spin plus a softer outer section would produce a bulge that became permanent as it cooled.
At any rate, the fact that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth makes it akin to a car being driven around an oval track, that is, curvilinear translation. The car cannot spin while being drive under control (without the tires losing grip) and it keeps the same face point at an observer inside the oval.
Tim S, is your belief that Moon spins based on the cult, or do you have any interest in reality?
If you have any interest in reality, you should have noticed by now that the cult has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. IOW, they don’t even understand basic orbital motion.
Is that where you are?
Tim S
” I also remember the video of them leaving the moon, but that memory may be from a later mission. ”
No, you remember right!
Apollo 11 – Moon Ascent Onboard Audio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5JlWpxI-Hc
” Tim S, is your belief that Moon spins based on the cult, or do you have any interest in reality? ”
Sounds like the post’s editor Clint R has some affinity to what is termed ‘McCarthyism’, Inquisition, witch hunt and the like.
By the way, I ask for the umpteenth time: Why does Clint R, a member par excellence of the Lunar Spin Denial cult, always talk about other people’s ‘cult’ ?
Oh, that’s easy Bindi.
A cult is characterized by members that chose false beliefs over reality. They become so obsessed with their false beliefs that they hate reality, and hate people that prefer reality. That’s why we see cultists like you always resorting to insults and false accusations.
BTW, got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
Clint R, I have given you advice in the past, and you have rejected it. If you do not like being criticized, then I suggest you stop quoting me.
Okay Tim S, your answer reveals you have no interest in science or reality.
I’m learning about crackpots and cultists. They can’t learn….
ark…how about Newton’s work? How about the work done on discovering the atomic structure between 2900 and 1913? How about the atomic bomb?
The Moon landing was impressive but I’d hardly list as the greatest scienifi and technological feat ever.
feat, noun, a deed notable especially for courage, an act or product of skill, endurance, or ingenuity
In that sense ‘feat’ covers a lot of ground that is not necessarily related to things scientific or technological. It certainly took a lot of courage from the astronauts, especially those who landed on the surface.
binny van de Klown….”All people having a sound brain have begun years ago to understand that we are since about 6000 years in a long, long cooling phase, interrup.ted by the famous recovery from the LIA, ha ha haaah”.
***
I don’t know what Binny would know about a sound mind but he certainly does not understand natural variability. Cooling the past 6000 years has certainly not happened via a strictly linear trend, along the way there have been ups and down like the Medieval Warm Period, which was as warm as today, and the Little Ice Age which was 1C to 2C cooler than today over a 400+ year period.
Binny insists on being extremely rude to Christos, a man with a far superior education to Binny, but who admittedly is struggling to communicate in English. I think Christos is making a valiant attemp.t and he can convey his meaning well, yet Binny feels it necessary to pick on him, the sign of a min.d.less bully.
I would call Binny a typical Teutonic bully but he’s not even German, just some paw..thetic Frenchman who was forced to flee to Germany.
Ignoramus Robertson is opinionated and egotistical to such an extent that he fails to realize he would not have written even a single word of his post if Vournas were not a GHE and (in between) lunar spin denier like himself.
Bindidon, why do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
Aw, I see – you deny it because Vournas is not a GHE denier, and (in between) he is lunar spin denier, which you, Bindidon, are not.
BTW, what are you, Bindidon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” … why do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon? ”
*
You are insinuating something completely wrong – exactly like do Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Bill Hunter and a few others.
I NEVER denied in earlier times your ‘Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon’, Vournas.
*
Except
– (1) your absolutely unproved use of a specular reflection factor which you unduly install into the energy balance equation – though you were proven often enough at Climate Etc and on this blog that it is definitely wrong;
– (2) your ridiculous trial to explain in recent years that the Moon does not spin and hence its rotational factor must be by miracle computed in a way differing from the rest of the celestial bodies.
*
Drop your faked Φ off your equations, come back to your previous acceptance of the lunar spin, and I’ll 100% agree again to your very good ‘Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon’ idea.
Bindidon, you also think our Moon is a slice of Earth.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Bindidon, you also think our Moon is a slice of Earth. ”
Wrong again, Vournas.
I don’t ‘think’ about such matter. Instead, I read various documents and try to understand what their authors mean.
I have until now no definite meaning about Moon’s origin.
Some say it’s due to an impact with a planet of nearly Earth’s size; some say the Moon was captured by Earth.
*
Which alternative is the right one is for me much more secondary than an answer to the question of how Moon and Earth behaved since Moon became Earth’s satellite.
The rest is as usual useless ideology.
Christos
The material returned from the Moon by unmanned probes and the Apollo missions has an identical composition to the Earth’s mantle, which suggests that the Earth and Moon were once a single body.
It’s not a matter of belief; it’s a matter of evidence.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“which suggests that the Earth and Moon were once a single body.”
–
It is an evidence which called for the suggestion.
There is not a final conclusion yet.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CHRISTOS WRITES: “why do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?”
No one denies that rotation rate matters. Higher rotation rate causes a higher average temperature by making the surface temperature more uniform. You also correct conclude that higher specific heat causes a higher average temperature — again by making the surface temperature more uniform.
That is not the problem with your theory. The three main problems with your theory (as I see it) are:
1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science.
2) You invent your “solar irradiation accepting factor Φ”, which contradicts the known properties of albedo.
3) there is no physical reason or theoretical derivation of your (N*cp)^1/16 factor. It is purely an empirical fit (after you fudge the Φ factor).
Christos
Science uses evidence to work out possible explainations.
Science cannot provide certainty. There are no final conclusions.
Fraudkerts emerges from the slime: “1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science.”
Fraudkerts must have found some roots in the slime. There are things that can grow in slime. But you don’t want to go there….
Fraudkerts needs to learn some physics, but he can’t learn.
ent…” Science uses evidence to work out possible explainations.
Science cannot provide certainty. There are no final conclusions”.
***
Ent…little too lose on the definition. Science is much more precise and many experimental conclusions are much more certain than you claim.
I am sure you are thinking of consensus science like AGW or the GHG, both of which have deep, in-built uncertainty. That’s the problem, there is too much science accepted today based sheerly on consensus with little or no proof.
Bindidon says:
”You are insinuating something completely wrong exactly like do Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Bill Hunter and a few others.”
Once again Bindidon proves he is absolutely incapable of mounting any kind of argument that proves his statement above.
Even the examples he gave have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have claimed. Where does he get this stuff from? It appears he just manufactures it out of thing air.
Bindidon has zero credibility.
Thank you everyone for your participation and for your interesting comments.
It is 14 days very hot in Greece now.
We are lucky there is a North, and West-North wind, which blows at 3-4-6-7 Bouforts, and which is not moisture rich, so there is not that unbearable moisture in the air.
The temperature rises in Athens to 38C -39C at afternoons, which is very high – Athens’ climate is considered an island-like, but there are inland places in Greece temperature goes up to 43C.
At nights (due to the wind) the temperature lessens to 27C -29C and it is somehow a relieve.
Nevertheless, the use of air-conditioning is necessary for few hours, sometimes even at nights.
We have three units of 9000 BTU in our small appartment.
Since the 1987 at the 47C, almost every household in the country has air-conditioners installed.
The air-conditioners are good as heat-pumps in the cold periods too, when the outdoors temperature is about 10C-15C the heat-pumps are working effitiently.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“CHRISTOS WRITES: why do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
No one denies that rotation rate matters. Higher rotation rate causes a higher average temperature by making the surface temperature more uniform. You also correct conclude that higher specific heat causes a higher average temperature again by making the surface temperature more uniform.
That is not the problem with your theory. The three main problems with your theory (as I see it) are:
1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science.
2) You invent your solar irradiation accepting factor Φ, which contradicts the known properties of albedo.
3) there is no physical reason or theoretical derivation of your (N*cp)^1/16 factor. It is purely an empirical fit (after you fudge the Φ factor).”
–
–
“Higher rotation rate causes a higher average temperature by making the surface temperature more uniform. You also correct conclude that higher specific heat causes a higher average temperature again by making the surface temperature more uniform.”
–
Not only more uniform surface temperatures, but also at higher rates a planet or moon absorbs more solar EM energy in form of heat.
Now,
“1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science.”
I do not ignore the greenhouse effect, there is some very small greenhouse effect on earth’s surface.
“2) You invent your solar irradiation accepting factor Φ, which contradicts the known properties of albedo.”
The satellite measured albedo is the very precisely measured the average planet surface the diffuse reflection.
The measured albedo is not the Bond albedo, that is why the theoretical planet effective temperatures, which are based on the measured albedo values are so much overestimated.
“3) there is no physical reason or theoretical derivation of your (N*cp)^1/16 factor. It is purely an empirical fit (after you fudge the Φ factor).”
The (N*cp)^1/16 is the result of planets and moons the satellite measured average surface temperatures comparison. It is an observation.
I think, in time, it is possible the mathematical theoretical derivation.
The (N*cp)^1/16 doesn’t have anything with the Φ factor. It writes the average surface temperatures (everything else equals) comparison:
T1 /T2 = (N*cp)^1/16
–
Thank you again, Tim.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
It is
T1 /T2 = [(N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2)]^1/16
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Roy Spencer writes:
” An unusually warm year or two cannot be blamed on climate change. ”
100% agree!
I assume Mr. Spencer is also 100% aware of what all the pseudo-skeptics would be shouting about if the opposite had happened, and what they would blame for ‘an unusually cold year or two’, he he.
“100% agree!”
Yet you assume that the ‘average’ has increased recently and that is very important.
Ideologist Blindsley H00d can’t refrain from his useless smalltalking and stalking posts.
*
Not the increase of the average of recent temperatures matters, but its trend computed over a longer period – i.e.
– not from 2016 to 2021, as you yourself did at that time by showing WFT graphs of UAH data with lots of linear trend lines
– let alone, as some do these days here and there: from 2021 to right now.
You are boring and keep boring.
Better for you and your credibility would be to finally discover what is wrong with how your correct median C# source is called.
You apparently never used the major principle named ‘cross-validation’, did you?
“its trend computed over a longer period”
I choose 100 years. 3 times (and a bit of) of what is normally considered ‘climate’.
The ‘modern’ CFSR data says
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-07-20.gif
and
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-07-20.gif
for the recent data.
I don’t take lessons from someone who things that ‘simple running mean’ is an accurate up to date data filter.
…thinks…
” dont take lessons from someone who things that simple running mean is an accurate up to date data filter. ”
*
And once more, Blindsley H00d lies, lies and lies.
Never did I claim that a ‘simple running mean’ is an accurate up to date data filter nor did I ever claim the contrary, as he does, for pure ideological reasons he endlessly repeats, mainly related to
– (1) a comment at Climate Etc by Vaughan Pratt in a guest post by Greg Goodman, dated 2013:
Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
” Greg is right that too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes. ”
– (2) a Wiki page about ‘Moving Average’, in which Simple Moving Average (SMA) is shown to create problems:
” A major drawback of the SMA is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length. Worse, it actually inverts it.[citation needed]
This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data.
It also leads to the result being less smooth than expected since some of the higher frequencies are not properly removed. ”
*
All this sounds correct at a first glance (except the immovable
fact that time series aren’t input for HiFi amplifiers, and that their peaks and drops aren’t NOISE to be removed, but are part of the REAL data).
However, Blindsley H00d never has been able to disprove the correctness of this graph I posted which compares for UAH 6.0 LT
– the source data,
– a simple 12 month running mean (SRM12),
– a cascaded triple 12/10/8 month running mean (C3RM12) based on Vaughan Pratt’s cascade technique,
– the second order polynomials of both the SRM and the C2RM12 (within the latter’s active window of course):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PDFit-vkoTLnwOq7fl2hP_pKaWKz6qUk/view
*
The first thing you see is that the ‘distortions’ claimed by Blindsley H00d do not at all look like the hell he suggests.
The second thing you see is that the polynomials for SRM / C3RM, which represent the essence of the time series they are constructed out, are extremely similar.
Only an inexperienced ideologist would point on slightly differing time series while ignoring the similarity of their essentials.
No wonder that the linear trends of SRM and C3RM are equal at 3 digits after the decimal point within the latter’s active window:
– SRM: 0.13608 +- 0.006 (C/decade)
– C3RM: 0.13620 +- 0.005
**
Mais… ce n’est pas tout, Mesdames, Messieurs.
Let us now have a similar look at UAH 6.0 LT data, this time in absolute data form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Zs4u1sjqnN3EoDTjtEX7GM5uCjUiTCu/view
As we can see, the polynomials generated lout of the SRM resp. C3RM for the absolute data again are extremely similar, and so are of course also the linear trends for source, SRM and C3RM:
– SRM: 0.13441 +- 0.006 (C/decade)
– C3RM: 0.13477 +- 0.005
But what we also can see is that these famous ‘peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data’ are, in the case of absolute UAH data, by NO MEANS restricted to the simple running mean: the cascaded running mean shows at many places the same behavior.
As Vaughan Pratt gave us coefficients even for quintuple cascades, I tried the same comparison using a C5RM, with identical results.
**
I don’t expect let alone want Blindsley H00d taking any lesson from me.
What I expect is that he finally stops stalking people by repeatedly discrediting things through general statements he himself is not even able to confirm by an own data evaluation.
*
Let me add that I had last year a short email exchange with StanU emeritus Professor Vaughan Pratt, who explained to me that while he had lots of fun with his computation of cascading coefficients, he nevertheless stopped long time ago using these cascaded running means he no longer considered useful.
You, Blindsley H00d, ‘choose 100 years’ ?
I get a big, big laugh.
I perfectly recall you proudly telling the blog ( ‘Get over it! ‘) that the negative trend in UAH’s data for the period 2016-2021’ would be a sufficient and significant hint on ‘Global Cooling’.
binny…let’s get something straight, no one here thinks you understand statistics. Rather, you are regarded as a bombastic ijit.
Oh, look… Robertson, one of the most ignorant posters on this blog, who has no idea what statistics really are and would never be able to download the simple UAH monthly reports, let alone process them using simplest statistics tools and publish his graphical results, is trying to discredit me.
This is really the best thing.
Everyone gets it: Robertson is once more butt-kissing his friend Blindsley H00d aka RLH, in the hope that RLH will finally give up his acceptance of the lunar spin.
Who knows? Maybe one day he’ll succeed.
“Never did I claim that a ‘simple running mean’ is an accurate up to date data filter”
You just promote it continuously. Even preferring it to VPs offering.
“he nevertheless stopped long time ago using these cascaded running means he no longer considered useful.”
But never claimed that using cascaded means is close to the perfect (no distortion) filter answer.
Blindsley H00d
” You just promote it continuously. Even preferring it to VPs offering. ”
Again, two disgusting sissyish lies in a row.
Neither do I ‘promote’ them, nor did I ever ‘prefer’ them to Vaughan Pratt’s offering.
Firstly, you intentionally ignore all the charts in which I showed cascaded running means whenever useful.
Secondly, I use also polynomial means whenever useful, which YOU are apparently unwilling (or unable) to use.
*
You are such a lying wimp, Blindsley H00d: you attack me just because you are too cowardly to attack Roy Spencer who uses running means as well.
Go back to your wrong median software corner and start working on it, instead of stalking me with your endless lies.
“Neither do I ‘promote’ them, nor did I ever ‘prefer’ them to Vaughan Pratts offering”
You said previously that you thought that a longer SRM was a better choice than a VP CRM. You want me to find it?
And most ridiculous, Blindlsey H00d, is that you deliberately ignore
” But what we also can see is that these famous peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data are, in the case of absolute UAH data, by NO MEANS restricted to the simple running mean: the cascaded running mean shows at many places the same behavior. ”
Learn to combine UAH’s 2.5 degree grid anomalies and their associated climatology, generate absolute data out of it, and show us your cascades when applied to such data.
” You said previously that you thought that a longer SRM was a better choice than a VP CRM. ”
No I didn’t say that it was a better choice, Blindsley H00d.
Because SRMs and CxRMs a la VP show exactly the same polynomial behavior (what you knew nothing about), it is better to use SRMs whenever you need as much data as possible.
This of course is a non-sequitur for amateurs like you: simply because you never really use the data you show.
Never did you ever compare for example USCRN data to nearby GHCN stations, let alone would you ever be able to generate a tide gauge time series in which a 149 month long inactive window makes a cascaded 60 month running mean completely useless.
I’m sad of your endless sissyish insinuations.
“it is better to use SRMs whenever you need as much data as possible.”
Despite their well acknowledged distortions.
“SRMs and CxRMs a la VP show exactly the same polynomial behavior”
Again you lie.
Now you definitely show how utterly dishonest you behave, Blindsley H00d.
I wrote upthread:
” However, Blindsley H00d never has been able to disprove the correctness of this graph I posted which compares for UAH 6.0 LT
the source data,
a simple 12 month running mean (SRM12),
a cascaded triple 12/10/8 month running mean (C3RM12) based on Vaughan Pratts cascade technique,
the second order polynomials of both the SRM and the C2RM12 (within the latters active window of course):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PDFit-vkoTLnwOq7fl2hP_pKaWKz6qUk/view
*
The first thing you see is that the distortions claimed by Blindsley H00d do not at all look like the hell he suggests.
The second thing you see is that the polynomials for SRM / C3RM, which represent the essence of the time series they are constructed out, are extremely similar. ”
And you dare to claim I’m lying?
You are not even able to show such polynomials, let alone their difference.
There is only one liar here, Blindlsey H00d, and that’s you.
Here is the new graph, updated with data till June 2024, whose 12 month SRM and C3RMean are now compared using third order polynomials giving an even finer comparison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ui4MC1yszRIBBXd6-xS2EjV3yQAUHcnh/view
Difference between the polynomials:
– minimum: -0.00668 (C)
– maximum: +0.04392
– median: +0.00666
You are such a dishonest failure, Blindsley H00d.
” Despite their well acknowledged distortions. ”
As always, you resort to general, non-committing statements, indicating things which YOU were never able to show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average
“A major drawback of the SMA is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length. Worse, it actually inverts it. This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data. It also leads to the result being less smooth than expected since some of the higher frequencies are not properly removed.”
“An SMA can also be disproportionately influenced by old data dropping out or new data coming in.”
https://alphaarchitect.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image-26-800×549.png
“You are such a dishonest failure”
But VP (who I based my filter on) is not!
“you dare to claim I’m lying?”
Because you are.
And Blindlsey H00d continues with
– posting general statements about simple running means, instead of technically proving me wrong with the real data example ‘UAH 6.0 LT Globe anomalies’
and
– his claims that I would lie without being able to clearly say where I’m lying and… about what exactly.
*
I still miss his proof that my SRM/C3RM comparison of UAH, this time using absolute data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Zs4u1sjqnN3EoDTjtEX7GM5uCjUiTCu/view
is wrong.
Why can’t he accept that not only the simple mean, but also the cascade peaks/drops inversely to the source at many places?
*
Here is now an SRM/C3RM comparison based on the same real data example ‘UAH 6.0 LT Globe anomalies’, but now with medians instead of averages aka means:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GLhwb6peSH3ZLgSV5AbOhvqVCDw5ZCFk/view
As we can see, the difference between the SRMedian’s and the C3RMedian’s polynomial is here too incredibly small (median: 0.003208 C), like in the mean case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ui4MC1yszRIBBXd6-xS2EjV3yQAUHcnh/view
*
So, Blindsley H00d: why don’t YOU compare SRMs and C3RMs using your own tools, instead of endlessly replicating Internet pages and miserably discrediting what I do?
Show us finally what you can!
One more step you should be able to easily disprove: the UAH Global anomaly based comparison of cascaded mean to cascaded median :–)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTXSx8fYuMUsQVio9V71vOBbD-kf-pnP/view
What a terrible difference between mean and median!
Median difference between the two: -0.001662
So what!
Will you finally prove me wrong, or will you here too continue to post statements you picked out of the Internet?
Blinny lies about everything, almost continuously.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
I don’t wonder to read from Blindsley H00d aka RLH the single line
” Blinny lies about everything, almost continuously. ”
*
As always, no more than a senseless, childish insult instead of the technically savvy objection that one should expect from an adult.
And in addition one post later, always the same monthly graph, of course without the expected comparison of simple running means versus cascades.
*
In 2013, Greg Goodman published at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc a guest post:
Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
at the end of which he added among others a link to an Excel file:
Example of triple running mean in spread sheet:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gp34rlw06mcvf6z/R3M.xls
Anyone can see in the file’s ‘Sheet 1’ a graph showing a data source (ICOADS 2.5 SST) together with
– a simple running mean
– a cascaded running mean (with Goodman’s own cascade specification).
*
1. Here is a graph made out of Goodman’s file, showing what Blindsley H00d should have presented out of his own data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r0jc4xUIyiLOB0OleOFtrRfn-Z7PuYx9/view
This chart was made without changing anything in the data.
Only the plot layout was adapted, third order polynomials were added, and the data window was restricted to the cascaded running mean’s active window (to have the same windows for the two polynomials, a necessary condition).
*
2. Then, Goodman’s source columns were duplicated; in the copied columns, the Excel function ‘AVERAGE’ was replaced by the function ‘MEDIAN’ in each cell, as I did in my UAH example.
Here is a graph made out of the copied data showing now simple running medians versus cascaded running medians:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NTgY18l3H_AY9FfnkDQOxNrmwG4UoDU4/view
*
And finally, I made the same mean cascade to median cascade comparison as I did in my UAH example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-YweTGUQI6ouuvOmYy04WGJM6sxzNBuZ/view
*
Blindsley H00d aka RLH can insult me a liar as long as he wants.
Better would be he would stop behaving like a sissyish child, and behave like an adult by technically contradicting me.
*
But… like all pseudo-skeptics, Blindsley H00d has until today never admitted he was wrong, and there is little hope that he will change.
An interesting paper
A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature
John J. Kennedy (2013)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013RG000434
ent…”The material returned from the Moon by unmanned probes and the Apollo missions has an identical composition to the Earths mantle, which suggests that the Earth and Moon were once a single body”.
***
Only to a science ijit. The 4 inner planets are likely of the same composition (rock as opposed to frozen gas) therefore the conclusion infers they were all part of the Earth at one time.
The idea that the Moon was ejected from the Earth is full of holes. What kind of explosion could have ejected such a mass and how did it become a sphere? NASA has enough problems trying to blast a Saturn V rocket into space never mind a planet the size of the Moon.
Given that it was ejected, how did it gain the correct angle to get into orbit. How did it reach the velocity required to entire orbit?
None of this is based on engineering principles, it is all hearsay from astronomers who are not trained in engineering.
Gordon.
I suggest you research both hypotheses, that the Moon formed from debris ejected during a collision or that it formed elsewhere and was then captured.
With both of us familiar with the evidence we might be able to discuss it rationally.
Entropic Man, please stop t-word-ing.
tim f…”1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science”.
***
Scratch ‘science’ and replace it with ‘scientific consensus’. There is zero evidence to support the greenhouse effect, in fact, it is based on the old belief that trapped IR causes warming.
That is a rather bold statement to make on a blog run by a renowned scientist who recognizes the validity of physics behind the GHE.
Evidence is all around — in blogs and climatology textbooks and engineering lectures and thermodynamics experiments. Your inability to find even one of theses myriad pieces of evidence tells us all we need to know.
Nope. The “science” of the GHE is seriously flawed. That’s why no one can respond to the simple question “How do 15μ photons from the sky warm a 288 K surface?”
The answer, which debunks the GHE, is they can’t!
Radiative physics and thermodynamics are not understood within the GHE cult.
Show me such evidence from any of the sources you have listed. All of it is consensus-based.
In textbook and other literature they talk about a GHE produced by glass in a greenhouse trapping IR. That is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century. No one has tested it, the idea was simply snatched from 19th century literature. Furthermore, it was disproved by Bohr’s work in 1913 that is the basis of quantum theory.
In 1909, R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, doubted that trapping IR heated a greenhouse. A consummate experimenter, Wood set up an experiment to test the theory and found it was wrong. He found the warming mechanism was a lack of convection, that glass trapped air molecules heated by the infrastructure, vegetation and soil.
AGW claims that CO2 traps IR and warms. Then it allegedly transfers part of that heat back to the surface. That not only contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a transfer of heat from a colder region of the atmosphere to a warmer surface, it describes perpetual motion. That is, heat is transferred from the surface back to the surface to raise surface temperature.
Clint does not believe the planet would be 91F cooler if not for the fact that 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. Science denier Clint.
Tim F, when you make your libration in longitude argument, you’re trying to suggest that the moon’s movement is composed of two motions, "orbiting" and "spinning", right? That’s the entire point of your argument, isn’t it?
Stephen P. Anderson says: “Clint does not believe the planet would be 91F cooler if not for the fact that 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. Science denier Clint.”
Anderson, where did I ever say such a thing?
If you can’t link to me saying such nonsense, or admit your mistake, then you’re just another incompetent, ignorant, and immature stalker.
DREMT: “Thats the entire point of your argument, isn’t it?”
That is one of many, many, many interrelated points.
We need a set of simple, self-consistent rules that can explain the observed motions of moons (and planets and binary stars and … ) and that also agree with the rest of physics. The simple rules that work are:
* The body’s CoM moves in an ellipse due to gravity.
* The body independently rotates about the COM at a fixed rate.
That is “orbiting” and “spinning” as you call them.
These two rules follow Newton’s Laws and Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. These predict Kepler’s Laws and libration.
(We could tweak this to include things like relativity or tidal interactions, but that is only once this level is understood.)
So, yes, your argument is that the moon’s movement is composed of two motions. What would you say to someone that argued that from an accelerated frame of reference, the moon’s movement was composed of only one motion?
“What would you say … ?”
I would say that their description — like your description — fails for elliptical orbits.
I would also say that ALL motion must be measured relative to some coordinate system. So different coordinate systems will give different descriptions of motion. For example …
* A person on an airplane is not translating relative to the airplane, but is translating relative to the ground.
* A merry-go-round horse is not rotating relative to the platform, but is rotating relative to the ground.
One difference is that there is no absolute frame for translations (the main point or Relativity) but there is an absolute frame for rotation. So while we cannot say in absolute terms whether or not an object is translating, we CAN say in absolute terms whether or not an object is rotating.
* a MGR horse is rotating.
* the earth is rotating.
* the moon is rotating.
So, for elliptical orbits, Tim, are you making an “absolute” statement that the movement of the body, if like the moon’s, is composed of two motions?
Are you saying that your libration in longitude argument “transcends reference frames”?
Gordon, to address just one of your points (the R.W Wood issue), I will point you to this work by a Stanford Professor (Emeritus now).
He points out various shortcomings of the original report, and offers improvements. http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Or just read Dr Roy’s results. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/
“Tim, are you making an “absolute” statement that the movement of the body, if like the moons, is composed of two motions?”
I am not exactly sure what you mean by “two motions” or an “”absolute” statement”.
Clearly, any part of the moon is not moving two different directions at once. In that sense it is ‘composed of a single motion’.
Equally clearly, the motion can be accurately described as an elliptical motion of the CoM (at varying angular speeds) plus an absolute rotation of the moon about its CoM (at a constant angular speed).
And would you say that you think your last paragraph is correct, regardless of frame of reference?
[That’s what I meant by an "absolute" statement – a statement about motion/s that, regardless of the frame of reference used to analyse the motion/s, you think is correct. Also, by "two motions", I was referring to "orbit" and "spin", as previously explained].
“a statement about motion/s that, regardless of the frame of reference used to analyse the motion/s, you think is correct.”
Well …
The motion of the CoM of the moon is the same no matter what frame is used … but the values for things like x-position or y-velocity or z-angular velocity will be different in different frames.
The motion of some point on the moon is the same no matter what frame is used … but the values for things like x-position or y-velocity or z-angular velocity of the will be different in different frames.
For example, using a frame fixed to the moon, any point on the moon has a fixed x,y,x and a fixed velocity = 0 and and a fixed angular velocity = 0.
—————————-
Having said that, there are certain choices that are intuitive and obvious. For example, we talk about moon moving in an ellipse — but it doesn’t. The ellipse only exists in a non-rotating frame centered at the earth-moon CoM.
It’s OK, Tim, I can see you have engaged “politician mode” and that a straight answer to my questions will not be forthcoming. However, when I said this:
DREMT: So, yes, your argument is that the moon’s movement is composed of two motions. What would you say to someone that argued that from an accelerated frame of reference, the moon’s movement was composed of only one motion?
You responded:
TIM F: I would say that their description — like your description — fails for elliptical orbits.
Which directly contradicts Ball4, and confirms that you agree reference frames do not resolve the moon issue – thus you’re agreeing with my point 3) from the points 1) – 4). Thank you.
Here’s a link to the points 1) – 4) as a quick reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
Point 2) is a mathematically proven fact:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
and point 3) now has Tim’s seal of approval. To be clear, by “the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames” I am referring to the idea, promoted by some “Spinners”, that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame and does not rotate on its own axis wrt an accelerated frame, and that’s it…they claim that is the resolution to the moon issue. It’s false, because as Tim just conceded, the real issue is whether the moon’s movement is composed of two motions (“orbit” and “spin”), or just one (“orbit”) and Tim made clear that in his opinion you could not decide that issue by choice of reference frame.
“I can see you have engaged politician mode ”
No. I have engaged “scientist mode” where careful explanations using correct scientific language are important. But I can break it down into smaller posts with fewer topics.
“and confirms that you agree reference frames do not resolve the moon issue”
Well, reference frames only give you ways to describe the motion. As such they do not ‘resolve’ anything.
And again, since we are implicitly discussing the elliptical orbit of the moon, we are implicitly assuming that the origin of the frame of reference is the earth-moon CoM. And further, we are assuming a non-rotating frame (relative to the ‘fixed stars’).
Perhaps you cross-posted and didn’t see my last post. I’ll let you catch up with that.
Suffice it to say that I agree, the moon issue is discussed wrt an ECI reference frame:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
and always has been. Also, when discussing the ball on a string, for example, the reference frame would be similar, in a way; but with the origin in the centre of the ball’s circular movement, of course.
Also agreed with:
“One difference is that there is no absolute frame for translations (the main point or Relativity) but there is an absolute frame for rotation. So while we cannot say in absolute terms whether or not an object is translating, we CAN say in absolute terms whether or not an object is rotating.”
with the vitally important caveat that a lot depends on which axis the object is rotating about – one that’s internal to the body, or one that’s external to the body, or both. See point 2).
DREMT,
Your points one through four are internally inconsistent.
Because if orbit and spin are independent, you put them together in points one and two.
What is your definition of orbit again?
What a waste of a BSc(honors).
Wrong, bob, but funny.
DREMT,
Yes internally inconsistent.
Watch the first part of the video referenced for part 4
The Moon orbits the Earth for 1/2 revolution, but rotates a full 360 degrees, because the two rotations add.
1/2 rotation of the Moon around its internal axis, plus 1/2 rotation about an external axis equals one full rotation of the Moon, as shown in the video.
No idea how bob gets himself so confused.
Don’t use Windows in safety-critical applications!!!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kason-yu_cybersecurity-windows-linux-ugcPost-7218519171846799360-CPSR?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Don’t trust someone who doesn’t understand the need to test software updates before rolling them out (and believes what films tell him is the ‘truth’).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAzEJxOo1ts
Thanks for post Richard, an excellent explanation.
Basically, Microsoft has allowed CrowdStrike to access the kernel with a kernel driver. In essence, it is using a rootkit-like driver. Whereas rootkits are designed to hide from the user, by disappearing each time it is accessed, the CrowdStrike kernel driver is given uncommon access to kernel mode, a dangerous prospect.
Of course, antivirus apps could not work without such kernel hooking methods. Hooking is one thing, a method of inserting control into another app, but allowing a kernel driver to operate unfettered is plain silly.
Another problem is that Microsoft has allowed CrowdStrike to load as a Boot driver, meaning it has uncommon control over the system. The video author has explained a very simply method of bypassing CrowdStrike by going into Safe Mode and deleting its files in a driver directory. Why this was not done by IT specialists around the world is the question.
All in all, Microsoft has out-smarted itself by trying to be too clever. They have also given far too much control of the system over to Third Party apps while failing to give users the same power over their own systems.
Microsoft didn’t ‘allow’ anything. Access to kernel mode has always been there. CrowdStrike just didn’t test or code to the required level.
i love the fact that he has a BSOD T-Shirt.
From the link…
“I love my windows only when it’s working.
And I love my linux when my windows is not working”.
***
A typical comment by a Linux ijit repeated by an ijit here. You can tell the education level/mindset of the author by the fact he has trouble with English diction. Anyone who writes English knows to capitalize proper nouns.
At no time, dating back to the earlier Windows OS version have I had any real problems with Windows. This recent issue has nothing to do with the Windows OS and totally related to a Third Party app used to heighten security by Internet sites. I have no idea what purpose it serves other than to block many users from accessing the sites.
Microsoft has to shoulder the blame for the crash because they blindly accepted the update without testing it adequately. I don’t think they’ll be so fast to release another update from the same outfit.
Also, the author appears to be misinformed about Windows as most Linux users are. Although Windows has its issues it is light years beyond Linux for usability.
Windows 10 saw a transformation in Windows and a reduction in reliability, mainly related to updates, but it is still far easier to use than Linux. In its bottomless greed and new management, Microsoft made W10 free by building in advertisements and spying on users to steal their information. Still, W10 is far easier to learn and use than Linux.
Linux is touted for it security which reaches the level of anal. The security features are simply not needed by the average user and those features are undone with the Linux ridiculous practice of omitting extensions from files that easily identify them. Under the hood, Linux becomes almost possible to understand by a modern user. Apps like emacs were written for the 1970s era teletypes.
The directory structure of Linux is also ancient. It has been adopted by Apple for reasons unknown. I guess Apple could not adopt the Microsoft Windows/OS format, which is much simpler, due to legal restrictions, so they stole the Linux format which is free.
The major advantage of Linux is that it is free. That means the kernel can be compiled at will, however, how many users are into recompiling kernels?
The major disadvantage of Linus, and it is major, is that most software producers write for Windows. That leaves Linux users scrambling to write interfaces to adapt such software to the Linux OS.
binny…”Wrong again, Vournas.
I dont think…”
***
There you have it, a confession from Binny to Christos.
” There you have it, a confession from Binny to Christos. ”
And ignoramus Robertson of course needed to cut off what he could not post as it would have made his dumb, robertsonian lie a bit too visible…
Look at what the ignorant liar has let disappear out of my reply to Vournas:
” Bindidon says:
July 21, 2024 at 2:45 PM
Bindidon, you also think our Moon is a slice of Earth.
Wrong again, Vournas.
I don’t ‘think’ about such matter. Instead, I read various documents and try to understand what their authors mean.
I have until now no definite meaning about Moon’s origin. ”
*
One hardly could behave more dishonest than Robertson; but this however is his ‘normal’ way to argue: distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and… lie.
*
Anyone who credulously believes pseudo-engineer Robertson’s endless daily trash 100% deserves it.
Bindidon, please stop t-word-ing.
A word of warning. This Crowdstrike induced failure of Windows 10 is a danger sign for AI-controhled devices. People are talking about driver-less trucks and cars on highways. The CrowdStrike software uses a form of AI to predict malware, a predictive feature that is often cloud-based.
This demonstrates the absolute havoc that could take place on our highways base on a simple software glitch or a poorly written update driver. Personally, I think it should be illegal to have computer-controhled cars and vehicles on our highways.
ent…”I suggest you research both hypotheses, that the Moon formed from debris ejected during a collision or that it formed elsewhere and was then captured”.
***
I’ll discuss the issue as rationally as you like. In fact, I did. I pointed out that the Moon is a relatively perfect sphere and that a collision with another body would hardly produce a sphere. There are no forces that can explain such an action.
The Moon has a diameter close to 3500 kms. Earth’ diameter is about 12,700 km. That would mean a spherical hole should be found that extends more than 1/4 the way into the Earth. The deepest part of the oceans extends only to 11 km.
An alternate explanation would be that a colliding object scooped out a large trench and that material somehow got into orbit around the Earth then solidified into a sphere. Having studied engineering and performed many problems related to force, mass and acceleration, I fail to see how such a large quantity of matter got launched, never mind that it got launched in such a manner that it conveniently accumulated in an orbit in a nearly perfect sphere.
A more plausible argument is that the Moon was an independent planet orbiting the Sun and somehow collide with a large object and got knocked in the direction of Earth where it was captured by Earth’s gravity. One would think such a collision would leave a prominent scar on the Moon’s surface.
All in all, no one knows how planets were formed or how they got into their current positions. Astronomers offer theories such as the planets forming from a debris field around the Sun but none of the theories explain basic engineering principles. In other words, they are theories based on the thought-experiments of eggheads.
I am hardly writing this off due to a lack of interest. I have a keen interest in how the Moon got in orbit but I simply cannot explain it, nor have I encountered an adequate scientific explanation.
Gordon Robertson
Look around the solar system. Every body larger than 400 km in diameter is approximately spherical.
The reason is called hydrostatic balance and the mathematics is similar to the equations used by civil engineers to calculate how much weight the ground below a building can support.
If the pressure due to the weight (ie the force of gravity on the building) exceeds the tensile strength of the ground, the building sinks in.
Similarly on a small body lumps and bumps persist, but larger bodies have strong enough gravity to cause the lumps and bumps to sink in. Similarly the pressure of the surrounding material causes holes to fill in.
As a result the presence or absence of big holes cannot be used to support any of the origin theories.
The shape of the Moon provides other cues. There are two asymetries, an equatorial bulge and an extension to an elliptical shape along the Earth-Moon axis.
The equatorial bulge is due to centripetal force spreading the equatorial surface outwards against gravity as the Moon rotated. The extension along the Earth-Moon axis is due to the stress and strain as the nearest parts of the Moon try to drop into a lower orbit while the furthest parts try to reach a higher orbit.
Interestingly both shapes could only arise if the Moon was molten and gravity was stronger than tensile strength.. Now the solid Moon is stronger and has frozen the bulge and the ellipse in place.
Any theory of lunar origin must explain the presence of a rotating molten Moon in Earth orbit.
As you mention, both the Earth and the Moon are large enough for this to happen. The big holes and craters you mention would have quickly disappeared.
ent…you are talking pure theory. There is nothing in engineering about hypothetical forces in planets re their formation. A building being erected on a substrate is not related.
Any talk of the Moon’s formation is just that…talk. No one knows and there is no way to replicate it on that scale.
Pressure, strength of materials, centripetal force, kinetic energy, bouyancy.
Were none of these taught in your supposed “engineering” course?
Entropic Man, please stop t-word-ing.
binny…”Ignoramus Robertson is opinionated and egotistical to such an extent that he fails to realize he would not have written his post if Vournas were not a GHE and (in between) lunar spin denier like himself”.
***
Christos and I are both engineers. We engineers have to support each other, especially against pseudo-science.
BTW…Tesla was also an engineer and he proved the Moon cannot spin on a local axis.
BTW, BTW…it’s hard to be egotistical when you understand that the ego is an imaginary construct. You can be intentionally smart-assed despite that awareness, but there is a difference.
Same with opinions, they are nothing more than thoughts, empty vessels that deluded minds think are filled with wisdom. Worse still are those who listen to opinions and feel offended by them, or take them seriously.
Robertson
” Christos and I are both engineers. ”
No idea what Vournas in reality is.
You however never have been an engineer at any time, Robertson.
No engineer on Earth would behave so ignorant, arrogant and technically so uneducated as you do.
You were at best something like a little tech writer.
” … especially against pseudo-science. ”
Says the guy who together with Clint R, his friend-in-ignorance, supports the most ridiculous pseudoscience I have experienced in my whole life.
You are so ridiculous, Robertson… beyond the imaginable.
You just couldn’t resist taking another cheap shot at me, could you Bindi?
That’s because you have no science to support your false beliefs. Reality upsets you. That happens with all cultists.
” … another cheap shot at me”
Oh did Robertson disappear suddenly?
Eben war er noch da! Na sowas aber auch.
Blinny can mathematically prove 0.04% CO2 in atmosphere can raise the temperature 91F. Go ahead, Blinny, show em.
” Blinny can mathematically prove 0.04% CO2 in atmosphere can raise the temperature 91F. ”
No, 6.9L pickup driver: I can’t because it’s sheer nonsense, a nonsense that people like you always throw like sand in the eyes, to polemically discredit what they never would be able to scientifically contradict.
Christos revealed that he is a mechanical engineer. What you think of my academic record is meaningless. You could challenge me scientifically but you lack the ability.
Blinny,
There aren’t any 6.9L pickup trucks. However, I drive a 3.5L pickup truck. By the way, why don’t you tell us how many genders there are?
Ford made a diesel pickup with a 6.9 liter engine until 1988, I’m sure there are still some around.
You’re not an engineer. No real engineer would ever claim that Kirchhoff’s law is obsolete.
… and not one engineer on Earth would write such nonsense as in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1679896
The very best is watching his nonsense about programming languages, posted a few months ago on this blog: he never wrote in his whole life any program longer than say 100 lines.
Robertson never was an engineer at any moment in his life.
All his engineering ‘knowledge’ 100% stems from contrarian blogs and Wikipedia (unless Wiki’s output doesn’t match his ignorant, egomaniacal narrative).
john…you are apparently an ijit like the other alarmist ijits here. I claimed only that Kircheoff’s law applied to blackbodies is obsolete.
Before proceeding, Kircheoff’s law applies only to bodies in thermal equilibrium, a fairly useless condition. That has since been extended into blackbodies theortically exchanging energy at non-equilibrium states, sheer pseudo-science.
The Sun is as close to a blackbody as we get yet there is no way it absorbs energy in the same manner it radiates it. That’s where Kircheoff’s heat law falls apart and I have revealed why.
In the days of Kircheoff, scientists believed that heat was transferred through space by heat rays. That was proved false by Bohr in 1913 when he discovered the relationship between electron transitions in atoms and EM.
Therefore, Kircheoff’s theory about heat and black bodies is not oly pur theory, it is based on a false premise. Furthermore, the 2nd law was presented by Clausius about the same time and supersedes Kircheoff.
Having said that, Kircheoff’s electrical laws are still valid.
When you agitate milk in a vessel, the spoon faces center with all its sides.
One should rotate the spoon, in order to make it facing the center with the same side.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m not sure about milk, but a vodka martini is “shaken and not stirred”….
It’s not a Martini unless it has gin in it.
A vodka martini has gin, vodka, and Kina Lillet.
Not a very good Martini as the gin is bruised.
This post above is exactly what the Krauts around me name
” Deutscher Humor ”
Their self-critical, humorous synonym for ‘no humor at all’ :–)
OTOH, a cookie in the milk, when stirred, is orbiting without rotating!
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That depends on if you are rotating it.
Stirring coffee with a spoon. Good example of orbital motion.
A good addendum to coins, merry-go-round, oval track, MOTL/MOTR, ball-on-a-string, curvilinear translation and all those fairly trivial gadgets that help Pseudo-skeptics continue to believe religiously in their beloved ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.
Nate (and Bindi), where’s your viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
You know the rules — Without something, you’ve got NOTHING.
Also, don’t forget to demonstrate your knowledge of physics by solving the simple problem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1679667
I won’t hold my breath….
“demonstrate your knowledge of physics by solving the simple problem”
Answered in the linked post. Not sure why you think this is a challenge.
Tim, please stop t-word-ing.
‘Nobody is able to show where I got physics wrong’
BS. I brought up your totally indefensible claim that the far side of the Moon has the same velocity as the near side.
Everybody but you knows that ain’t right.
Clint,
Nate just gave you a perfectly good model of orbiting without spin.
Another one would be me swinging my fist in a circle, the bones in my forearm prevent my fist from rotating.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yVr3mJDflB0
Wow!
Nice to see you’re still alive.
Il ne nous manque plus que ce cher Salvatore del Prete :–)
I did not realize that the ignorant audience forced-participation was alive back then. I stopped going to concerts because ijits insisted on overriding the band by clapping along out of time and cheering at inappropriate times.
Silly me, I thought I was going to see a band play, not ego-trippers who thought they looked cool clapping along and ruining it for everyone else. They actually thought everyone paid to see their ego-trips.
Global sea ice just reached a new record low for this time of the year
and,
as expected, a new daily global mean temperature record, 17.09C, was set two days ago on 21 July, according to
ECMWFERA5 reanalysis.
So, while “An unusually warm year or two cannot be blamed on climate change” may be true, it is somewhat of a distraction to the main event.
It is like complaining about the volume of the fire alarm while your house is burning around you.
” Global sea ice just reached a new record low for this time of the year… ”
This is really not exaggerated:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
Source
https://tinyurl.com/Sea-ice-extent-north
https://tinyurl.com/Sea-ice-extent-south
Yes, the HTE had a definite effect on surface temperatures.
Thanks for noticing.
Do you mean this HTE Effect?
Im guessing the HTE is over.
Clint: Aug, 2023
The HTE was real. Temps will settle down now that it is gone.
Clint: Sep, 2023
The HTE has ended
Clint: Dec, 2023
With HTE long gone
Clint: Jan, 2024
The HTE forcing is long gone
I expect UAH temps to drop over the coming months
Clint: Feb 2024
HTE warming continues to abate.
Clint: Mar, 2024
If it ended last summer or fall, and the effects were disappearing then, why do you think it is still the reason for record high temps and record low ice nearly a year later?
Clint R is completely opinionated coolista (h/t Bindidon). In our last conversation on the HTE, he repeatedly referred to polar vortex behavior without explaining the connection.
He just said something like, “What else could it be?”
That pseudomoderator tro+ll is just as annoying.
Yes Folkerts, the HTE is a learning experience.
Thanks for faithfully tracking all my comments.
But, you missed one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1679667
We’re at a skeptic blog, John W – so you and the twenty or so “alarmist” regulars are the t-words.
” We‘re at a skeptic blog, John W… ”
We??? No.
This is by NO MEANS ‘your’ skeptic blog.
This is a blog maintained by a honest, skeptical scientist, which unfortunately is infested by five or six harsh, 100% opinionated pseudoskeptics who constantly misuse the blog’s free speech policy and spout ridiculous garbage, e.g.
– that there is no GHE, or
– that there is no lunar spin which has been an invention by ‘ancient astrologers’, or
– that Einstein’s relativity theories are wrong,
etc etc etc. The list is long.
Bindi, your opinions and beliefs ain’t science.
Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
I never said it was my blog, Bindidon. You need to maybe chill out, occasionally. Stop being a shrieking, pompous, bigoted clown once in a while.
DREMT never confronts Gordon Robertson’s engineering claims, The Great Walrus’s drive-by insults, Clint R’s baseless HTE assertions, and, of course, many other ridiculous stuff posted here by ‘skeptics.’ A truly impartial moderator would show more balanced intervention.
I’m not a moderator, and wouldn’t want to be one, John W. I despise censorship.
“the HTE is a learning experience” … and yet you have been giving ‘authoritative’ statements about it for a year.
You should work on the “learning” before engaging in the repeated incorrect “telling”.
Awaiting a response up-thread, Tim.
Folkerts, you’d be much better off if you accepted the information I provide, rather than trying to throw your cult crap against the wall. That way, you might be able to answer simple physics problems like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1679667
Pseudomod
” You need to maybe chill out, occasionally. Stop being a shrieking, pompous, bigoted clown once in a while. ”
Now you behave really ridiculous.
With ‘you’ I of course did NOT mean you as a single poster.
This ‘you’ was the pendant to your ‘We’.
Feel free to insult me, Pseudomod. No problem for me: your are one of the ugliest replicators of antiscience on this blog.
Heil freedom of speech.
But, I meant “we” as in all of us, every single commenter at this blog.
Just go away, loser.
No.
Even more absurd is the IPCC telling China, India, and many other countries they are free to increase their emissions while the established industrial countries are put into a panic with emergency declarations.
Why is that absurd, Tim S? This hoax is not about science. It’s about tricking the public.
And you have well demonstrated how tricked you are.
“the IPCC telling China, India, and many other they are free to increase their emissions”
Quote them saying any such thing, Tim.
AFAIK they are not telling any country what to do.
Nate, I will see your strawman and raise you one strawman. Show us where the IPCC has stated anywhere and in any way that ALL countries must act equally (or equitably), or that China and India share an equal burden to reduce emissions.
My mistake. There is a much easier way to settle this instead of competing strawman challenges. China has explicitly and formally stated that they will continue to increase emissions until the year 2030 at which time they will “consider” capping their emissions and making reductions. For those who do understand Chinese culture, consider means it is not going to happen, but they do not want to say no. The term “seriously consider” means there might be a chance after further discussion and negotiation.
Has the IPCC ever challenged this defiant position?
“July 25, 2024 at 10:53 PM
Nate, I will see your strawman and raise you one strawman.”
Your statement promoted the myth that the IPCC is telling countries what to do.
The thousands of pages of IPCC doublespeak is intended to create hysteria, and they are very good at setting the stage for governments to panic. I have to agree that it is the politicians make their own conclusions, but it comes from the IPCC reports, and that becomes the justification for various policies that ignore the reality and futility of having any effect on world-wide emissions. Politics is local, but emissions are global.
Unable to acknowledge that your statement was unsupportable?
Now morphing it into something else.
It’s summer, ice melts. In another 6 months there will be 10 feet of ice over the Arctic Sea.
You, see, when there is no solar input, things tend to get cold.
Also, it is hard to determine how much ice is lost due to melting and how much is dumped in the warmer North Atlantic due to the Transpolar Drift.
But, hey, in a democracy, you are free to wave your climate alarm propaganda flag.
” It’s summer, ice melts. In another 6 months there will be 10 feet of ice over the Arctic Sea. ”
Robertson once more proves how ignorant and uneducated he is.
Here are the absolute values of the Arctic sea ice extent since 1979:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgKii1CJvDD22fA1RXJry0eMjBKhgwt5/view
{ The polynomial shows by the way clearly a turn from decreasing to increasing extent since over a decade. }
*
And here is a monthly split of these absolute values:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14pl8FPXYo11e0Oml-mwTSbvtuMs7zByw/view
Monthly and yearly trends for 1979-2023, in Mkm^2/decade:
Jan : -0.40
Feb : -0.42
Mar : -0.39
Apr : -0.36
May : -0.33
Jun : -0.45
Jul : -0.67
Aug : -0.71
Sep : -0.79
Oct : -0.80
Nov : -0.51
Dec : -0.41
Year: -0.52
As we clearly can see, the decrease (or increase) has few to do with winter or summer, let alone with solar power which at these latitudes hardly could play a role.
The trend is negative everywhere, even if this negative trend is stronger from July till October than for the other months.
Ice melts from the bottom: due to warming oceans even in higher latitudes.
studentb
” Global sea ice just reached a new record low for this time of the year… ”
While this is, as I wrote above, not exaggerated, it nonetheless does not reflect reality.
Just like a linear trend mostly is too general, a statement about ‘this time of the year’ conversely is too specific.
If we want to have a closer look at global sea ice, a complete monthly time series (no matter whether absolutes or departures) might be more appropriate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxoDtocaaq5K-mqPwfYrPBzR4GufaEyE/view
The linear trend for 1979-2024 is -0.53 +- 0.09 Mkm^2 / decade.
*
A look at the running mean unveils that the global sea ice’s record low must have been a while ago, as we can see a recent increase in the extent data.
{ A comparison of above graph with splits of Arctic and Antarctic shows moreover that the major part of the sudden drop after 2017 is originating from the Antarctic. }
*
Ironically, the recent increase in the global monthly sea ice data clearly contradicts the nonsensical opinion of people like Clint R who proudly wrote
” Yes, the HTE had a definite effect on surface temperatures.
Thanks for noticing. ”
He never was able to show a valuable source confirming this.
Bindi, you have to match time periods!
You don’t understand any of this. Worse yet, you can’t learn.
My climate model is the hottest
https://youtu.be/F-6WUKRd-Uo
tim f…”* The bodys CoM moves in an ellipse due to gravity”
***
That is only partly true, momentum plays s much of role as gravity, maybe more at times. In fact, if the momentum was zero, the COM would move only vertically.
—
“* The body independently rotates about the COM at a fixed rate.
That is orbiting and spinning as you call them”.
***
No scientific evidence to support rotation abut the COM. If there was rotation, at some point in the orbit, the near face would have to point away from Earth just as the Earth points away from the Sun once per revolution.
I offered an example before. The Earth presents the same side to the Sun 365 times per orbit and that side points away 365 times/orbit. If it only rotated twice per orbit it would present the same side twice, and if it rotated only once it would present the near side once and the same side would point 180 degrees away once.
Why would the Moon be different? Please don’t offer the lame reasoning of synchronous orbits. A tidally-locked orbit would be the same as the Earth rotating only once. I don’t buy the idea of tidal locking, more pseudo-science.
That is why the sun orbiting prolongs the lunar day, compared to the rotation period wrt stars.
If Moon were not orbiting Earth, there would not be a diurnal cycle on the Moon.
And that is why the sun orbiting prolongs the earthern day, compared to the rotation wrt stars.
If Earth were not orbiting sun, the earthern day would be shorter.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Right. As the Earth orbits, it moves a considerable distance in its orbit (1/365th of an orbit). It takes about 4 minute more for one rotation due to orbital motion. That means by the time the Sun appears at noon in a locale, it has taken longer to rotate once than it would wrt a fixed star.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think, that if Earth were rotating twice per orbit, than Earth would have present the same side once.
I think Moon rotates once per orbit, and that is why we cannot see the other side.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Some people are unable to figure it out. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is so helpful. If the ball were spinning, then the string would wrap around it. It’s just that simple.
But the cult is well established. All colleges and universities, world-wide, believe in lunar spin. It tells us much about the power of institutions.
Did someone post a faked Vournas message?
That above doesn’t match his usual narrative at all.
” All colleges and universities, world-wide, believe in lunar spin. ”
No: they do not believe in it. They are convinced of the correctness of the hundreds of proofs established by several scientists on the base of several different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
People like you live in the belief that trivial, dumb ideas like the ‘ball-on-a-string’ can explain such complex matter as the motion of celestial bodies.
You are one of these poor guys who behave religious and live in a cult based on utter nonsense, exactly like do those living in the cult of the Flat Earth, or of Sun revolving about Earth everyday.
Bindi, you sound just like Norman — all insults and false accusations, yet no science.
You both do that because you have NOTHING..
Bindidon,
“Did someone post a faked Vournas message?
That above doesnt match his usual narrative at all.”
–
No, no one posted a faked Vournas message…
Please visit
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1679921
Vournas
” I think Moon rotates once per orbit, and that is why we cannot see the other side. ”
Are you now claiming that this statement is exactly the same as what you write since a few years?
For example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1679328
*
According to Vournas, is the Moon suddenly rotating synchronously again?
Yesterday no, today yes, tomorrow no?
Bindidon,
“Vournas
I think Moon rotates once per orbit, and that is why we cannot see the other side.
Are you now claiming that this statement is exactly the same as what you write since a few years?
For example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1679328
*
According to Vournas, is the Moon suddenly rotating synchronously again?
Yesterday no, today yes, tomorrow no?”
–
–
Let me explain,
The exampje
July 17, 2024 at 3:48 PM is not few years ago.
“According to Vournas, is the Moon suddenly rotating synchronously again?
Yesterday no, today yes, tomorrow no?”
Bindidon, it was a little bit different, to be correct
Four years ago it was yes, then it was no (the last “no” was July 17, 2024 at 3:48 PM).
Today it is yes.
You may go out celebrating!!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” You may go out celebrating!!! ”
That’s really not my style.
I prefer to say:
Δανό για την ειλικρινή απάντηση!
Where Will Astronauts Go After The ISS Is Destroyed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CujjUfE504
troubleshooting…
rlh…”Microsoft didnt allow anything. Access to kernel mode has always been there. CrowdStrike just didnt test or code to the required level”.
***
You are failing to comprehend. If you would like to take me on in a debate about kernel mode, I’d be happy to oblige. I have spent many a good time tracing through it with softice. That applies to Binny too, who questions my understanding of software systems.
If you watched the video carefully he explains it. There are rules for accessing kernel mode and excep.tions have to be made for apps like CrowdStrike. One of Microsoft’s rules is that you have the kernel driver certified. That means they test it and certifying it.
If you break the rules, Microsoft has built in processes to detect that and blue screen. It’s obviously not f.o.o.lproof since hackers continue to find ways to subvert it, and Microsoft spends a lot of time trying fill those security holes.
Excep.tions have been allowed for CrowdStrike because it needs extraordinary access that would not be allowed for other kernel drivers. The rules for kernel drivers are in place to prevent poorly written kernel-mode drivers from interfering with other threads and freezing the system or corrup.ting data in other apps through forbidden memory access.
As the expert in your video explains, apps should crash without taking the entire system down. However, an antivirus app has extraordinary access to the memory spaces of other apps. It has to track them to see what they are doing and I have encountered that as a nuisance value while tracing code. There is nothing more annoying than to find yourself in the code of a security app while tracing code.
Obviously, Microsoft got slack with CrowdStrike and gave them too much leeway. No other kernel-mode driver has ever brought down systems world-wide. To compound matters, Microsoft has allowed boot-level drivers that have extraordinary power. That means, if such a driver becomes corrup.t, it freezes an entire system in such a manner that it is very difficult to fix it quickly.
In the video you posted, the expert explained that the update contained all zeros, a sure fire way to corrup.t and freeze the system. There should be a means of detecting such corrup.tion and rejecting the update. Had Microsoft centralize the update, rather than giving autonomy to CrowdStrike to update their own drivers, this would not have happened.
“CrowdStrike just didn’t test or code to the required level”
What tests or code do you think that CrowdStrike missed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHrayP-Y71Q
” You are failing to comprehend. If you would like to take me on in a debate about kernel mode, Id be happy to oblige. I have spent many a good time tracing through it with softice. ”
Just google ‘Microsoft kernel driver softice’ and you’ll immediately understand that this ignorant braggart nicknamed ‘Robertson’ has, for the umpteenth time, artificially constructed part of his alleged engineering past from half a dozen websites.
And of course, as always: he publishes the results after careful editing, thus avoiding anyone being able to find the sources he used.
“SoftICE is a kernel mode debugger for DOS and Windows up to Windows XP.”
Softice ice ***began*** as a DOS debugger but the latest version worked well right into Windows XP 32-bit. In fact, it will debug any 32-bit Windows app that uses a standard EXE-ecutable format with an MX and PE header, including those written for W10.
It runs best on Windows XP up to SP2 but in it’s final incarnation it is most definitely a 32-bit Windows debugger. One of my finest hours was debugging a 32-bit DirectX app by trapping a mouse message command then tracing through the mouse code, into the kernel, through the kernel, and into the DX code.
Try doing that with any other modern debugger, including Windbg.
The problem with debugging a DX app, without the source code, is this. The mouse cursor you see on screen is generated by the DX app, not Windows. Therefore there is no way to trap the mouse code directly using Windows messaging commands. Somewhere inside the code, however, the Microsoft mouse code and the DX app mouse code must find a common place to exist and I found it by coming in the back door, through the kernel.
Later, when I understood what to look for, I found that the DX code is called just after the windows code sets up all the windows. Normally, at that point in the Windows code, Windows enters an endless loop where it listens for messages. With DX, it sets up the DX code first, then enters the loop.
But then, the problem is understanding how DX works so one can understand what the code is doing.
Binny’s comments once again form a red-herring argument with no real purpose other than opening his considerable-sized mouth and allowing his equally grandiose stomach to rumble.
Was there a challenge in there related to kernel mode?
As far as suurces are concerned, there are several exceptional books on the subject. One of the best was written by Mark Russinovich (Windows Internals), in which he details the Windows structure in incredible detail.
However, reading a book on the Windows structure leaves you only an armchair enthusiast. You must gain hands on experience, either by writing drivers or doing reverse engineering. I spent close to 20 very enjoyable years doing just that, on a site dedicated to reverse engineering.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the Windows kernel and code, but I have spent many an enjoyable hour tracing through the code and seeing how it actually works at the assembly language level. Naturally, I leaned on experts like Russinovich.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024
Yes Elliott, Earth is in a natural warming trend since about the 1970s. We won’t get out of this trend until we get out of it.
But, you can’t see this comment because you’re hiding under your bed with your foil hat on.
That makes you one of my favorite Alarmists….
elliott forgeot to check the fine print related to the source of his propaganda…
“ERA5 is the fifth generation ECMWF atmospheric reanalysis of the global climate covering the period from January 1940 to present. ERA5 is produced by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) at ECMWF”.
A reanalysis????!!!!
Wow, now we have computers reanalyzing data.
But wait, the data range begins at 1940, omitting the warmest decade, the 1930s. I wonder why anyone would omit the 1930s [/sarc off].
How do you spell chicanery?
Elliott is now king of the climate change fraud propaganda.
Hey Elliott, continents change too. How do you propose we stop that?
More taxes?
Most people dont appreciate the power of convection and mechanical lifting (fronts, orographic) in thermal energy transport. The latent heat of condensation released is the same as the latent heat of evaporation (500 calories per GRAM of water). The average thunderstorm dumps 279 million gallons of water on the Earth. Water weighs 8 lbs per gallon and there are an average of 44,000 thunderstorms per day and millions of cumulus clouds topping thermals. Do the math – the energy transfer is impressive.
A look at any weather radar app shows daily thunderstorms reaching 60,000 ft. Its freezing everywhere above 24,000 ft. X band radar is optimized to detect LIQUID moisture. How much energy does it take to lift millions of gallons of water to 60,000 ft AND maintain it in a liquid state in a -55C environment?
Furthermore, the atmospheric density at that altitude is approximately 0.0006% of surface density. Not many molecules up there to absorb all of that latent thermal energy and of those molecules, 98% are transparent to IR. Where does that energy go?
Another interesting recent finding is that large thunderstorms release GAMMA waves of energy. Where does the energy necessary to generate gamma rays come from?
Clouds require condensation nuclei for the water vapor to coalesce. Imagine the pre fossil fuel atmosphere where every day billions of people heated, cooked, etc with wood and coal. Todays atmosphere burning fossil fuels is cleaner by far. Now we are cleaning up the relatively clean fossil fuel atmosphere. Recent reductions in the sulphates of ship fuels has resulted in significant reductions in clouds over the oceans reducing the Earths albedo causing record ocean warming. Looking further into the cloud cover record we find cloud cover to be reducing over long time periods – possibly as a result of better forest management resulting in fewer forest fires.
CO2 causes warming? Maybe. At least one recent experiment found that a 100% CO2 atmosphere COOLs black bodies.
A number of researchers have pointed out that the forcing of CO2 and CH4 is logarithmic, had reached saturation, and a doubling of CO2 will only result in a 0.3C to 0.5C increase.
Henrys Law states that the ability of a liquid to absorb gas is inversely related to temperature. The ocean (71% of the Earths surface), is one of not the largest CO2 sinks on Earth. When its temperature rises, it outgases. Which comes first – the chicken or the egg? A number of researchers has indeed found that increases in paleo CO2 levels lagged temperature increases.
Blame CO2 for the majority of the warming if you want but the facts dont support that.
” Most people dont ”
versus
” Most people don’t ”
*
Since this blog automatically eliminates UTF-8 characters, may I assume that you copied all your content from another website without citing the source?
brian…you appear to be looking only at evapouration, which is prevalent mainly in the Tropics. All air molecules are involved with transporting heat from the surface, and at best, the water vapour content never exceeds about 3%. That means most surface heat is transported via convection naturally by dry air.
Shula pointed out via the Pirani gauge that dry air convection (thermals, if you like) is 260 times more effective at dissipating heat from the surface than radiation. Yet, the energy budget claims the opposite. There are something like 10^27 air molecules leeching heat from the surface per square metre and that moves a heck of a lot more heat from the surface than radiation.
I have hypothesized that heat removed via conduction/convection is dissipated naturally as the air rises in ever-decreasing air pressure. That means it does not have to be radiated back to space but remains in the atmosphere, until dissipated, keeping the average temperature higher than it would be without conduction/convection.
How do you know it’s a “natural” warming trend?
What is causing the warming? Don’t forget the evidence.
There are several natural causes of warming — Sun, clouds, ocean oscillations, geothermal, etc. We don’t understand all of them, or even know how to track them. We’re just now getting a handle on oceans, with thousands of Argo floats added in the last 20 years. When we have 100 years of ocean data, we should know a lot more.
Those people that want to believe in nonsense like the GHE need to at least be able to describe it. Unfortunately too much agenda gets in the way of science. You’ve even got 15 year-old girls on center-stage! Absolutely no science, just pure emotionalism.
Like with the Moon issue, people will cling to it because it comes from their cult. They know nothing about orbital motion, so they just make up garbage such as passenger jets flying backward!
Can you believe that?
When you make a claim like “natural warming trend” in science it is customary to show your evidence.
Numbers and mechanisms, if you please.
Ent, one of your problems is that you don’t understand “science”. Science MUST embrace reality. Without reality, it ain’t science.
So when you preach that passenger jets fly backward, just to support your cult’s beliefs, then you’ve severed your connection to science and reality.
Your only recourse is to retract your false statement, and apologize to the blog for being such an extreme hard-core anti-science Alarmist.
I won’t hold my breath….
Entropic man
” Numbers and mechanisms, if you please. ”
Are you serious? Do you REALLY expect a guy like Clint R to give you some source that confirms his nonsense?
Don’t be so naive.
Binci, you haven’t provided a “viable model”, and you didn’t solve the problem.
Just a reminder….
Bindidon
I do not expect Clint R to provide evidence to support his claims I am highlighting his inability to do so.
Ent and Bindi, I hate seeing you guys making all those false accusations. I know you must get tired of acting like spoiled little girls. So, let’s fix things.
You guys provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, and I’ll address your biggest concern about things I’ve said. One for one. It can’t be any more fair than that.
I’ll be waiting to see your “viable model”….
It’s obvious what the warming is about. Following a 400+ year Little Ice Age the planet must warm naturally. It has been warming since 1850, about the time the LIA ended. The last peak in the LIA, the Dalton minimum, was centred around 1790.
Akasofu estimate the warming trend at 0.5C/century. That makes sense since we still have winters in both the N and S Hemispheres that build up ice and reduce temps. Based on that, it does take a long time for warming to rebound.
At last !!!
The old b.ugg.er finally admits the world is warming.
Took you long enough.
At what temperature do you expect the deck dry to stabilise?
How did you calculate it?
Show your working.
I have never claimed there has been no warming since 1850. I have agreed with the consensus that the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850.
My argument has always been about why the planet warmed. I think the GHE/AGW explanation is fraudulent.
ent…I have no idea when the temperature will stabilize because I don’t know how much it cooled during the LIA or how long it should take to recover.
Akasofu, with a degree in geophysics, thinks it should warm at around 0.5C/century but I don’t think he knows how much it has to rewarm. Akasofu is no slouch, he pioneered studies into the solar wind and he has researched glaciers around Alaska where he taught at a university.
Two problems.
1) We’ve warmed 1.2C since 1880. That’s 0.8C/century.
2) We passed the temperature of the Mediaeval Warm Period, your equilibrium point, decades ago and are still rising.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
I don’t agree with 1), 1.2C is based on fudged data from NOAA/GISS. Besides, it is an average, a stastistical calculation.
As for 2) there is no way to state the MWP temperatures. All we know is that during the MWP, Vikings farmed in southern Greenland and that would require considerable warming. They abandoned Greenland at the onset of the MWP.
50% chance of cyclone formation in Eastern Pacific- the Atlantic has nothing, yet:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
It became tropical storm, Bud.
It’s not forecasted to become a hurricane, or go anywhere
binny…from Christos…” I think Moon rotates once per orbit, and that is why we cannot see the other side.
***
Dremt has already explained what that means, the Moon is rotating about the external axis in Earth. It is not rotating bout an internal axis.
I prefer to claim that the near-side of the Moon changes orientation through 360 degrees, a condition perfectly explained by curvilinear motion without local rotation.
“the Moon is rotating about the external axis in Earth. It is not rotating bout an internal axis.”
“Rotation” = movement in a circle about an axis.
The moon is not moving in a circle about the earth-moon barycenter (or any other axis for that matter).
Therefore …
Recently, Tim finally accepted that my point 3) is correct. Does he now accept point 2) is correct, as well?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
“the Moon is rotating about the external axis in Earth”
How does an ‘external axis’ work for something that is not a rigid body?
“Orbit without spin” definition.
A body such as the Moon revolves around an elliptical orbit while a gyroscope or Foucault pendulum at one of its poles detects no rotation around its internal axis.
If you understood point 2), you’d understand why that doesn’t work, Entropic Man.
“Orbit without spin” is one of the two motions under discussion here for seven years now. It’s motion in which the same side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit, according to “Non-Spinners”. If you don’t want to call that “rotation about an external axis” for whatever pedantic reason, then don’t. Just call it “orbit without spin”. It’s only semantics.
To “Spinners”, “orbit without spin” is motion in which the same side of the orbiting body always faces some distant star.
That’s the only difference. That is what seven years of discussion boils down to. Nothing to do with reference frames, definitions of rotation, or anything else.
Once all the “Spinners” have accepted that points 1) – 4) are correct, perhaps we can finally get on to settling the issue.
The distant stars ARE a reference frame.
…and yet, the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames, as Tim Folkerts agrees.
“”Orbit without spin” is one of the two motions under discussion here for seven years now. Its motion in which the same side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit, according to “Non-Spinners”.”
But non-spinners can’t or won’t specify precisely what they mean by ‘faces the inside of the orbit’. Does one point on the moon always face …
1) straight toward the earth?
2) straight toward the center of the ellipse?
3) straight ahead (like a car on a track).
4) something else???
All of these are different. If you can’t explain precisely what you mean by ‘faces the inside’ then you are just hypothesizing / hand-waving.
Points 1) – 4) only, Tim. Only once all “Spinners” have agreed that they’re correct will I move on to discussing anything else. Sorry, if that frustrates you…imagine how annoying it is knowing you’re right on four points and having different “Spinners” agreeing with some of them, and not others, but never arguing amongst themselves about it…
DREMT, you have a world-view about orbits and rotations that works for you. It has easy-to-visualize arms and gears and axles. I am happy for you.
I will agree that your 4 rules can adequately be applied to circular orbits. But “adequate” and “correct” are two different things. Your rules cannot adequately deal with non-circular orbits. This means they are not correct. Libration is one simple, intuitive failure of your model.
Until you can answer my question about orientation of “orbit with out rotation” ,you don’t even have the beginnings of a model that works for true elliptical orbits.
Until you can give a precise definition of “rotation” in mathematical language, there is no way to discuss the correctness of your 4 points with others.
Point 2) is mathematically proven using rotation matrices, here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
I would like to think that involves a definition of rotation in precise enough “mathematical language” for you, but I have raised this about five times with you now, and you dodge it every time.
Do you accept point 2) is correct?
“Once all the “Spinners” have accepted that points 1) 4) are correct, perhaps we can finally get on to settling the issue.”
To paraphrase, “Once the spinners agree I am right, we can decide who is right.” This is known as the Begging The Question fallacy.
I accept that points 1) – 4) are YOUR take on the issues.
I reject that points 1) – 4) are the CORRECT take on the issues.
***********************************
“2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists … and it is motion as per the “moon on the left””
Again, this is unresolvable without a general definition of “rotation about an axis”.
I will agree that MOTL is rotation about an external axis with NO ADDITIONAL/INDEPENDENT/SEPARATE rotation about an internal axis.
**********************************
Your link to the rotation matrix page begs the question in exactly the same way you do!
“If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the right and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model”
They ALSO *define* orbital motion as a rotation about an external axis.
But we *define* orbital motion as the translation, in which case he acknowledges that ‘translation + rotation’ is a perfectly viable way to create the same motion.
And we are back to the issue of which *definition* of “orbiting without rotating” is better.
“To paraphrase, “Once the spinners agree I am right, we can decide who is right.” This is known as the Begging The Question fallacy.”
No, Tim. As I say right at the beginning of my list of points 1) – 4), they are correct regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue. The points 1) – 4) do not, by themselves, settle the moon issue.
“They ALSO *define* orbital motion as a rotation about an external axis. But we *define* orbital motion as the translation, in which case he acknowledges that ‘translation + rotation’ is a perfectly viable way to create the same motion.
And we are back to the issue of which *definition* of “orbiting without rotating” is better.”
Tim, go to the link I provided:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
and read through my points 1) – 4) again. Read point 2). What does it say? Quote it back to me, here. Then apologise for being silly.
“Again, this is unresolvable without a general definition of “rotation about an axis”.“
Wrong, Tim. It is resolved mathematically by Ftop_t. He rotates his object about an external axis and it moves as per the MOTL in one single transformation. If he rotates it about an external axis and an internal axis, it does not move as per the MOTL. Simple. He is using rotation matrices, so the definition of rotation is the mathematical one.
Actually, re my 11:29 PM comment, I can’t be bothered to wait for you to read through the points again and get yourself all confused about what I mean, so I will spell it out for you:
a) Nowhere in my points 1) – 4) do I claim that “orbit without spin” is “rotation about an external axis”. Yes, I have made that claim before, but it is not part of the points 1) – 4), which is what we are discussing. So please, just stick to what is written.
b) I say in my point 2) that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is not the only way to describe the movement of the MOTL. So yes, I’m well aware that it can also be described as “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”. I have said so many, many times before.
Point 2) is not about whether “orbit without spin” should be “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in a circle”.
“Nowhere in my points 1) 4) do I claim that “orbit without spin” is “rotation about an external axis””
Yes, you implicitly do.
In (4) you say “”Orbit” and “spin” are independent motions, as shown in the following video”. But the “orbit” in that video *is* a rigid body rotation about an external axis.
“”Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists … “
We still need to address the definition of “rotation about an axis”. You (and ftop_t and the rest of your team) are always assuming that the rotation about the internal axis means ADDITIONAL rotation relative to the ROTATING FRAME defined by the rotation about the external axis. I am meaning ABSOLUTE rotation relative to the ABSOLUTE FRAME.
Again, this doesn’t resolve the issue, but clarifies the two positions. Reference frames are part of the discussion, but not an ultimate resolution.
The issue ultimately comes down to which of these two perspectives is simplest and most useful for explaining the motion of orbiting objects.
* TEAM DREMT can explain the motion of objects moving in perfectly circular orbits by equating “orbit” with “rigid body rotation about an external axis”
* TEAM SCIENCE can explain the motion of objects moving in perfectly circular orbits AND ELLIPTICAL ORBITS by equating “orbit” with “translation of the CoM along a path.”
* TEAM DREMT can’t or won’t address “orbiting without rotating” for an elliptical orbit.
* TEAM SCIENCE can explain “orbiting without rotating” for any orbit as “constant orientation relative to the ‘fixed stars'”.
Tim, point 4) is simply that “orbit” and “spin” are independent motions. I’m sure you agree with that. The video is intended as an illustration of “orbit” and “spin” being independent motions. Of course, it’s from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, but what did you expect?
You are nearly there, but not quite, with point 2). Wrt the ABSOLUTE frame you mention, Ftop_t shows that movement like the MOTL can be replicated by one single transformation, “rotation about an external axis”. To replicate movement like the MOTL with two transformations (thus involving “rotation about an internal axis” or “spin”) requires that the other transformation be “translation in a circle”.
Wrong on both, Folkerts —
* TEAM DREMT can’t or wont address “orbiting without rotating” for an elliptical orbit.
WRONG! The orbiting object always keeps one hemisphere facing the inside of its orbit.
* TEAM SCIENCE can explain “orbiting without rotating” for any orbit as “constant orientation relative to the fixed stars'”.
WRONG! A ball-on-a-string would NOT have a constant orientation relative to fixed stars. Nor does Moon.
“WRONG! The orbiting object always keeps one hemisphere facing the inside of its orbit.”
What direction is ‘inside of the orbit’?
This seems intentionally vague.
As if Clint was TRYING to make my point for me, he can’t or won’t address whether “facing the inside of its orbit” means that one specific spot on the moon is always facing:
1) straight toward the earth
2) straight toward the center of the ellipse
3) straight ahead (like a car on a track).
4) something else
All of these are “facing the inside of its orbit”, yet all are different. Which one is it? And why?
DREMT asks: “but what did you expect?”
I hoped for correct science. I expected wrong science. I got wrong science.
You are nearly there, but not quite, with point 2). It is the same motion whether the computer generates it with a single rotation about an external axis or generates it with a translation and a rotation about its own internal axis.
The universe doesn’t care how we may or may not have generated or described the universe. There is one universal, correct answer to whether an object is rotating about its own internal axis or not.
Draw a vector on the moon (or the triangle or the MGR horse). Call the tail of the vector the axis. Since the vector maintains a constant length and changes in direction, the object is rotating about that axis.
"I hoped for correct science. I expected wrong science. I got wrong science."
Point 4) is obviously correct, Tim. "Orbit" and "spin" are indeed independent motions. "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" agree. In fact, I’ve never really known anyone to disagree with point 4).
"You are nearly there, but not quite, with point 2). It is the same motion whether the computer generates it with a single rotation about an external axis or generates it with a translation and a rotation about its own internal axis."
Exactly. Yes, Tim. So close…
"The universe doesn’t care how we may or may not have generated or described the universe. There is one universal, correct answer to whether an object is rotating about its own internal axis or not. Draw a vector on the moon (or the triangle or the MGR horse). Call the tail of the vector the axis. Since the vector maintains a constant length and changes in direction, the object is rotating about that axis."
…but yet, so far. No, Tim. You literally just said, in your preceding paragraph, that the movement of the MOTL can be described either as a single rotation about an external axis (one transformation), or a translation and a rotation about its own internal axis (two transformations). That is mathematically true regardless of any contortion of frames of reference or definition of rotation you can come up with. So, if you describe the MOTL as rotating about an internal axis ("spinning"), for whatever reason you’re dreaming up, then it’s two transformations, and the other transformation (besides "spin") is "translation in a circle".
That means that, if you describe the movement of the MOTL as a single rotation about an external axis, that’s that…it means no rotation about an internal axis. No spin, whatsoever. You cannot describe the movement of the MOTL as being a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis.
That is what Ftop_t showed.
The issue with point 2) is, and always has been: is movement like the MOTL composed of one, or two, transformations…and, that doesn’t change, regardless of frame of reference. Same as the overall issue, with our real moon, is whether or not its movement is composed of one, or two, motions ("orbit" alone, or "orbit" plus "spin").
I know you’re not going to make your argument that you’re about to make with Clint R, and let somebody come in and say, at the end of all that – well, from an accelerated frame of reference, the moon’s movement consists of only one motion, "orbiting". Yet, that is precisely what the people who go overboard on the frame of reference argument would say. They would say that, with regard to an inertial reference frame, the moon’s movement consists of two motions, but with regard to an accelerated frame of reference, it consists of only one. Yet, that is nonsense. You said as much yourself, up-thread.
Thus, you agree that frames of reference do not resolve the moon issue…and, you should understand that by now in the same way I understand it.
How many transformations the movement of the MOTL consists of, one or two, and how many motions the movement of our moon consists of, one or two, is not decided by choice of reference frame. That is the take home point of this feature presentation.
Once you accept and understand points 2) and 3), it will lead us nicely onto discussing point 1). Which, by now, ought to be the only point of the four that you do not completely agree with.
“it means no rotation about an internal axis”
And we come back yet again to the fact you can’t or won’t define what constitutes a rotation about an axis. Suppose I say “here is an object and here is an axis. Is the object rotating about that axis?”
What set of steps would you go through to answer if the object is rotating about that axis? What would you measure?
“here is an object and here is an axis. Is the object rotating about that axis?”
First of all, you don’t just “pop an axis” wherever you feel like it. The location of the axis of rotation is determined by the motion itself.
But, this is point 1) stuff. We can get into it once you have accepted that points 2), 3) and 4) are correct. Point 2) relates to movement like the MOTL. The actual animation itself could show a spinning object, or a non-spinning object. It cannot be determined if it’s spinning or not, because the mechanics behind the motion are not known, and cannot be known. With the ball on a string, however, it’s a different story…
…but that will have to wait until you’re ready to discuss point 1).
“So yes, Im well aware that it can also be described as “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”.”
“The location of the axis of rotation is determined by the motion itself.”
So which is it? In one case you say we could choose different axes, and get the same motion. In the other case, you say there is only one choice ordained by the motion itself.
“It cannot be determined if its spinning or not, because the mechanics behind the motion are not known”.
This is a fascinating metaphysical stance. That measuring the properties of an object cannot tell you if it is rotating. That two objects could have identical motion but only one is rotating.
First point – perhaps I should have been clearer, again it is the mechanics behind the motion that decide between choices like for movement like the MOTL. What I meant was, you don’t just draw an axis anywhere on the screen…logically, the choices are, an axis at the centre of the moon or an axis at the Earth.
Second point – yes, absolutely. For example, with the equipment you see in the video for point 4), moving as per the MOTL, the model moon is not spinning. Have an XY plotter rigged up with a model moon attached to the pen via a motor, to spin it, or not spin it…program it to move the pen in a circle, and recreate movement like the MOTL. Then the model moon would be spinning.
“That measuring the properties of an object cannot tell you if it is rotating. That two objects could have identical motion but only one is rotating.”
Astronomers can no longer tell us if a distant object is rotating, just based on observations.
They need some vague, additional knowledge, only obtainable by a visit presumably, to determine it.
Only desperation to preserve one’s beliefs in the face of contradictory facts, leads to such strange notions.
No, Nate. Astronomers can quantify the number of spins per orbit exactly the same way they normally do, then simply subtract exactly one. It’s not exactly difficult.
I knew I shouldn’t have chosen to read one of Nate’s comments. Now I will have to make this another sub-thread where I read and respond to him…but I couldn’t let the discussion end on such a dumb remark.
Nate, if you wanted to demonstrate that you’ve never really understood the moon discussion, that comment did a great job of showing it…
“No, Nate. Astronomers can quantify the number of spins per orbit exactly the same way they normally do, then simply subtract exactly one. Its not exactly difficult.”
Which is an admission that what astronomers normally do does not agree with your beliefs..
That are correct. You are not.
The question was whether observations alone can tell us what the motion is.
Is it a rotation, a translation, both?
All of physics and astronomy say yes.
To whom it may concern:
How do you determine the rate of axial rotation of objects that do not have a repeating orbit?
Hyperbolic orbits, parabolic orbits, chaotic orbits, etc.
"Which is an admission that what astronomers normally do does not agree with your beliefs…"
No Nate, it’s an "admission" that the "Non-Spinner" position is different to the "Spinner" position [rolls eyes].
"The question was whether observations alone can tell us what the motion is.
Is it a rotation, a translation, both?
All of physics and astronomy say yes."
Actually, you have it completely backwards, Nate. Kinematics cannot tell you whether a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis or not. It can only tell you that it’s either:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Hell, even the "Spinners" on this website can’t agree amongst themselves on whether the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, or not.
Whereas, the "Non-Spinners" can all tell you that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
Just returning to endlessly repeated talking points, while evading the contradictions pointed out here.
Boring.
Actually, I just completely refuted every word you said, but think what you like. If you’re bored, that’s fine. I certainly don’t want to talk to you.
“Hell, even the “Spinners” on this website cant agree amongst themselves on whether the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, or not.”
First, this blog draws a lot of non-scientists, so not all people (on either side) have informed opinions. So having people say incorrect or contradictory or unclear things is not surprising.
Further, the only actual disagreement is whether we are talking about rotation IN ADDITION to the rotation about the inner end of the string, or ABSOLUTE rotation.
* Yes, there is absolute rotation about the ball’s axis.
* No, there is not additional rotation beyond the rotation rate of the string.
And one more time … Hell, even the “Non-Spinners” on this website cant agree amongst themselves the orientation of a non-spinning moon in an elliptical orbit.
"Further, the only actual disagreement is whether we are talking about rotation IN ADDITION to the rotation about the inner end of the string, or ABSOLUTE rotation. * Yes, there is absolute rotation about the ball’s axis. * No, there is not additional rotation beyond the rotation rate of the string."
No, Tim. That’s not the disagreement. You just haven’t paid attention to a word that’s been said, have you? It’s in one ear, and out the other.
I’m not going to repeat myself. Scroll up, re-read, learn, improve yourself. Or not. Just don’t lie about what’s been discussed.
Ah, what the hell, let’s just hammer it home (not for Tim’s benefit, he’s another one that can’t learn and is way too arrogant to listen to somebody who only has a BSc (Hons) rather than a PhD):
It’s been mathematically proven that an object moving like the ball on a string cannot be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis at the same time.
Thus, if you concede that the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis (as Tim appears to) then the ball on a string is not rotating about an internal axis.
If anyone wants to claim it is "absolutely" rotating about an internal axis, it has been mathematically proven that there would have to be two transformations, and the other one (besides "spin") would have to be "translation in a circle"…not rotation about an external axis.
But, the ball is being swung about an external axis on the end of a string, so it quite literally is rotating about an external axis!
The question was whether observations alone can tell us what the motion of an adtronomical is.
Is it a rotation, a translation, both?
A translation is observed as change a change in position of the COM of the body.
A rotation is observed to be different velocities of two sides of a body.
For BOS or any of the planets or moons in our solar system, the answer is clearly BOTH.
And Astronomy in general assigns the axis of rotation to the COM of the body.
And calls the cyclic translation of bodies around another body an orbit.
This has worked well for Astronomy for 300 years.
DREMT has not offered any compelling reason to change this approach, after years of trying.
Oh well!
Correction
‘what the motion of an astronomical body is.’
"A translation is observed as change a change in position of the COM of the body."
Incorrect. The rest of your comment fails, accordingly.
Nothing can refute my last comment, Nate. Nothing on this Earth. I’m right.
DREMT,
Sorry but
“Orbit without spin is one of the two motions under discussion here for seven years now. Its motion in which the same side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit, according to Non-Spinners.”
That’s not orbit without spin because in that case the same side of the body changes orientation with respect to a distant object.
In other words, the orbiting body is spinning.
That’s why we keep pestering you for a definition of spin.
“”A translation is observed as change in position of the COM of the body.”
Incorrect. The rest of your comment fails, accordingly.”
Evidence?
“Nothing can refute my last comment, Nate. Nothing on this Earth. Im right.”
No doubt that you FEEL you are right, but neither Astronomy nor Physics agree, and yet have been extremely successful at predicting planetary motions.
You have no such track record.
And you offer no compelling reason for Astronomy or Physics to change their approach.
So that’s all there is to it.
"Evidence?"
Where’s the evidence for your statement, Nate? Last I was aware, curvilinear translation in a circle was defined by Madhavi as:
"For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles"
It involves all the particles of the body. Not the "CoM".
"No doubt that you FEEL you are right, but neither Astronomy nor Physics agree, and yet have been extremely successful at predicting planetary motions.
You have no such track record.
And you offer no compelling reason for Astronomy or Physics to change their approach."
…none of which has anything to do with my points 1) – 4), which remain correct, regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue.
P.S: Nobody can refute the following, which I will repeat again, and keep repeating for the rest of my life, because I’m absolutely, perfectly, beautifully correct and always will be:
"It’s been mathematically proven that an object moving like the ball on a string cannot be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis at the same time.
Thus, if you concede that the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis (as Tim appears to) then the ball on a string is not rotating about an internal axis.
If anyone wants to claim it is "absolutely" rotating about an internal axis, it has been mathematically proven that there would have to be two transformations, and the other one (besides "spin") would have to be "translation in a circle"…not rotation about an external axis.
But, the ball is being swung about an external axis on the end of a string, so it quite literally is rotating about an external axis!"
And, that is all wrt Tim’s "ABSOLUTE frame". They just can’t understand it, and never will. Oh well, my absolute and eternal victory over them in every conceivable way is a matter of permanent internet record. That’s good enough for me.
DREMT, you are the one not listening. You seem to be focusing too much on the concrete; focusing on the “literal” and not enough on the abstract.
“It’s been mathematically proven that an object moving like the ball on a string cannot be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis at the same time.”
Mathematically, a particle is rotating about an axis if:
a) the particle maintains a constant distance from the line defining the axis.
b) the particle changes direction relative to that axis and some defining reference frame.
Any point on a MGR horse/ball-on-string satisfies this definition for BOTH the center of the MGR/string AND relative to the center of the horse/ball simultaneously. Mathematically, these objects are rotating about an infinite number of axes simultaneously.
The one thing ‘proven’ by the simulated triangle, is that the motion is not an ADDITION of rotation about the external axis PLUS a rotation about its internal axis.
******************************************
At one level, none of this mathematic minutia matters much for the actual moon. The moon is literally NOT rotating about an external axis, because it is moving in an ellipse, not a circle. It is ONLY rotating about an internal axis.
The ONLY logical and consistent model is translation + rotation.
“Mathematically, a particle is rotating about an axis if:
a) the particle maintains a constant distance from the line defining the axis.
b) the particle changes direction relative to that axis and some defining reference frame.”
Any point on a MGR horse/ball-on-string satisfies this definition for BOTH the center of the MGR/string AND relative to the center of the horse/ball simultaneously. Mathematically, these objects are rotating about an infinite number of axes simultaneously.
The one thing ‘proven’ by the simulated triangle, is that the motion is not an ADDITION of rotation about the external axis PLUS a rotation about its internal axis”
An infinite number of axes simultaneously!? Tim…you simply don’t understand rotation. Ftop_t proved that there is one axis of rotation for an object moving like the MOTL. Either the axis of rotation goes in the centre (external to the object), or it goes through the object itself. If the axis of rotation goes through the object itself, then there has to be another transformation, and that’s “translation in a circle”. Either way, though, it is not mathematically possible for there to be two axes of rotation for an object moving like the MOTL. Let alone an infinite number!
“Wheres the evidence for your statement, Nate? Last I was aware, curvilinear translation in a circle was defined by Madhavi as:
“For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles”
I clearly stated that BOTH translatipn and rotation are present in astronomical bodies.
Read Madhavi on ‘general plane motion’ and how it can be represented as such combinations of COM translation and rotation around COM.
“And you offer no compelling reason for Astronomy or Physics to change their approach.”
“none of which has anything to do with my points 1) 4), which remain correct, regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue.”
At least you seem to realize that your model does not work for our Moon and general orbits!
Read it? I may as well have written it!
Nate, you said:
"A translation is observed as change a change in position of the COM of the body."
That is wrong. Translation does not only involve the CoM…and, even if the moon were translating and rotating about an internal axis, you would not be able to directly observe the translation part of that combined movement.
“At least you seem to realize that your model does not work for our Moon and general orbits!”
An incorrect, obnoxious and childish reading of my comment, Nate. Points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless. That’s all I’m saying.
“”A translation is observed as change a change in position of the COM of the body.”
“That is wrong. Translation does not only involve the CoMand, even if the moon were translating and rotating about an internal axis, you would not be able to directly observe the translation part of that combined movement.”
Knee jerk ignorance.
Of course that is what is directly observed!
The Moon’s position in space is precisely determined by astronomical observations and tabulated.
When one looks up the Moon’s position, it is a single point in space, and it is universally understood to be the position of its COM!
And it is understood the rest of the Moon has translated along with the COM.
But this data says nothing about its change in orientation, which is separately tabulated.
C’mon, this ought to be easy to grasp for someone with your education.
“Ftop_t proved that there is one axis of rotation for an object moving like the MOTL. Either the axis of rotation goes in the centre (external to the object), or it goes through the object itself.”
The first sentence is contradicted by the second.
FTOP was good at programming, but that does not mean he understood the physics or math behind what he was programming. He made ignorant statements about ‘single motion’ when the math was obviously that of two motions. He did not produce a correct planetary orbit but claimed he did.
“The first sentence is contradicted by the second.“
Incorrect. Learn to read, and comprehend.
“Either the axis of rotation goes in the centre (external to the object), or it goes through the object itself.
Ok then since Astronomy uses the second, and has been highly successful at predicting planetary motion, that explains why you have made no compelling argument for them to change their approach.
So that’s all there is to it.
Thankfully, this long pointless argument can be over.
"Of course that is what is directly observed!
The Moon’s position in space is precisely determined by astronomical observations and tabulated."
You missed the point, again. The moon’s position in space would change whether "orbit without spin" were like the MOTL, or the MOTR. So, observing that it changes does not settle a thing. If the moon’s movement were composed of two motions, you wouldn’t be able to observe the "orbit without spin" part of it, directly. That’s what I was trying to explain to you. Observations do not settle the issue.
DREMT,
“you would not be able to directly observe the translation part of that combined movement.”
Yes, you can observe the motion of the Moon against the background stars.
You are near Greenwich right, at least closer than I am, maybe you could go there and ask an Astronomer how to tell if the Moon is translating or rotating.
Please stop trying to make yourself relevant, bob. Skip back to my comment from two minutes ago, read it, and learn what I meant.
This is what I said:
“A translation is observed as change a change in position of the COM of the body.
This is what you said.
That is wrong. Translation does not only involve the CoMand, even if the moon were translating and rotating about an internal axis, you would not be able to directly observe the translation part of that combined movement.
And it makes absolutely no sense.
You can observe just the translation part of that combined movement. It is done every time the position of the Moon or planets is observed by astronomers.
It is that position vs time that is the ORBIT, as Kepler observed, and Newton explained.
To continue to scream into the wind that somehow an orbit is something else is unconvincing.
Nate refuses to understand. Not my problem.
“If the moons movement were composed of two motions, you wouldnt be able to observe the “orbit without spin” part of it, directly.”
As noted the ORBIT is directly observable as Kepler and Tycho Brahe did, lacking any information about other motions such as rotations or spins.
And Newton’s solution to the 2 body gravity problem derived Kepler’s Orbits, the position vs time of planets.
So historically, ORBIT has meant planetary position vs. time, which was observable. And Astronomy has continued to use that definition. Because it makes perfect sense. And nobody sees a need to change it.
So with the recent solar eclipse that I enjoyed seeing near me, astronomers predicted when it where it could be seen very accurately. Because the Moon’s orbit, its COM position vs time, is known very precisely.
Still missing the point.
Why do I even bother?
“Nate refuses to understand. Not my problem.”
I don’t agree, because you offer no sound or convincing argument.
The CoM moves exactly the same way whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR. So, from observing the change in position of the moon, you cannot possibly discern if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR.
“So, from observing the change in position of the moon, you cannot possibly discern if orbit without spin is as per the MOTL or the MOTR.”
No I cannot observe a definition. The definition of Orbit, as long ago decided by astronomers, is clear, however.
So your reamining argument is about your personal semantics and nothing more.
You’re the one talking about definitions, Nate. Not me.
Then tell us how, without a definition, you know that the Moon has no spin?
DREMT,
“Please stop trying to make yourself relevant, bob. Skip back to my comment from two minutes ago, read it, and learn what I meant.”
Yeah, I read it, you still think you have a point with your orbital motion without axial rotation bullshit.
…because “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. Not because I “define” it to be, though. It’s as per the MOTL because the only viable physical model for “orbit without spin” is something like the ball on a string.
“because orbit without spin is as per the MOTL. Not because I define it to be, though. ”
I see. It just is, by Fiat.
Then shamelessly redefine what ‘define’ means.
“Its as per the MOTL because the only viable physical model for orbit without spin is something like the ball on a string.”
Again shamelessly evolving stoopid criteria that excludes, by design, all models but those that work for you.
Sorry that ain’t science.
Loser.
“Its as per the MOTL because the only viable physical model for orbit without spin is something like the ball on a string.
First of all, there is no requirement to build a physical model to produce a successful theory in science.
There are no physical models that have been built of atoms that capture their quantum properties.
There are no physical models of photons, or magnetic fields, that have been built that capture their physical properties.
In many cases, it is only the real phenomena that provides the ‘physical model’.
Yet we have physics and computational
models of these phenomena.
For Orbits, Newton provided the physics model. And it can replicated on a computer.
And as noted, it is a model that accounts only for the position of the COM vs time. Spin is a separate property.
This accounts for our Moon’s orbit, with spin around an internal tilted axis.
The MOTL/BOS model fails to account for our Moon’s motion. The axis of rotation cannot be through the Earth!
It accounts well for the BOS, though.
"And as noted, it is a model that accounts only for the position of the COM vs time. Spin is a separate property."
So, you can’t say whether "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL or the MOTR, can you, then!? If your model only involves the position of the CoM, there’s nothing to clarify what the main motion under discussion actually is!
"Loser."
Needless abuse? The discussion’s over, then.
Yes, not making a sound argument then declaring you belief to be true, by Fiat, then denying that you’ve done so, is being a loser, absolutely.
And to make such a declaration, you must ignore the straightforward fact that the MOTL/BOS model fails to account for our Moons motion.
The axis of rotation cannot be through the Earth because the Moon’s rotation occurs in a different plane than its orbital motion.
This has been explained to you many times.
“So, you cant say whether “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR, can you, then!? If your model only involves the position of the CoM, theres nothing to clarify what the main motion under discussion actually is!”
Because the orbit is defined to be a translation, additional motion is rotation, and in general that rotation must be around an axis through the body.
Why? Because in general rotation can be in any plane and at any angular speed. If the axis is assigned to be external to the body, then the body must depart from the orbital plane, and that makes no sense.
To describe the orbit and rotation as a single motion, a rotation around an
external axis, only happens to work for your idealized MOTL, and not in general, as you well know.
"Yes, not making a sound argument then declaring you belief to be true, by Fiat, then denying that you’ve done so, is being a loser, absolutely."
Astute readers will note that no such event occurred.
"And to make such a declaration, you must ignore the straightforward fact that the MOTL/BOS model fails to account for our Moons motion."
It doesn’t need to, and was never intended to, account for the moon’s exact motion.
"The axis of rotation cannot be through the Earth because the Moon’s rotation occurs in a different plane than its orbital motion."
bob is currently telling me, down-thread, that there are two axes of rotation for the moon’s motion. I’ll assume you’ll be along to correct him, shortly.
"Because the orbit is defined to be a translation"
No, Nate. You said the orbit is defined simply as motion of the CoM.
“It doesnt need to, and was never intended to, account for the moons exact motion.”
Ah, this discussion is only about explaining the BOS?
Boring!
But you keep declaring that it IS about planetary motion:
As here:
“Astronomers can quantify the number of spins per orbit exactly the same way they normally do, then simply subtract exactly one. Its not exactly difficult.”
And is about our Moon, as here:
“Then tell us how, without a definition, you know that the Moon has no spin?”
“because orbit without spin is as per the MOTL.”
Once again you are in a state of total contradiction.
No, Nate, there is no contradiction. The ball on a string is a viable physical model of “orbit without spin”. What’s yours? Anything involving “CoM” will be ignored, of course, for the reasons already explained. You need something moving like the MOTR, not spinning, and with something to represent the force of gravity. Good luck.
Your approach is quite similar to the motte and Bailey fallacy
“The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) ”
In you case it is the MOTL.
“and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”).[1] ”
Which is the motion of our Moon and other planets.
“The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists
that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3]”
As here:
”
It doesnt need to, and was never intended to, account for the moons exact motion.
“Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to
attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]”
Yep!
Or, alternatively, you just can’t grasp that the ball on a string was never intended to be a model of the moon’s exact motion, despite both Clint R and myself making that explicitly clear dozens of times, over the years.
“No, Nate, there is no contradiction. The ball on a string is a viable physical model of orbit without spin.”
There, advancing the Bailey argument.
But when challenged, it will fail to work for real orbits like that of our Moon!
So retreat to the Motte.
‘It doesnt need to” you’ll say!
Nate, the only worthwhile “challenge” to the idea of the ball on a string being a viable physical model of “orbit without spin” is for you to come up with your alternative. Then, perhaps, you will finally start to understand.
As explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680669
In science, there is no requirement for a table-top physical model.
And the ones you offer FAILED. They do not account the motion of our Moon!
Planets are not spun by motors, or attached to strings!
I’ll stick with Newton’s successful model.
Does Newton’s successful model of “orbit without spin” move like the MOTL, or the MOTR, Nate?
Oh, that’s right…you can’t know, because apparently it only involves the “CoM”.
Nate never learns.
“Does Newtons successful model of orbit without spin move like the MOTL, or the MOTR, Nate?”
Neither. Real orbits are elliptical. And rotation can be anything, even 0.
Define spin.
Exactly, Nate. It’s neither. Thus, it does not resolve the moon issue.
If you just take “orbit without spin” to be motion of the CoM then you have to quantify “spin” wrt a specific reference frame. Naturally, an inertial reference frame is chosen. However, in doing so, that automatically makes “orbit without spin” movement like the MOTR, instead of just motion of the CoM. However, that doesn’t mean that “orbit without spin” really is movement like the MOTR. See the problem (I bet he doesn’t)?
“If you just take orbit without spin to be motion of the CoM then you have to quantify spin wrt a specific reference frame.”
So reference frames do matter. And spin does need to be defined. Again, you contradict yourself!
You know very well that in Newton’s physics model, the motion is fully accounted for by translation of the COM along an elliptical path (Orbit), and rotation around an axis through the COM, which can point in any direction.
You also SHOULD know very well that if the COM translates and has rotation around it, that the WHOLE body motion is that of a translation plus a rotation. Why play dum about this?
In your BOS ‘physical’ model, there is no accounting for elliptical orbits, and there is no accounting for rotation out of the orbital plane.
And there is no easy way to fix that failure to represent real orbits.
To claim that the BOS is a sound physical model of real orbits is disingenuous.
It is the Bailey in your Motte-Bailey fallacy.
No contradictions, and no motte-and-bailey, Nate.
As I predicted, you could not understand, again.
“no motte-and-bailey, Nate.”
Where is your rebuttal of this apt criticism?
Once you start coming up with your attempts at viable physical models of "orbit without spin", you might come to understand. Remember, they must move as per the MOTR, they must not be spinning, and they must have something to represent gravity. Best of luck.
“Remember, they must move as per the MOTR, they must not be spinning, and they must have something to represent gravity. Best of luck.”
Nah, your criteria are utterly stoopid. Designed only to eliminate all but your selected table top gadgets.
Meanwhile your gadgets are good explaining their own motion. And that of the BOS.
But that’s it. They can’t explain the Moon’s motion. Or plantary motion in general.
So what’s the point?
You shamelessly pretend that they could, somehow, account for the Moon’s motion.
But we are onto you. We know that is a Motte Bailey fallcy.
Nate sees where the discussion of viable physical models ends, and doesn’t like it, so chickens out completely. Funny.
Your repeated claims that a ‘physical model’ is required has been thoroughly demolished here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680669
And you had no rebuttal. No answers. ZILCH.
Yet you shamelessly repeat the debunked claim.
Because you are not here for honest debate.
I’m not saying a viable physical model is some standard scientific requirement, Nate, and I noticed with amusement your demolition of that straw man. No, it’s just something that helps get a complicated point across in a simple way, for the purposes of this discussion. Your extreme reluctance to try is noted…
“Im not saying a viable physical model is some standard scientific requirementc”
Glad to hear it. So you will now stop using it as a cudgel? As here:
”
Nate, the only worthwhile challenge to the idea of the ball on a string being a viable physical model of orbit without spin is for you to come up with your alternative. ”
“No’ its just something that helps get a complicated point across in a simple way, for the purposes of this discussion.”
So it can no longer be used as evidence to claim that only your model can be correct.
“Its as per the MOTL because the only viable physical model for orbit without spin is something like the ball on a string.
Good. That leaves you with no way to KNOW that the Moon has no spin, other than the fact that you have declared it so, by Fiat
As you did here:
‘As you did here’
should be
As you did there.
Still reluctant to take the plunge, Nate?
I don’t blame you.
You first. The ones you have come up with so far fail to account for the Moons orbit.
Meanwhile there are plenty of physical mechanisms that can produce just orbital motion.
https://youtu.be/PGGCwvQbq4g?si=LQP_4bxzcDI1AKCJ
Not a bad effort, Nate. It is producing movement like the MOTR in one single motion, so objectively it is not rotating on its own internal axis. The representation of gravity is where it fails, though. Obviously gravity is not a physical connection between four different pivot points at once. Gravity is best represented by a physical connection between the object that’s orbiting and the object being orbited, at only one “pivot point” (the barycenter).
“The representation of gravity is where it fails, though.”
As do yours as well. The string and arm fail to do the inverse square law, and fail to allow the body to spin freely as gravity allows.
That is why all these devices fail to model the real phenomena.
“…and fail to allow the body to spin freely as gravity allows.”
Ah, but that’s precisely how you know the ball on a string is a model of “orbit without spin”. Well, one of the reasons.
“Ah, but thats precisely how you know the ball on a string is a model of orbit without spin. Well, one of the reasons.”
Keep on promoting this unsupportable Bailey.
The string puts a distance and orientation constraint on the orbiting body, that are NON-EXISTENT for gravity.
When are you going to figure out that the BOS cannot possibly be a good model of planetary bodies held in orbit by gravity?
If the ball on a string was free to spin, and instead moved as per the MOTR, it would objectively be spinning. So, it would no longer be a model of “orbit without spin”.
” it would objectively be spinning. ”
False, it is subjectively spinning, using your personal choice of definition of SPIN, that does not agree with anybody elses in science.
The only thing we know the MOTR is doing objectively, ie measurably, is NOT rotating.
To be clear, it is not rotating wrt the inertial frame of the stars. And has no absolute rotation that can be measured, with any device like a Foucault pendulum, or gyroscope or Newton’s bucket.
Nate, you’re not paying attention.
I’m not talking about "the MOTR" generally, which could not be spinning, or spinning – we can’t know, because it’s just an animation.
I’m talking about, for example, a yo-yo on a frictionless axle being swung in a circle, moving as per the MOTR.
To accept that it’s objectively spinning, you first have to accept that the ball on a string is objectively not spinning. That would be point number 1).
That’s why I can’t discuss this stuff with you, or anyone, until everyone understands and agrees that points 1) – 4) are correct. It’s just a waste of time, until then.
You dont seem to know what objectively means.
It cannot mean, ‘as judged by a small subset of people who have a an unusual belief’.
You define SPIN as rotation wrt the string. That is yours alone.
In any case how can a BOS possibly move like the MOTR, if it has the string constraining its motion?
"You define SPIN as rotation wrt the string. That is yours alone."
Incorrect. You just can’t learn, can you?
"In any case how can a BOS possibly move like the MOTR, if it has the string constraining its motion?"
It can’t. Scroll up. Re-read. Improve.
“Incorrect.”
Usual declaration without rebuttal.
You believe what you claim, but that doesn’t make it objective. If it were objective, then all would be convinced.
How? By an objective measurement. Just as we can all agree that a measurement of our Moon with a Foucault pendulum would show that it has rotation.
You dont have that with your ill-defined word SPIN.
It is whatever you need it to be to fit your belief.
That leads to what we have, endless argument.
“Im talking about, for example, a yo-yo on a frictionless axle being swung in a circle, moving as per the MOTR.
Yes indeed, why isn’t that the good model for orbit without spin?
Just like gravity acting on a planet, the string is not constraining the rotation of the body.
Yet the body is orbiting.
But, instead you CHOOSE for your model of Orbit without spin the BOS.
There is no objective reason for that choice.
"Usual declaration without rebuttal."
No, Nate. We went through it further down-thread. I am not defining "spin" wrt a rotating reference frame. If I were, I wouldn’t agree that your "orbital shaker" is not spinning, would I? I’ve been explaining for about half a decade what I mean, Nate, so excuse me if occasionally I can’t be bothered to repeat myself. It doesn’t mean it’s a "declaration without rebuttal".
"Yes indeed, why isn’t that the good model for orbit without spin?"
Because it’s spinning!
“Because its spinning!”
You have made your subjective choice of the BOS to define ‘not spinning’.
Rather than the yoyo, with no rotation.
The sure enough, the yoyo must be spinning!
Impressive circular logic!
“I wouldnt agree that your “orbital shaker” is not spinning, would I?”
And your explanation for that is weird.
Both the yoyo and orbital shaker are orbiting a central point, and neither one has any rotation, because all lines in them remain pointed in the same direction.
So I see no difference in their motion.
What difference do you see?
No circular logic, Nate, no subjective choice. I went through with you, before, at some length, why the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. Some “Spinners” here accept it, without argument.
The orbital shaker is translating in a circle.
The yo-yo is rotating about an external axis.
You should be able to work out what that means.
“The orbital shaker is translating in a circle.
The yo-yo is rotating about an external axis.”
The yo-yo is clearly translating in a circle, and moving as the MOTR, as you stated.
Why do you think something that is only apparent in your minds-eye, ie in your imagination, is somehow objective, and a sound argument?
It is plainly the opposite of objective.
Objectively the yo-yo is not rotating, because there is no friction with the string that would apply torque on it to make it rotate.
Thus its rotational inertia keeps its orientation fixed.
You need to explain clearly and specifically what objective criteria you are using to arrive at your conclusion that these two motions are different.
It’s pretty simple, Nate. If something being swung around a central axis on the end of a string is not a textbook example of “rotation about an external axis”, then you may as well say “rotation about an external axis” does not exist as a transformation, and change geometry and physics to exclude it.
“Its pretty simple, Nate. If something being swung around a central axis on the end of a string is not a textbook example of rotation about an external axis, then you may as well say rotation about an external axis does not exist as a transformation, and change geometry and physics to exclude it.”
Your personal definition of ‘rotation about an external axis’ is conspicuously flexible! And not in agreement with Madhavi or anyone else.
It is obviously translating, orbiting, or revolving, since all lines in it remain pointed in one direction.
Your claim that it is rotating about a central axis would require it to be ROTATING! It is not.
You seem be hellbent on denying reality
"Your personal definition of ‘rotation about an external axis’ is conspicuously flexible!"
Wildly wrong, Nate. The definition of "rotation about an external axis" remains exactly the same as always.
Obviously, since the yo-yo is moving as per the MOTR, it must be rotating about an external axis whilst spinning in the opposite direction.
My point is that it’s obviously rotating about an external axis, since it’s being swung around a central axis on the end of a string. Then, since the movement isn’t as per the MOTL, you know there’s also spin going on.
The orbital shaker is painfully obviously moving with only one single motion, however. It’s a textbook example of translation in a circle. It’s pretty much Fig. 2(a) from Madhavi brought to life.
Can you really not see the difference between the orbital shaker and the yo-yo!?
“My point is that its obviously rotating about an external axis, since its being swung around a central axis on the end of a string.”
So we are going with ‘DREMTs got a feeling’ rather than a specific objective criteria or textbook definition.
Sorry, unconvincing.
If something being swung around a central axis on the end of a string is not a textbook example of “rotation about an external axis”, then you may as well say “rotation about an external axis” does not exist as a transformation, and change geometry and physics to exclude it.
“The orbital shaker is painfully obviously moving with only one single motion, however. Its a textbook example of translation in a circle. Its pretty much Fig. 2(a) from Madhavi brought to life.
Can you really not see the difference between the orbital shaker and the yo-yo!?”
Can you really not see that both are example of Fig 2a from Madhavi come to life?
There is no difference in their motions.
Which is defined by her to be:
“Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles”
Notice, she makes no mention of the mechanism, because that is irrelevant to describing the motion.
Obviously you are fundamentally in disagreement with her.
Actually, the mechanism is drawn right in there on the diagram.
“If something being swung around a central axis on the end of a string is not a textbook example of rotation about an external axis, then you may as well say rotation about an external axis does not exist as a transformation, and change geometry and physics to exclude it.”
Here is what the textbook actually says:
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1).”
The BOS is a good example.
The yoyo on a string with frictionless connection is clearly not.
It fails miserably to satisfy the ‘textbook definition’ above.
Is this a joke? Sure looks like it.
“Actually, the mechanism is drawn right in there on the diagram.”
An example mechanism. Not the same as a definition.
You have trouble understanding the difference, it seems.
"The BOS is a good example."
…and yet you won’t even concede the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis!
"The yoyo on a string with frictionless connection is clearly not. It fails miserably to satisfy the ‘textbook definition’ above."
…because it’s spinning as well, in the opposite direction!
We know there is a central axis of rotation with the yo-yo, though. Obviously. Because it’s being swung around it on the end of a string.
"You have trouble understanding the difference, it seems."
Not in the least, Nate. I understand what you’re getting at, sure, but these kinematic descriptions only take us so far. Once you’re out in the real world, you need to be able to distinguish between something that is really translating in a circle, or something that is rotating about both an external and an internal axis, in opposite directions.
And, you need to be able to distinguish between something that is really rotating about an external axis, or something that is translating in a circle and rotating about an internal axis.
Otherwise, what’s the use of having these descriptions and definitions in the first place?
So your attempt to subvert textbook definitions, and make up your own, but call them textbook definitions anyway, wasn’t a joke.
It was just deeply self-del.usional.
Look the frictionless yoyo is doing a different motion from the BOS, Precisely because it has a different mechanism.
There is no motor, or torque required to the make the YoYo remain fixed in its orientation (not spin), as it is being swung around on a string.
It is only inertia keeping it from rotating like the BOS.
Obviously these motions are different. Obtained by a different mechanism.
So your notion that there needs to be something spinning the yoyo backwards is unphysical and unnecessary.
The string in the yoyo case, only pulls the yoyo toward the center, just as gravity does.
Which causes the yoyo path to bend in circle, while not forcing it to align with the string.
It naturally does not follow the string into rotation!
Yes, Nate, the way you understand it is well known, understood, and doesn’t need to be repeated ever again. OK?
Here is the rebuttal.
1) Do you accept that movement like the MOTL typically only involves one axis of rotation? So it could be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", or "translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis". In either case, there is only one axis of rotation, yes?
2) Assuming you agree with 1), then if you agree that the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis (you said it was a good example of it earlier so I’m guessing you can’t go back on that, now), then you must agree that it is not rotating about an internal axis. Right?
Let me know if you agree with that, then we can continue.
Yes, DREMT, the way you understand it is well known, understood, and doesnt need to be repeated ever again. OK?
And yet you keep right on doing it.
I will quit if you do.
“Here is the rebuttal.”
But then where is it? All I see is you repeating your different way of thinking about that we already know very well.
You don’t address my post at all.
A real rebuttal, tells us point by point what is wrong with a post and why.
Answer the questions, Nate.
“1) Do you accept that movement like the MOTL typically only involves one axis of rotation? So it could be “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, or “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”. In either case, there is only one axis of rotation, yes?”
Yes, one or the other.
“2) Assuming you agree with 1), then if you agree that the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis (you said it was a good example of it earlier so Im guessing you cant go back on that, now), then you must agree that it is not rotating about an internal axis. Right?”
No I don’t agree, and you should not agree because if you do then you are contradicting (1), which says it could be two possible things.
We both know that we both have given two valid descriptions of that motion, as you state in (1).
Let me know if you agree with that, then we can continue.
“Yes, one or the other.”
Well done. Finally, a statement you can’t back away from.
“No I don’t agree, and you should not agree because if you do then you are contradicting (1), which says it could be two possible things.”
No contradiction, Nate. 1) was just “movement like the MOTL”. The ball on a string, however, is an actual, physical object, with an actual, physical mechanism. It is being swung around a central axis on the end of a string. So it is rotating about an external axis.
This is where you start going into denial.
“No contradiction, Nate. 1) was just movement like the MOTL. The ball on a string, however, is an actual, physical object, with an actual, physical mechanism.”
With motion like the MOTL.
There is no point ever talking about point (1) if you are then going to ignore the principle that its motion can be described in tow ways.
The mechanism is not the motion. As you will see in any textbook (like Madhavi). But your view, that the mechanism changes the description of the motion, is yours alone.
And yet inconsistently applied. In the case of the Yoyo, the mechanism is different from the arm with motor spinning ball backwards, yet you presume the same description applies!
Simply not obvious.
There is nothing about the BOS that forces only 1 description either.
Again, this is your mixed up approach, and yours alone.
If it cannot be explained with clear rationale to anyone, then it ain’t science, its your feeling.
It is being swung around a central axis on the end of a string. So it is rotating about an external axis.
Yes, you start going into denial. Just like I said.
If it cannot be explained with clear consistent rationale to anyone, then it aint science, its your feeling, nothing more.
And feelings aren’t facts.
Meanwhile you offer no actual rebuttal.
You tried but failed to make a convincing argument, again.
Now go ahead and declare again your feelings about winning the argument.
Again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681827
Everything I have explained is clear and consistent. It is you that is not consistent. For example, you can accept that movement like the MOTL can be described in two different ways, one of which involves rotation about an external axis. Apparently, though, you cannot accept that movement like the MOTR can be described in two different ways, one of which involves rotation about an external axis. That is inconsistent.
“Apparently, though, you cannot accept that movement like the MOTR can be described in two different ways, one of which involves rotation about an external axis. That is inconsistent.”
Two ways become only one way for you.
That is a CHOICE that you made long ago.
Since then you have been seeking but not finding a sound rationale for that choice, post hoc.
And why requote this patently FALSE statement:
“Its pretty simple, Nate. If something being swung around a central axis on the end of a string is not a textbook example of rotation about an external axis, then you may as well say rotation about an external axis does not exist as a transformation, and change geometry and physics to exclude it.”
No! The textbook is clear what a rotation about an external axis is.
Nothing to with strings!
It is all parts of the body are moving in concentric circles around the same axis.
For example yoyo is “something being swung around a central axis on the end of a string” but is clearly not a rotation around any axis.
So you are playing fast and loose with your definitions.
Disingenuous.
“Two ways become only one way for you.”
The purest projection imaginable. Utterly untrue for me, totally the case for you. That is the problem.
"No! The textbook is clear what a rotation about an external axis is.
Nothing to with strings!"
Indeed. That’s why I didn’t say, nor suggest, nor imply, nor do anything in any way to make you come to the erroneous conclusion that I was suggesting that the definition was "to do with strings". Re-read. Listen more carefully. Improve. Try again.
“Two ways become only one way for you.
“The purest projection imaginable. Utterly untrue for me, totally the case for you. That is the problem.”
Which is shamelessly false, and quite dishonest.
Here is you: In (1) there are two options, in (2) there is only one option. And you picked which one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681871
You were asked to explain the logic, and you could not. You identify the mechanism as inexplicably determining the motion.
Which is vague.
Arm rotating CCW with motor spinning a ball CW. You identify that as external rotation with internal spin.
YoYO on frictionless string, orbiting without rotation. You claim this must be described the same as the arm with the motor!
C’mon there is no consistent logic being applied here.
“Indeed. Thats why I didnt say, nor suggest, nor imply, nor do anything in any way to make you come to the erroneous conclusion that I was suggesting that the definition was “to do with strings”.
So shamelessly dishonest.
“My point is that its obviously rotating about an external axis, since its being swung around a central axis on the end of a string.”
“come to the erroneous conclusion that I was suggesting that the definition was “to do with strings”.”
Look you have made it abundantly clear that you think the motion is defined by the mechanism.
And by my saying that the definition ha nothing ‘to do with strings’ is to point out that the mechanism takes no part in defining motion according to textbooks.
Nate, I am one of the most honest commenters here. So tired of people suggesting otherwise. The definition of rotation about an external axis is the definition of rotation about an external axis. What I said was, that an object being swung about a central axis on the end of a string is a textbook example of it…and, it is. An example. Not part of the definition. An example. Understand the difference?
Nate, the two ways always become one, for you. Ultimately, you think the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, the wooden horse on the MGR is rotating on its own axis, the chalk circle on the MGR is rotating on its own axis, the moon is rotating on its own axis, and absolutely anything moving like the MOTR is not rotating on its own axis.
If you were being honest, you’d recommend removing the transformation "rotation about an external axis" from mathematics and physics altogether, and just have everything described with translation and/or rotation about an internal axis.
But if you now claim you don’t think the above, then:
a) When do you think an object is, unquestionably, rotating about an external axis?
b) If you don’t think a) has a definite answer, then what is the point of having "rotation about an external axis" as a possible description? What is the point of there being these two descriptions ("translation in a circle" or "rotation about an external axis") if they cannot be separated from each other (and "spin") in specific examples of circular motion?
“I said was, that an object being swung about a central axis on the end of a string is a textbook example of itand, it is.”
False. The YoYo swung around on a frictionless string is a textbook example of an object in curvilinear translation.
Thus it cannot be an example of rotation about a central axis.
It only worsens your credibility to keep tripling down on this False narrative.
“a) When do you think an object is, unquestionably, rotating about an external axis?”
This is what you need to ask yourself. And come up with an answer that does not contradict your earlier statement that such motions can be described in two ways.
“b) If you dont think a) has a definite answer, then what is the point of having “rotation about an external axis” as a possible description?”
Your use of the phrase ‘possible description’ reveals the illogic of using the phrase ‘definite answer’ and the overall point.
What is the point of there being these two descriptions (“translation in a circle” or “rotation about an external axis”) if they cannot be separated from each other (and “spin”) in specific examples of circular motion?”
If you want to separate them from each other, then you need to come with an objective logical criteria for doing so.
You can’t explain the criteria. Thus far you just assert that such and such device is definitely one thing or the other, with no sound rationale.
“If you were being honest, youd recommend removing the transformation “rotation about an external axis” from mathematics and physics altogether, and just have everything described with translation and/or rotation about an internal axis.”
Pulleez. Tell Shakespeare lovers that all but one of his multitudinous ways of describing the same thing should be removed from our language!
IMO, rotation around an external axis, is useful in many contexts. So many mechanical devices involve rotation.
But you know very well that Astronomy finds it useful to describe planetary orbits NOT as rotations around an external axis, because in the overwhelming percentage of cases, that would not be a correct description.
While in the rare case that it could apply, the universal description of orbital translation plus internal axis rotation still works.
So it makes no sense for you to say to Astronomers that they must switch their description to ‘rotation around an external axis’ for the tiny subset of planetary bodies that such a description could apply to.
"False. The YoYo swung around on a frictionless string is a textbook example of an object in curvilinear translation. Thus it cannot be an example of rotation about a central axis."
Nate, the only difference between the yo-yo and the ball on a string is that the yo-yo is free to rotate on its own internal axis (and thus, it’s spinning) and the ball is not free to rotate on its own internal axis (and thus, it’s not spinning). Pretty straightforward.
"This is what you need to ask yourself. And come up with an answer that does not contradict your earlier statement that such motions can be described in two ways."
Understandably, I have asked myself that, and do have an answer.
a) When do you think an object is, unquestionably, rotating about an external axis?
When an object is moving in an enclosed loop about a central point, and there is a physical connection to that point. So, that would include:
The ball on a string (not spinning).
The frictionless yo-yo (spinning).
The CSAItruth equipment (spin dependent on "spin" motor).
The wooden horse on the MGR (not spinning).
The chalk circle on the MGR (not spinning).
Really, it’s most mechanical devices that move an object in an enclosed loop. But not all. Which brings us on to "translation in a circle". That would be when an object is moving in an enclosed loop, but there is no physical connection to a central point. So, that would include:
The orbital shaker (not spinning).
The XY plotter equipment (spin dependent on "spin" motor).
Norman’s cans (spin dependent on "rotation of object in hand").
Hope that is clear enough.
Not clear enough. Adding clarity:
The ball on a string (not spinning)… wrt to the string
The frictionless yo-yo (spinning)… wrt to the string.
The CSAItruth equipment (spin dependent on “spin” motor)… wrt the inertial frame.
The wooden horse on the MGR (not spinning)… wrt the MGR.
The chalk circle on the MGR (not spinning)… wrt the MGR.
because all motion is relative:
The ball on a string (spinning)… wrt the inertial frame.
The frictionless yo-yo (not spinning)… wrt an accelerated frame
The CSAItruth equipment (spin dependent on which frame).
The wooden horse on the spinning MGR (spinning)… wrt the inertial frame.
The chalk circle on the spinning MGR (spinning)… wrt the inertial frame.
Hope that is clear enough.
Nate, please explain to Ball4 why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
False. The YoYo swung around on a frictionless string is a textbook example of an object in curvilinear translation. Thus it cannot be an example of rotation about a central axis.”
Nate, the only difference between the yo-yo and the ball on a string is that the yo-yo is free to rotate on its own internal axis (and thus, its spinning) and the ball is not free to rotate on its own internal axis (and thus, its not spinning). Pretty straightforward.”
The YoYo is free to spin, but ‘and thus it is spinning’ does not follow! Logical fail.
“When do you think an object is, unquestionably, rotating about an external axis?”
“When an object is moving in an enclosed loop about a central point, and there is a physical connection to that point. So, that would include:
The ball on a string (not spinning).
The frictionless yo-yo (spinning).
The CSAItruth equipment (spin dependent on “spin” motor).
The wooden horse on the MGR (not spinning).
The chalk circle on the MGR (not spinning).”
What you are trying to get at is the notion of Constraints.
But you inconsistently apply it. Most of those on the list are constrained to align their orientation with their attachment to the center, the string, the arm, the MGR.
The fictionless YoYo is the exception, it is not constrained to align its orientation with its attachment. Its rotation is unconstrained, and without any motor, its inertia keeps its orientation aligned with space in its ‘base motion’.
Thus by your mechanistic reasoning, its base motion would be a decent model for orbit without spin.
For planets, they are not constrained by any attachment to align with the orbit, or constrained in their distance to the center.
Astronomy is free to apply the most universal model, and they do.
"The YoYo is free to spin, but ‘and thus it is spinning’ does not follow! Logical fail."
Sure, it doesn’t follow simply from the fact it’s free to spin. It follows from the fact that the ball on a string, which moves as per the MOTL, is not free to spin, and thus is not spinning. Then you add the fact that the yo-yo is moving as per the MOTR (as well as being free to spin) and you know it’s spinning (it has motion different to the MOTL and is free to spin).
"What you are trying to get at is the notion of Constraints."
No. What I’m trying to get at is what I wrote. Rotation about an external axis and translation in a circle are two different transformations/motions, and they can be identified within compound movements of real objects, or on their own.
Earlier you acted like having two different descriptions for the same movement was of some great benefit to physics, but when one description involves spin, and the other doesn’t, and your aim is to get to the bottom of whether an object is spinning or not, you need to have some method to decide between them. Otherwise, it’s not of great benefit to anyone.
Again, simply removing DREMT’s 12:28 pm ambiguity, the ball on a string, which moves as per the MOTL, is not free to spin wrt the string, and thus is not spinning wrt to the string.
Then you add the fact that the yo-yo is moving as per the MOTR (as well as being free to spin wrt to the string) and you know (yo-yo is) spinning wrt the string (it has motion different to the MOTL wrt the center circle and is free to spin wrt to the string).
“you need to have some method to decide between them.”
The method in analytical dynamics is using relativity, since all motion is relative, with proper use of an announced (eliminating ambiguity) reference frame usefully employed for that purpose.
[Second request of five, before the discussion is closed for comments] Nate, please explain to Ball4 why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
“What you are trying to get at is the notion of Constraints.”
No. What Im trying to get at is what I wrote. Rotation about an external axis and translation in a circle are two different transformations/motions, and they can be identified within compound movements of real objects, or on their own.”
Well I think you are. Because you keep distinguishing bodies that are free to spin and those that are not.
Gravity acting on a sphere pulls it toward the source of gravity, but applies no turning force. Thus bodies are unconstrained in their orientation, ie are free to spin, in a gravity field.
Plainly the best model for planetary orbit would have this feature.
The YoYo has this feature. It is free to spin but has a string force pulling it to the center.
The BOS does not have this feature, its orientation is constrained.
Yet you make the Illogical Choice to use the BOS as your model for Plantary Orbits.
This makes no sense. And it is the indefensible Bailey in your argument.
Plainly we need a
Earlier you acted like having two different descriptions for the same movement was of some great benefit to physics, but when one description involves spin, and the other doesnt, and your aim is to get to the bottom of whether an object is spinning or not, you need to have some method to decide between them. Otherwise, its not of great benefit to anyone.
"Well I think you are."
Then you need to go back and re-read through the entire thread.
"Because you keep distinguishing bodies that are free to spin and those that are not."
I only do that to try and reinforce the point that the ball on a string is not spinning. Point 1), from the points 1) – 4). As I said, until you accept that, it’s going to be difficult for you to get where I’m coming from.
It makes no sense to say the yo-yo is not spinning, when it is free to spin and moves differently from the ball on a string, which is not free to spin and thus cannot and does not spin!
"Gravity acting on a sphere pulls it toward the source of gravity, but applies no turning force. Thus bodies are unconstrained in their orientation, ie are free to spin, in a gravity field. Plainly the best model for planetary orbit would have this feature."
Your original choice, the orbital shaker, did not have this "feature". You’ve since decided that the model of "orbit without spin" must have this "feature", because that gets you the result you want (or so you think). Your problem, still, is that the yo-yo is spinning!
It’s quite simple. To be viable, the physical model of "orbit without spin" must not be spinning, and must have something to represent gravity.
That’s why the ball on a string is the obvious choice.
“Earlier you acted like having two different descriptions for the same movement was of some great benefit to physics”
Yep. Always have.
“but when one description involves spin, and the other doesnt, and your aim is to get to the bottom of whether an object is spinning or not, you need to have some method to decide between them.”
Making clear that it is a subjective choice.
In astronmy the choice is to use the one that applies universally and most simply to any orbit.
"Making clear that it is a subjective choice."
No, it’s objective. Most rational human beings would understand that if something is not free to spin, it cannot spin, and does not spin! That ought to have been the end of the ball on a string discussion, years ago! However, the human mind has powerful ways of tricking itself. So…here we are.
This discussion (not just ours here but overall) is a case study in how educated people can trick themselves about incredibly simple things. You have Tim Folkerts, PhD, not understanding something as straightforward as rotation about an axis, or numbers of axes of rotation! You have Ball4 endlessly confusing himself with frames of reference, never once understanding that the choice of "spin" or "not spin" motions are both wrt an inertial reference frame, in any case! All you need to understand is that "rotation about an external axis" and "translation in a circle" are two different transformations/motions, wrt an inertial reference frame!
He’ll never understand. For the rest of his life!
“It makes no sense to say the yo-yo is not spinning, when it is free to spin and moves differently from the ball on a string, which is not free to spin and thus cannot and does not spin!”
I think it is pretty obvious why ‘it is free to spin’ does not lead to ‘then it is spinning’ by any logic.
You have made a choice to use BOS as your ‘model’, ignoring the plain fact that it poorly represents gravity.
Nate quotes the logic, then denies it exists! Classic. Again:
“It makes no sense to say the yo-yo is not spinning, when it is free to spin and moves differently from the ball on a string, which is not free to spin and thus cannot and does not spin!”
"You have made a choice to use BOS as your ‘model’, ignoring the plain fact that it poorly represents gravity."
It has something to represent gravity, and is objectively not spinning. I’m not making a choice, the choice is made for me by the facts.
“It makes no sense to say the yo-yo is not spinning, when it is free to spin”
Gee, you are horrible at logic!
Ask a civilian whether are the above is logical.
Or ask Yo Yo fans whether a YoYo can ever be ‘Not spinning’.
I recall a trick called ‘walk the dog’. Where the YoYo is spinning while hanging straight down.
Of course the YoYo could also be hanging straight down and NOT spinning.
Another trick is ’round the world’ where the Yo-yo is jerked to make it orbit the hand.
One can start ’round the world’ directly from ‘walk the dog’ which is spinning. Then we would have orbiting while spinning.
Or one can start ’round the world’ from a non-spinning hanging down condition. The one could get orbiting without spin, ie orbiting while keeping orientation fixed.
For some reason, Nate only partially quoted me, then attacked his partial quote. Odd.
“”You have made a choice to use BOS as your model, ignoring the plain fact that it poorly represents gravity.”
It has something to represent gravity, and is objectively not spinning. Im not making a choice, the choice is made for me by the facts.”
Yet it represents gravity it POORLY. Since it constrains the ball’s orientation while gravity does not.
All of us have experience of balls travelling through a gravitational field and spinning freely!
It is painfully obvious that this is a horribly inconvenient fact for you and your narrative.
Thus you must ignore it!
To spin or not to spin, the YoYo is free to choose, regardless of anything else you said.
Then, It makes no logical sense for you to say ‘it makes no sense to say the yo-yo is not spinning’.
Just another good example of you being horrible at logic.
It’s "orbit without spin", Nate. It doesn’t have to be "orbit without spin but with the potential to spin if required". You’re demanding things of the model that are simply not necessary.
All that is relevant is that the object is not spinning, and has something to represent gravity.
If you want something that can spin as well, you have the CSAItruth equipment.
"Just another good example of you being horrible at logic."
The logic is irrefutable, Nate. That’s so obviously the case, that the best you can do is partially quote it, and attack only the partial quote.
1) The ball on a string is not free to rotate on its own internal axis.
2) The ball on a string is thus not rotating on its own internal axis.
3) The yo-yo is free to rotate on its own internal axis.
4) The yo-yo is moving differently to the ball on a string.
5) Since we know 1), 2), 3) and 4), we can say that the yo-yo must be rotating on its own internal axis.
Look, you are making a claim the BOS is a good model for orbit without spin.
And I can make a good case that the YoYo with orientation fixed to the surroundings, is a good model of orbit without spin.
So for you to claim that your claim is not a choice is absurd.
And your choice is not what Astronomy uses, for very good reasons.
I am stating the fact that the ball on a string is not spinning, and the yo-yo is spinning.
Thus, the yo-yo is objectively not a model of "orbit without spin".
“4) The yo-yo is moving differently to the ball on a string.
5) Since we know 1), 2), 3) and 4), we can say that the yo-yo must be rotating on its own internal axis.”
Look, I agree that it is a reasonable choice, to model the BOS as a rotation on an external axis.
But that this is a good model for the BOS, doesn’t imply it is a good model for a different system, the unconstrained YoYo on a string, or planetary orbits.
But that is what you are slyly, trying to pull, here, with your # 4.
And it is incorrect.
In my view the Yo-Yo, being orientationally unconstrained can have spin or not, and the BOS has no influence on that.
If it is spinning, as in the ‘walking the dog trick’ it is spinning wrt the surroundings.
And if the spinning Yoyo is THEN pulled into a ’round the world’ that just so happens to orbit at the same rate as the spin, then you will get a MOTL type of motion.
But it didnt stop spinning! We know that, since the string lacks friction with it.
And yet it is moving like your MOTL, so according to you it has no spin.
Yoyo enthusiasts will disagree. And they would be right.
“I am stating the fact that the ball on a string is not spinning, and the yo-yo is spinning.
Thus, the yo-yo is objectively not a model of “orbit without spin”.”
Circular logic. Man,, are you bad at logic!
I claim the YoYo with fixed orientation to the room, IS a good model for Orbit without Spin, and I don’t care what the BOS tells you because it is NOT a YOYO, and it is, objectively, a bad model for orbital motion of the planets.
See how that works?
Look you admit that OTHER devices, like the XY plotter, or Orbital shaker, require extra added motion to attain the MOTL motion.
And you conclude, therefore that lacking that extra motion, the body has no spin.
One could make exactly the same argument about the Yoyo. That lacking an extra motion, an initial spin, the device will move the YoYo just like the XY plotter.
Therefore lacking this extra initial spin, the YoYo will not move like the MOTL. It has no spin.
Nate, my #4 is simply that the ball on a string is moving differently to the yo-yo. I’m not sure why you’ve said that’s incorrect. The BoS moves as per the MOTL and the yo-yo moves as per the MOTR. So, obviously #4 is correct.
Now Nate falsely accuses me of using circular logic, and of being bad at logic, generally. Yet, he still cannot fault the logic I presented a few comments ago, with the numbered points 1) – 5).
DREMT points 1) to 5) 12:49 pm all have no fault wrt to each string.
[Third request of five, before the discussion is closed for comments] Nate, please explain to Ball4 why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
“Nate, my #4 is simply that the ball on a string is moving differently to the yo-yo. Im not sure why youve said thats incorrect. The BoS moves as per the MOTL and the yo-yo moves as per the MOTR. So, obviously #4 is correct.”
The BOS is moving differently from the XY plotter, yet you define Spin such that it has no spin in this motion.
Same
Because it is a different mechanism.
The YoYo has a different mechanism also. Yet by no logic, you suggest it must follow the spin rule of the BOS
Not logical.
"The YoYo has a different mechanism also"
From the ball on a string? No. It’s exactly the same mechanism. Swung around a central point on the end of a string. Again:
"a) When do you think an object is, unquestionably, rotating about an external axis?
When an object is moving in an enclosed loop about a central point, and there is a physical connection to that point."
There is no physical connection to the point being orbited with the XY plotter. That is why I say it’s objectively translating in a circle.
“From the ball on a string? No. Its exactly the same mechanism.”
False. Their difference is central to this discussion. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
Their difference, as you know well, is that one can rotate freely and the other is constrained remain oriented along the string.
Thus the BOS is forced to be your ‘external axis rotation’.
That is the defining feature that encourages you to define it as ‘not spinning’.
The YoYo obeys no such rule. It does not need to abide your choice of spin you made for the BOS.
Just as the other devices don’t to.
And science doesn’t agree with your mechanism determines the motion, in any case.
Nate…if you’re not going to listen to what I’m saying, and you’re not going to correct Ball4, then there’s little point in us continuing.
“Nateif youre not going to listen to what Im saying,”
Pot-kettle!
I’m listening way more than is justified. But yet to here a sound logical rationale for your choices, or a sound rebuttal to my point that your choice lacks objectivity.
Well, Nate…that simply isn’t true.
You just don’t like what I have to say because it means you’ve been wrong all this time.
“Well, Natethat simply isnt true”
As always, you think your feelings are an argument, or a rebuttal.
But they never ever are.
Feel whatever you want. The people who matter, astronomers, physicists, aerospace engineers, agree with Spinners.
.
“From the ball on a string? No. Its exactly the same mechanism.
Good example of your unsupported feeling.
My answer
“False. Their difference is central to this discussion. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
Their difference, as you know well, is that one can rotate freely and the other is constrained remain oriented along the string.”
An no rebuttal, other than to tell me I don’t listen, which is false.
I listen to your claims and then point out why I don’t agree.
The mechanism for both the ball on a string and the yo-yo is the same. They are being swung around a central point on the end of a string. That one is not free to spin, and the other is, is why you can apply the logic in my 1) – 5) list that you have been completely unable to rebut.
“That one is not free to spin”
Makes it a horrible model for gravity, because as we all know from experience, balls can spin freely as they pass through a gravitational fiel
And one (yoyo) is free to spin, matching it well with gravity, and making it a good model for planetary motion with or without spin.
Yet of the two, you choose the former, as your model for planetary orbits, which is a CHOICE made to produce a desired outcome.
Your pretence that the difference between the two mechanisms can be ignored is not believable.
“my 1) 5) list that you have been completely unable to rebut.”
Nonsense!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1682322
Not a rebuttal, Nate. You quote 4) and 5) but you don’t actually dispute premise 4) or any of the implied reasoning of 5) (for which you need to read 1) – 4) in their entirety, in any case).
You, instead, make your own separate argument about why we should see the yo-yo as not spinning. And, that’s fine. Of course, it’s a good, and convincing argument in its own right, that you make.
But, interestingly, it still doesn’t refute my 1) – 5). Nothing can.
That’s why this debate is so fascinating.
I can see why people would absolutely insist that the yo-yo is not spinning. And could never be convinced otherwise, for as long as they live. I could even be persuaded that they’re right, from time to time.
But, then again…my 1) – 5) is also right.
It’s free to spin, and it’s moving differently from something that we know is not spinning, whilst all else about its mechanism is the same. So…it must be spinning!
If we take the yo-yo as not spinning, then it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the ball on a string is spinning! But, something that is not free to spin, cannot be spinning.
Again, clarifying DREMT’s ambiguous motion 1:48 pm comment…
So…it (the yo yo on frictionless bearing) must be spinning wrt to its string!
If we take the yo-yo as not spinning in an accelerated frame, then that leads to the inevitable conclusion that the ball on a string is spinning inertially! But, something that is not free to spin in a frame, cannot be spinning in that frame.
All motion is relative. Proper use of reference frames always resolves and/or clarifies all of DREMT’s motion issues.
[Fourth request of five, before the discussion is closed for comments] Nate, please explain to Ball4 why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
“You, instead, make your own separate argument about why we should see the yo-yo as not spinning. And, thats fine. Of course, its a good, and convincing argument in its own right, that you make.”
Wow. That is progress. A reversal from your position that the Yo-Yo is objectively spinning, based on the BOS objectively not spinning.
“But, interestingly, it still doesnt refute my 1) 5). Nothing can.”
Lets review that
4) The yo-yo is moving differently to the ball on a string.”
Sure, if it is moving like the MOTR.
“5) Since we know 1), 2), 3) and 4), we can say that the yo-yo must be rotating on its own internal axis.
Well, No, because it is not consistent with your statement above.
Nate, you didn’t read my comment properly. There is no “progress”, I have not changed my position one iota. I really don’t know why I bother.
Will you please correct Ball4 before we go any further?
“Nate, please explain to Ball4 why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.”
I have not followed your discussion with Ball4, and have no interest in butting into it.
Now stop trying to bully people.
” I have not changed my position one iota. ”
Explain.
"Now stop trying to bully people."
I’m not. I don’t bully, others bully me. Retract the false accusation to continue.
“[Fourth request of five, before the discussion is closed for comments] Nate, please explain to Ball4 why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.”
Do what i want you to do, or else..
I call that bullying.
Valid accusation.
And don’t forget:
I have not changed my position one iota.
Explain.
Nate, we have been talking for a couple of weeks now on topics relating to the moon issue that should have made it abundantly clear to you that reference frames do not resolve it. Ball4 says they do resolve it. He will not listen to me, he might listen to you.
Since you are apparently keen to keep talking to me, I had hoped you might consider finally arguing against one of your own, and sure, I use the “threat” of silence in the hope you will do the right thing. That’s not bullying though, any more than you shouting “explain” in such a demanding way is bullying. I’m pointing out to you that if you want to continue talking to me, you might fancy helping me out once in a while.
So, two things for you to do:
1) Withdraw your false accusation.
2) Argue with Ball4.
Then we can continue, and you will get your explanation.
It is my choice and mine alone to get involved or not in YOUR discussion with someone else.
“I use the threat of silence in the hope you will do the right thing.”
Clearly my characterizing this as bullying is entirely appropriate!
But we all know how you try to turn yourself into the victim!
Now either you can explain your ‘one iota’ quote or not.
It seems not.
So, three things for you to do:
1) Withdraw your false accusation about my supposed bullying.
2) Withdraw your false accusation about my supposed "playing the victim".
3) Argue with Ball4.
Then we can continue.
There is no valid reason for Nate to withdraw any statement or “three things” comment last couple of days; DREMT should just leave the thread if DREMT is not going to listen and learn. Nate is simply, & consistently, helping DREMT understand that all motion is relative…without success.
Now DREMT can (will?) go back to bullying instead of learning (as Nate correctly writes): “characterizing (DREMT) as bullying is entirely appropriate!” without even mentioning all the many DREMT PSTs impersonating a blog mod. over several years.
"Nate is simply, & consistently, helping DREMT understand that all motion is relative…without success."
Absolutely not, Ball4. Absolutely not. Neither of us have even mentioned reference frames for comment after comment, since they’re simply not relevant to what we’re currently discussing.
I’m not bullying anyone, and I’ve never even attempted a serious imitation of a moderator.
DREMT’s bullying attempts appear successful by screenname alone (not limited to screenname) and could continue until DREMT announces a change in screenname to eliminate that successful bullying.
Nate does not have to mention reference frames by name to properly use them as he does & Nate’s helpful comments are from which DREMT should listen and learn.
All… ALL motion is relative.
I see, so you just “know” that Nate agrees with you about reference frames despite him not mentioning them at all in recent discussion, and somehow I’m bullying because of my choice of screen name. Right. OK, Ball4.
Ok, DREMT, thx for the agreement. I see DREMT chooses the word “know” inaccurately. All I “know” is what I read in Nate’s comments & DREMT should listen and learn about relativity from Nate.
I just meant “OK” as in, I acknowledge receipt of your comment. Of course, I rarely agree with what you say, because it’s usually wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1683049
Fine. You cannot explain how you say two opposite things, yet they are not opposite.
We will have to leave it that.
Nothing can refute my 1) – 5), so my position has not changed, and will never change. The ball on a string is not spinning, the yo-yo is.
I was just pointing out that I have always understood the arguments of those who think the yo-yo is not spinning, and that they’re good arguments. But, they can’t make something that is not free to spin (the ball on a string) spin. Nothing can.
“Nothing can refute my 1) 5)”
You just refuted #5. Pure denial.
“so my position has not changed, and will never change. The ball on a string is not spinning, the yo-yo is.”
You just stated the opposite above. Weird.
“I was just pointing out that I have always understood the arguments of those who think the yo-yo is not spinning, and that theyre good arguments.”
Thanks. Indeed they are.
“But, they cant make something that is
not free to spin (the ball on a string) spin. Nothing can.”
Sure. But strawman.
Your statement about the Yo Yo “the yo-yo is (spinning)” DOES NOT FOLLOW!
It is just plain weird how you do not see how your own statements are contradictory, and pure denial.
“You just refuted #5. Pure denial”
False, Nate. I have made no argument against my 1) – 5), and neither have you.
“But, they can’t make something that is not free to spin (the ball on a string) spin.”
Sure “they” can! They just need to observe the ball spinner from inertial space where the ball on string is seen to have inertial spin on its own axis while orbiting the ball spinner. The BOS is not spinning on its own internal axis as observed in DREMT’s accelerated frame by the ball spinner; then when that frame’s acceleration is properly accounted back to inertial space, the BOS is seen to have inertial spin on its own internal axis.
Nate is correct; DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is writing about.
DREMT’s 1) 5) can be easily refuted simply by moving the observer to a different frame from that of the string such as an inertial frame.
[DREMT] But, they can’t make something that is not free to spin (the ball on a string) spin. Nothing can.
[NATE] Sure.
[BALL4] Nate is correct.
Since Nate agrees with me, so does Ball4.
Success! Thx, Ball4.
“those who think the yo-yo is not spinning, and that theyre good arguments.
Yep. Meaning you cannot rebut them!
The assert, without objective evidence, the opposite:
“the YoYo is spinning”
You cannot explain this discrepancy. Then falsely claim this is not a contradiction.
Now, I’ll give you an out: It is a subjective choice how you define spin.
That is why you can define it differently for different devices.
For the BOS, your choice that it has no spin is reasonable.
For the YoYo, our choice that is no spin is just as reasonable.
There is no objectively correct choice.
But there is a choice that works and is most useful for planetary motion.
You cannot rebut the 1) – 5), either, Nate. Like I said, that’s why this debate is so interesting.
Most importantly, with your “sure” you have conceded my point 1) from the famous “points 1) – 4)”. The ball on a string is objectively not spinning.
Since you already agreed to point 2) beforehand, and you should have since learned why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue (point 3) agreed), and since nobody disputes point 4), you may now be the first ever “Spinner” to agree that all four points are correct!
Well done, Nate. Now, that is “progress”.
I clearly stated my view in my last post that these choices are not objective, and explained why.
Yet here you are falsely stating that I agree these choices are objective.
Plainly you are living in your own alternate reality.
Enjoy your BOS conclusions, because they have nothing to say about the YoYo, planetary motion, or whether the Moon is spinning.
It is.
Something that is not free to spin, cannot be spinning.
Argue against that, then.
DREMT’s argument is ambiguous.
Something that is not free to spin, cannot be spinning in that frame. That “something” can easily be observed spinning on its own axis in another frame (like our Moon) since all motion is relative.
Incorrect. There is no ambiguity whatsoever, and the statement transcends reference frames.
“Something that is not free to spin, cannot be spinning.”
Because of your choice of how to define spin as rotation wrt the string.
In Astronomy’s approach spin = absolute rotation.
Same in physics for particles.
So their choice of how to define spin is different from yours.
Wrong, Nate. I do not define “spin” as “wrt the string”. “Spin” is simply defined as the dictionary defines it.
The dictionary is not a primer in the physics of relativity, DREMT.
Appears whenever DREMT uses a word in a physics discussion…it means just what DREMT alone chooses it to mean – neither more nor less.
It is obvious at 10:32 am that DREMT does not know what DREMT is writing about in the field of relativity and hasn’t made any progress in learning from Nate. Our Moon has inertial spin on its own internal axis (as Tesla proved with conservation of momentum) and so does the BOS.
You simply don’t understand rotation, Ball4. Despite the many, many times it has been mathematically shown to you, the ball on a string ultimately has only one axis of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame.
Whether that axis of rotation goes through the hand of the person twirling the ball or whether it goes through the ball itself depends on whether the other motion (besides "spin") is considered to be "translation in a circle" or "rotation about an external axis".
There is "absolutely" not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. Mathematically, there is no way for there to be two axes of rotation, regardless of any contortion of reference frames that you can come up with.
“There is “absolutely” not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string.”
Yet the stationary bystander in the same room as the ball twirler observes the ball orbiting the twirler on an external axis and all faces of the ball – thus the ball is spinning on its own internal axis wrt to the stationary bystander.
Two independent axes of rotation of the BOS observed by the bystander have been demonstrated.
So mathematically and observationally, there IS a way for there to be two axes of rotation for the BOS with proper use of reference frames that anyone understanding a primer on relativity can come up with. The ball is constrained by the twirler’s string to spin on its own internal axis wrt to the bystander.
Got any more situations with issues DREMT believes cannot be resolved by proper use of reference frames? I’ll easily resolve them for DREMT since:
All… ALL motion is relative.
"Two independent axes of rotation of the BOS observed by the bystander have been demonstrated."
Mathematically incorrect. Nate should agree with me here, let’s see if he is prepared to say so.
Not mathematically incorrect DREMT since the ball has inertia on each radius r and R, r for spin & R for orbit. Two independent mathematical, measurable inertias; two independent mathematical, measurable momentums according to the bystander.
Got any more situations with issues DREMT believes cannot be resolved by proper use of reference frames? I’ll easily resolve them for DREMT since:
All… ALL motion is relative.
Nate should agree with me here, let’s see if he is prepared to say so.
“Wrong, Nate. I do not define spin as wrt the string. Spin is simply defined as the dictionary defines it.”
Show that to us please.
The dictionary certainly doesn’t define it differently for the BOS and other devices, as you do.
To continue, you still have three things to do, Nate. Or, you can just cut your considerable losses and leave the thread now.
More silly game playing, surprise surprise.
I looked it up in various dictionaries, finding nothing but that it is a ‘rotation around a center’.
Which is consistent with the spinner POV.
Obviously you never bothered to look.
No game-playing, Nate. Another false accusation for you to retract. So, that’s four things you’ve got to do, now.
"Which is consistent with the spinner POV"
Lol, how!?
Nate, anything in your view is somehow consistent with the "Spinner" POV. It’s ridiculous.
“Lol, how!?”
Here is how:
“In Astronomys approach spin = absolute rotation.
Same in physics for particles.”
How do any dictionary definitions help you assign NO SPIN to the BOS as you claimed, which BTE is obviously rotating?
BTE should say BTW.
The dictionary definition of “spin” doesn’t mention anything about “absolute rotation”, Nate. So no, it does not specifically support the “Spinners”, and it doesn’t specifically support the “Non-Spinners”. My point is that everyone knows what “spin” is. It doesn’t need defining in this discussion.
“Absolute rotation”, in general, needs adapting to take into account where the axis of rotation is, and how many axes of rotation there are, etc. Read this response to Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1683537
“My point is that everyone knows what spin is.”
Except all your opponents here, plus astronomers, physicists, engineers, and dictionaries.
Hilarious!
So in the end, you offer nothing but your personal feeling that you know what ‘spin’ means.
And that’s all there is to it.
“Absolute rotation, in general, needs adapting to take into account where the axis of rotation is”
Absolute rotation is the thing that can be objectively measured with Newton’s bucket, Foucault pendulum, gyroscopes, etc.
It is unaffected by any translational motion which is not absolute.
So curvilinear translation has no effect on measurable rotation. That means the orbital motion has no effect on measurable rotation.
Which means the location of the axis of rotation is irrelevant to the fact that a body has absolute rotation.
Try to focus, Nate. Read the comment I linked to, and respond to it.
“Whether that axis of rotation goes through the hand of the person twirling the ball or whether it goes through the ball itself depends on whether the other motion (besides “spin”) is considered to be “translation in a circle” or “rotation about an external axis”
‘besides spin’ which must be defined in order to separate it out from orbital motion.
You claim that you only use the dictionary definition of SPIN when declaring that the BOS has NO SPIN, but offer no such dictionary definition.
You then claim that you don’t need a dictionary definition because ‘everyone knows what spin is’, which as I point out, cannot include all your opponents here, plus astronomers, physicists, engineers, and dictionaries, because none align with your view of what SPIN is.
Does the ball on a string have one axis of rotation, or two, Nate?
If you cannot define spin, or find a suitable dictionary definition, then your feelings that you know what it is, and it must be different from that of science, will never be convincing.
So we’re done here.
One axis or two?
As usual, Robertson endlessly repeats the same dumb, primitive trash which could have been written by any 8-year old child.
As usual, my answer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Nothing to add here, except that none of the lunar spin denial gang would be ever able to scientifically contradict even one of all these treatises and articles.
*
Even the tiniest irregularities in the lunar spin (called physical librations, as opposed to the merely apparent, optical librations) have been integrated into the Lunar Ephemerides:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/eph_export.html
This is the data needed for planning spacecraft missions with maximal accuracy.
No one on Earth involved in such planning activities would care even one bit about irrelevant ‘orbiting without spin’ blah blah.
Well, like it or not, Bindidon, "orbit without spin" is one of the two motions under discussion here for seven years. The other is, of course, "rotation about an internal axis" or "spin". It’s as simple as being able to mentally add two motions together. If you can do that, you can understand the issue.
Clearly, you still cannot.
Of course I can, Pseudomod.
What YOU can’t and never will be able to even grasp is that your discussion about ‘orbit without spin’ is of no interest to anyone – except you and a small group of lunar spin deniers.
It’s exactly the same as comparing a few thousands of Flatearthists to billions who understand in what for a dead end the former live.
You will never stop to intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent me. No problem!
“Orbit without spin” is the crux of the whole issue. So when you say it doesn’t matter, you reveal your total lack of understanding. That’s OK, nobody expects very much of you.
Orbit without spin is almost never experienced in the universe.
…which is completely besides the point.
RLH, almost every moon in the Solar System orbits without spin.
” … almost every moon in the Solar System orbits without spin. ”
Any scientific proof available for this nonsensical claim?
Clint R doesn’t seem to know that ‘astrologer’s have for example long time ago measured the spin period of Jupiter’s four Galilean moons.
” That’s OK, nobody expects very much of you. ”
If by ‘nobody’ you understand yourself, your friends-in-denial and a few other Lunaticks, then… that’s OK, Pseudomod.
That’s true, Clint R. It is only from the “Spinner” perspective that “Orbit without spin is almost never experienced in the universe.”
And, that should tell them something.
Bindi says: “Clint R does’t seem to know that astrologer’s have for example long time ago measured the spin period of Jupiter’s four Galilean moons.”
Yes Bindi, and the astrologers confused “spin” with “orbiting”, just like with Moon. All four Galilean moons keep one side facing the inside of their orbits, just as Moon does.
Actually, just to annihilate RLH’s point even further:
In a way, every celestial body or orbiting object "experiences" the "orbit without spin" motion. The "orbit without spin" motion is just one of the two motions under discussion ("rotation about an internal axis", or "spin", being the other one). Whilst from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, all "tidally-locked" bodies are experiencing just the "orbit without spin" motion, alone, all celestial bodies or orbiting objects experience the "orbit without spin" motion in combination with the "spin" motion, at some rate and in some direction.
So, for example, the Earth experiences the "orbit without spin" motion in combination with "spin", at a rate of 365.25 times per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
Or from the "Spinner" perspective, Earth experiences their version of the "orbit without spin" motion in combination with "spin", at a rate of 366.25 times per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
” It is only from the ‘Spinner’ perspective that ‘Orbit without spin is almost never experienced in the universe’. ”
Maybe someone manages to explain to the Pseudomod that the few lunar spin deniers who endlessly plague this blog are anything but the voice of any silent majority…
Can someone explain to Bindidon that he, above and beyond any other commenter here, is responsible for bringing up the moon issue the most times.
” … and the astrologers confused ‘spin’ with ‘orbiting’, just like with Moon. ”
How is it possible to show such a mix of arrogance and ignorance, Clint R?
Why can’t you understand that for an astronomer, the overall motion of a fixed point on a Jovian moon when viewed from Earth is not the same if the moon spins?
*
” All four Galilean moons keep one side facing the inside of their orbits, just as Moon does. ”
This is exactly what they don’t viewed from Earth, and that’s the reason why computing the spin period of a Jovian Galilean moon is way easier than computing the spin period of our Moon.
*
Feel well in your religious belief, Clint R, as do all people who religiously believe that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun revolves once a day around Earth.
Did you ever ask Roy Spencer and John Christy about all this?
Or do you think these two scientists also belong to the ‘cult’, and that asking them hence makes no sense?
Again Bindi, you sound like Norman.
You’re rambling in several different directions without making any sense.
It’s almost as if you’ve been caught without any facts supporting your false beliefs….
Clint R
Why do you not simply answer to
1. Did you ever ask Roy Spencer and John Christy about all this?
2. Or do you think these two scientists also belong to the cult, and that asking them hence makes no sense?
Why are you all the time dodging?
“almost every moon in the Solar System orbits without spin”
You mean they are tidal locked. I wonder why?
Bindidon parades his sublime and total ignorance of the absolute basics of this discussion for the blog’s enjoyment. Wonderful!
” Bindidon parades his sublime and total ignorance of the absolute basics of this discussion for the blogs enjoyment. ”
Yeah.
Maybe the blog rather might ask the lunar spin denial gang for their reason to discuss such a nonsense.
You’re the person who brings it up the most. Why don’t you explain?
Bindi brings up his moon nonsense so often, trying to make up for the fact that he doesn’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Nada, Pseudomod
I replied to Robertson’s trash with this comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680119
and YOU replied in your post to what I wrote.
There was NO NEED for you to do that.
You bring it up more than anybody else, Bindidon. You’re absolutely obsessed with it. Barely a week will go past without you mentioning it! Perhaps you’re not even aware you’re doing it…
…I’ll discuss it if others bring it up, but I rarely bother bringing it up myself any more.
Yes RLH, if a moon always has one hemisphere facing the inside of its orbit it is NOT spinning. The cult calls that same motion “tidally locked”, because they don’t understand the physics of orbital motion.
Another common cult term for the same motion is “synchronous rotation”. They actually believe most moons in Solar System are in “synchronous rotation”. Most institutions use the same phrase. It tells you something about the value of “consensus”, doesn’t it?
If a moon always has one hemisphere facing the inside of its orbit it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars. Despite your continuous claims otherwise.
…only if “orbit without spin” is movement as per the MOTR, RLH. Which, you’ve yet to prove. In fact, you guys don’t even have a viable physical model for that.
Oh, and here is the first mention of the moon issue under this article. Guess who made it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1679632
If a moon always has one hemisphere facing the inside of its orbit it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars.
…if “orbit without spin” is movement as per the MOTR.
DREMT,
“only if orbit without spin is movement as per the MOTR, RLH. Which, youve yet to prove. In fact, you guys dont even have a viable physical model for that.”
Two things:
1) it’s Axiomatic, so no proof is needed to show that an object in orbit keeping its face to the center is rotating.
2) it’s what the caption of the gif says
RLH is stuck on “with respect to the fixed stars”, and bob is still stuck on cult nonsense.
bob also failed his last physics problem.
No progress with these two cult kids. They just can’t learn.
Yes, Clint, they most certainly can’t learn.
“…an object in orbit keeping its face to the center is rotating…”
…if “orbit without spin” is movement as per the MOTR.
“…it’s what the caption of the gif says…”
…which is written from the “Spinner” perspective.
A body “Orbiting without spin” is revolving on an elliptical path around a larger body under the influence of gravity while gyroscopes on its surface detect no rotation.
Note that this does NOT describe the Moon.
If you understood point 2), you’d understand why that doesn’t work, Entropic Man.
Ent, a gyroscope cannot tell the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”.
You’re confused, as usual, and are just throwing crap against the wall trying to protect your cult beliefs.
“bob also failed his last physics problem.”
Clint is not qualified to grade physics problems, even those given to first graders.
“An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn’t rotate.”
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/429/the-moons-orbit-and-rotation/
Clint believes in myths, which are not science.
DREMT,
“if orbit without spin is movement as per the MOTR.”
Well, that’s what the caption says.
That’s the model of orbit without spin.
We can argue this until you admit that the caption is correct.
"Well, that’s what the caption says…"
…because it’s written from the "Spinner" perspective. Your logic is circular if you’re claiming the caption proves the "Spinner" perspective correct!
"That’s the model of orbit without spin…"
…well no, bob. A viable physical model of "orbit without spin" from the "Spinners" has yet to be provided. An animation won’t cut it, although it does at least get the motion correct (from the "Spinners" point of view)
bob makes his usual false accusations, then supports his cult beliefs by linking to his cult!
That ain’t science.
The reality is, bob doesn’t even understand his own cult’s nonsense. The last physics problem I gave consisted of two parts. The first part was nothing more than what is presented by the cult. It happens to be correct physics, but bob couldn’t handle it. Folkerts was able to get the correct answer, bob couldn’t. Folkerts at least knows his cult science. Poor bob doesn’t even know what his cult does.
“well no, bob. A viable physical model of “orbit without spin” from the “Spinners” has yet to be provided. ”
For some here ‘viable physical model’ is a moving target, redefined to exclude Newton’s perfectly satisfactory physics solution to the 2-body gravity problem, which is an elliptical orbit, with no spin specified.
” So, a car driving around an oval track is spinning wrt the stars??? ”
This question alone shows how nonsensical Robertson’s view is.
*
But Blindsley H00d aka RLH wrote something incorrect too:
” … it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars. ”
Either a celestial body spins or it doesn’t – regardless from where and with respect to what.
*
I don’t know how often this must be repeated: Newton never used in his Principia the expression ‘respectu fixarum’ together with motions but only with motion periods.
All Principia translators of Newton’s original Latin texts (among many others: Andrew Motte in 1729, Emilie du Chatelet in 1749, Wolfers in 1872, and last not least Bruce in 2012) wrote the same, whichever the language they used.
From Wolfers 1872 in German:
” Der Jupiter vollendet seine tägliche Umdrehung in Bezug auf die Fixsterne nach 9h 56m, der Mars nach 24h 39m, die Venus nach etwa 23h, die Erde nach 23h 56m, die Sonne nach 25 1/2 Tagen und der Mond nach 27 Tagen 7h 43m. ”
*
From Bruce 2012 in English:
” Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes. ”
*
Newton fully understood the difference between a synodic and a sidereal period of motion.
The deliberate misinterpretation and distortion of Newton’s words has been done often enough on this blog by lunar spin deniers.
Flynnson went so far as to write ‘as viewed from the fixed stars’, which is definitely meaningless.
*
Therefore, if one writes like Blindsley H00d, despite all the requests for correction over the years:
‘it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars’,
one is forever supporting the claim of the Pseudo-skeptics that if the Moon rotates on its axis with respect to the fixed stars, perhaps it does not do so when viewed from the Earth, which is completely false.
Bindidon shows agreement with my point 3), again.
Clint,
Let me see that last problem of yours, please.
Either that or your qualifications to teach physics.
We know you are not qualified to teach physics and neither am I.
Pseudomod
” Bindidon shows agreement with my point 3), again. ”
*
What’s your ” point 3)” ?
Explain it clearly enough so I know what exactly you mean.
That the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames…specifically meaning, those who argue that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, but does not rotate on its own axis wrt an accelerated frame, are wrong.
DREMT,
“because its written from the “Spinner” perspective. Your logic is circular if youre claiming the caption proves the “Spinner” perspective correct!”
Well it’s not circular because I am using the common definition of spinning.
And it’s not my logic, it’s the logic of the person who created the graphic and the caption.
You and your cult have not provided a definition of rotation on an internal axis.
That means you can’t tell if something is rotating on an internal axis or not.
So you have no model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Gee whizz.
Pseudomod
If you feel the need to ‘interpret’ what I wrote as an ‘agreement’ with your position, feel free to do so. No problem for me.
*
The fact remains that if one observed the same crater on the apparent disk of the Moon 250 years ago over a longer period of time, and converted the apparent coordinates of the crater into coordinates that were independent of the orbital motion of the Moon using spherical trigonometry, one saw that the coordinates were never the same, but moved on a circle with a period identical to that calculated centuries later, for example, using a camera that coupled photos of the Moon with… fixed stars.
Robertson’s curvilinear motion blah blah won’t change anything to this, let alone would Clint R’s eternal rambling with his pathological nonsense a la
” Got a viable model of orbit without spin? ”
More styupid you die.
Good luck!
"If you feel the need to ‘interpret’ what I wrote as an ‘agreement’ with your position, feel free to do so. No problem for me."
No need to "interpret" anything, Bindidon. We agree on point 3). It’s not a problem for me, either: agreement is a good thing. I’m not sure why your tone is always so combative.
Combative, Pseudomod?
I would rather say ‘forward-looking’.
Your comments referring to ‘We agree on point xxx’ often enough showed later that you misused your ‘We agree’ to make a point out of your very personal interpretation of what I wrote.
And fact remains, Pseudomod, that
– I have nothing in mind with your ‘frame reference’ disputes with other posters;
– my comment about the Moon spinning indifferently from where it is observed had nothing to do with any ‘frame reference’, be it inertial or accelerated.
You wrote:
"But Blindsley H00d aka RLH wrote something incorrect too:
” … it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars. ”
Either a celestial body spins or it doesn’t – regardless from where and with respect to what.
* I don’t know how often this must be repeated: Newton never used in his Principia the expression ‘respectu fixarum’ together with motions but only with motion periods."
I agree. Sorry if that bothers you.
Gee whiz is right.
Another victory for the spinners, another notch on my belt, it’s almost falling apart from all the notches from victories over DREMT and the rest of the non-spinners.
“Either a celestial body spins or it doesnt regardless from where and with respect to what.”
Gee you guys cannot get your story straight!
This statement suggests Spin is the absolute rotation of a body, which is the Spinner POV!
It contradicts the fact that you guys repeatedly define and measure Spin wrt a frame rotating with the orbiting object.
bob, you’re just not worth my time.
“It contradicts the fact that you guys repeatedly define and measure Spin wrt a frame rotating with the orbiting object”
Incorrect, Nate. From a thread you are a part of, so you have no excuse for not paying attention:
“For example, with the equipment you see in the video for point 4), moving as per the MOTL, the model moon is not spinning. Have an XY plotter rigged up with a model moon attached to the pen via a motor, to spin it, or not spin it…program it to move the pen in a circle, and recreate movement like the MOTL. Then the model moon would be spinning.“
See? The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Never has been, never will be.
DREMT,
“bob, youre just not worth my time.”
We can move on to discuss whether or not the Moon is rotating on an internal axis once you define what you mean by rotating on an internal axis.
We would also need that to discuss the ball on a string or anything that rotates.
You are not worth my time, bob.
“For example, with the equipment you see in the video for point 4), moving as per the MOTL, the model moon is not spinning. Have an XY plotter rigged up with a model moon attached to the pen via a motor, to spin it, or not spin i”
Your statement
“Either a celestial body spins or it doesnt regardless from where and with respect to what.”
was clearly about celestial bodies, which certainly don’t have motors attached, yet do have spin!
Bindidon’s statement, Nate.
The point goes flying over your head, as usual. If reference frames resolved the moon issue, I would not be happy to describe movement like the MOTL as involving spin in one case, but not in the other. Doesn’t matter whether it’s celestial bodies or not. The specifics don’t matter. The general point matters.
The Earth is a celestial body that is observed to have spin about an observable axis.
The notion that there needs to be a motor to make it spin and define its spin is silly, and unnecesary.
Because its spin is simply observable, and must be defined by the observed motion.
Both you and Clint made clear spin is rotation relative to a line between the central body and the orbiting body. Which is rotating. Nothing to do with any identified mechanism like a motor attached.
So it is you guys trying to define spin as rotation wrt a specific rotating reference frame.
Obviously not, Nate, else I would say that even the XY plotter model moon wasn’t spinning. So, what are you missing? Keep thinking…
Nate is correct,
In a reference frame defined by the line from the Earth to the Moon, the Moon is not rotating.
But in that reference frame the distant stars are revolving around the Moon, and we know that is not possible as it has all the stars in the universe save one exceeding the speed of light.
Use of a true inertial reference frame, not the Earth centered inertial frame, will show that the Moon is rotating about an internal axis, just as Cassini showed so many Moons ago.
Use of the proper reference frame does resolve the issue, so point 3 is not correct.
So at least one spinner will never agree to all points 1-4.
Nate is not correct, as I literally just explained, bob. You’ve completely missed the point, again.
DREMT,
You can’t support that until you define what rotation on an internal axis means.
Until then, Nate is correct.
bob, as I have told you many times before, “spin” is just motion of the body about an axis passing through its centre. It must be kept separate from the other motion under discussion, “orbit without spin”.
DREMT,
That’s good, now how do you measure that motion?
So you can support your claim that something has no rotation about an axis through the center of the body.
You can’t "measure it", bob. What do you think you would use? A spin-o-meter!?
This was the accusation:
"So it is you guys trying to define spin as rotation wrt a specific rotating reference frame."
It’s false, because if that were the case, I would say the XY plotter equipment wasn’t spinning the model moon when it replicates movement like the MOTL. But it is. When the XY plotter equipment replicates movement like the MOTL, the model moon is spinning. When the CSAItruth equipment replicates movement like the MOTL, the model moon is not spinning.
Those statements alone should make it abundantly clear that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
But, you’re already trying to switch away from point 3).
DREMT,
“You cant “measure it”, bob. What do you think you would use? A spin-o-meter!?”
Usually called a tachometer, but for slower rotations, careful observations of the position of the Moon, paying close attention to its orientation.
Or you could observe that the near face of the Moon faces towards the Sun at full moon, and then faces away from the Sun at new moon, about two weeks later. So it takes twice that time for a full rotation.
“But, you’re already trying to switch away from point 3).”
Hes Right: Whatever, Im Voting for Trump [REACTION]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHyF2uewhG4
The kids, these days.
It is a known fact that a person’s brain stops development when they reach their late 20’s.
Kids voting for Trump can therefore be explained by immature brains.
Adults voting for Trump must involve some form of brain damage or arrested development during their early years.
You could handle “Trump” for any politician.
For example:
Kids voting for Harris can therefore be explained by immature brains.
Adults voting for Harris must involve some form of brain damage or arrested development during their early years.
Humans compared to other creatures found on Earth, develop slowly.
professor poo…the human brain never stops developing if challenged. It has a plasticity which allows it to go on adapting and enlarging in scope.
Having said that, Professor Poo is confusing his brain action with others who can and do think laterally.
The number of neurons in a brain are fixed from birth and apparently decrease at an astonnshing rate if regarded statistically. However, there are literally billions of neurons and their interactions can be adjusted based on need.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/25/water-temperatures-near-uk-last-year-were-hottest-on-record-say-scientists
And the photo shows people enjoying the beach!
Scary.
No wonder Elliott hides under his bed….
The National Enquirer is a US tabloid rag that specializes in outright lies. The Manchester Guardian is trying hard to surpass it with outright lies about climate issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer
Elliott is a Swiss ijit who can’t tell the difference.
The size of the penalty was based on the social costs of carbon emissions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/25/brazilian-rancher-ordered-pay-50m-damage-amazon
In Brazil, Lula accused of inaction in the face of murders of indigenous people
A report highlights a 15% increase in the number of assassinations of indigenous people in 2023, even more numerous than under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro.
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/07/25/au-bresil-lula-accuse-d-inaction-face-aux-meurtres-d-indigenes_6257918_3210.html
That matters imho a lot more than the ‘social costs of carbon emissions’.
Where do you get assassination from? In North America, most indigenous people are killed by indigenous people. Sadly, that extends to indigenous children.
In Canada…”Most Indigenous women and girls were killed by someone that they knew (81%), including an intimate partner (35%), acquaintance (24%), or family member (22%). In most cases, the person accused of their homicide was also Indigenous (86%)”.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2023001/article/00006-eng.htm
Europeans have an oddly romantic view of North American indigenous people. They simply have no idea what they are like.
Yes, but this is not a dichotomy. It’s possible and necessary to take action on both.
It’s paw.thetic the way justice works in Brazil. Obviously, the farmer is being made a scapegoat for government officials who sanctioned the burned forests.
What is more paw.thetic is the claim by eco-weenies that the deforestation is significant. The Amazon jungle is so huge that one can fly across it for hours without seeing an end to it. It would likely take a 100 years or more to deforest it completely.
But what would one expect from a Swiss eco-weenie whose first action here was to stick his nose into blog affairs and try to censor posters?
Something for the “It’s not CO2” people.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg&feature=youtu.be
Note particularly the cases such as snowball Earth s in which a change in CO2 concentration causes a change in temperature.
If he understood the physics, he might shut up.
But, probably not. These people just like to ramble endlessly….
“ramble endlessly”
Days somebody whose comments comprise about 10% of the total on this site.
“Days somebody whose comments comprise about 10% of the total on this site.”
Literally.
DMT and JW, thanks for keeping your stalking, childish comments short.
At least you’re not clogging the blog like Bindi, and several others.
I had to turn the video off, the dweeb commenting was driving me to distraction. He epitomizes the ijits behind climate alarm.
What does paleoclimate have to do with CO2?
Gordon
There are a number of sources of evidence for the interaction between CO2 concentration and temperature.
Physics theory
Laboratory measurement.
Measurement of present climate on Earth.
Measurement of past climate on Earth (paleoclimate).
Measurement of climate on other planets (notably Mars and Venus).
That’s funny Ent.
Let’s see your “physics theory” that “proves” 15 μ photons from the sky can warm a 288 K surface.
Clint R,
It is the same one that says that a surface can cool by emitting 15um photons.
Maybe you are smart enough to look that one up.
bobdroege, Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
rlh…”If a moon always has one hemisphere facing the inside of its orbit it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars. Despite your continuous claims otherwise”.
***
So, a car driving around an oval track is spinning wrt the stars???
Do you understand what it means to ‘spin out’ in a car? It means the tail end begins spinning around the COG as does the front end, a true spin. A car driving without spin does not have such an action, it is performing only curvilinear motion without spin.
Why is the Moon any different?
In addition to my comment above, consider a sphere attached to an arm that is rotating about an axis. No one would have a problem claiming the sphere is rotating bout an external axis.
Now remove the arm and replace it with a gravitational field. Is the sphere still rotating about an external axis?
BTW, that is the basis of the Tesla argument that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. He uses kinetic energy as the basis of his argument but the principle is similar.
You have just lost Jasper to the wild fires and here you are blathering about the moon.
You should be ashamed to call yourself a Canadian.
“consider a sphere attached to an arm that is rotating about an axis.”
So you have a rigid body that is made up of what you claim is a sphere attached to a stick (arm) rotating about an axis that is at one end.
Exactly, RLH. So, the sphere itself would not be rotating about an axis going through the centre of the sphere. You got it.
But the Moon is NOT a solid body WRT the Earth.
Indeed. You are jumping ahead to a conclusion that I’m not trying to make from that logic alone. Many steps are missing.
Now RLH is claiming Moon is not a solid body!
That’s another example of throwing crap against the wall. The cult does that because they have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. If they understood what orbital motion actually looked like, they would have to admit Moon is NOT spinning. But, they can’t learn and they can’t accept reality. They’re cultists.
But the Moon is NOT a solid body WITH RESPECT TO the Earth. i.e. It is NOT a single rigid body.
Sorry RLH, “with respect to” ain’t science. It’s usually an attempt to pervert science, which is what you do when you throw crap against the wall.
Without a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you’ve got NOTHING.
Now, throw some more crap against the wall — that’s all you can do.
The crap is all yours.
I think if Moon were attached to an arm, Moon would have been a part of the Earth. Moon would turn around Earth’s axis once in 24 hours then.
But Moon is a separate body. Moon orbits Earth because Moon has its own inertia plus the Earth’s gravitational pull.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes CV, Moon is acted on by two vectors — one due to gravity and one due to linear momentum. Its orbit is then due to the resultant of those two vectors. Since the two vectors act on Center of Mass, they cannot produce a torque. As Moon is NOT spinning, it is likely it never spun.
That’s why the ball-on-a-string is a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. There are two vectors acting on the ball, producing its orbital path. The ball is NOT spinning. It is orbiting. People here cannot understand the difference. Science isn’t for everyone….
You forgot to mention angular momentum due to the Moon’s rotationmeas
Sorry Ent, but Moon has no angular momentum.
You just don’t have knowledge of the physics.
You’re not alone….
“Sorry Ent, but Moon has no angular momentum.”
Yet another occasion where Clint gets physics quite wrong.
Finding these is like shooting fish in a barrel!
Nate, you have destroyed your credibility here.
You’re nothing but a child of the cult. You couldn’t even answer the simple physics problem.
Although the Moon looks quite spherical from the ground, it is flatter at its poles and wider at its equator, a trait known as an equatorial bulge. This characteristic is common; its usually caused by an objects rotation around its axis. However, its been noted that the Moons bulge is about 20 times larger than it should be given its rotational rate of once per month. Outlined in a paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on February 2, researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder created an innovative model to study the disproportionate bulge …
https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-moons-equatorial-bulge-hints-at-earths-early-conditions/
End of story.
There are two kinds of angular momentum, rotational and orbital.
Clint should admit that the Moon has orbital angular momentum.
Even if he does not admit the Moon has rotational angular momentum.
professor P, that’s evidence that the moon once spun, and at a much faster rate than "Spinners" think it spins now. It doesn’t settle the moon issue, since the presence of the bulge is not evidence that it still spins.
In fact, this has been brought up before (like most things on this subject).
Nothing new.
bob…angular momentum gets it name from a rigid lever arm rotating about an axis. Angular is a reference to the change of angle of the lever arm with an axis, like x- or y-.
If the angle of the lever is changing constantly then it has an angular velocity. If it has a mass, then the angular momentum is a product of the mass (COM) and the velocity.
If there is no rigid structure between an orbiting body and the object being orbited, there is no angular momentum. The Moon or any orbiting body has only linear momentum. In other words, if the body collides with something, it’s momentum is transferred along a straight line at an instant, not along a curved line.
On the other hand, if a mass is connected to a rotating lever arm, the momentum will be applied along a curve over time, but in the instant, only along a straight line.
Physics sure is fun.
Gordon,
” If it has a mass, then the angular momentum is a product of the mass (COM) and the velocity.”
That is definitely not correct.
The equations to calculate the two kinds of angular momentum are in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
There is spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results. The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
Planet….Te…..Te.correct…..Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury..440 K….364 K…….325,83 K…340 K
Earth….255 K….210 K…….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…270,4 K….224 K…….223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars….210 K…..174 K…….213,11 K…210 K
2). The 288 K – 255 K = 33C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earths atmosphere is very thin.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate, Bindi, Ent, DBGWX, Tim, or somebody demonstrate that 4% of the thin atmosphere produces 91F warming. Lets see the math.
Sorry, that’s 0.4%.
Another postcard, this time from Jasper:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyj423n2jdgo
See you soon.
Maybe Canadian GOV has a “Let it burn” policy.
It’s summer, we get forest fires in BC during summer. Jasper is in Alberta.
There is no excuse for the town of Jasper burning up. There should have been fire breaks all around the city to control fires. The federal government which runs Jasper National Park is too busy spreading propaganda about climate disaster to care about such basic safety nets. They are quick to charge you a fee to use the parks but when it comes to protecting them it seems no one cares.
There is a marked decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere in the tropics. The temperature rises in the upper stratosphere when an O2 particle is broken down into individual oxygen atoms by UV below 242 nm and transfers kinetic energy to a neighboring particle. During the Chapman cycle, ozone is formed.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone%E2%80%93oxygen_cycle
Due to both ozone and oxygen growing density as we go to lower altitudes, UV photon flux at wavelengths below 300 nm decreases substantially, and oxygen photodissociation rates fall below 10-9 per second per molecule at 30 km.[4] With decreasing oxygen photodissociation rates, odd-oxygen species (atomic oxygen and ozone molecules) are hardly formed de novo (rather than being transmuted to each other by the other reactions), and most atomic oxygen needed for ozone creation is derived almost exclusively from ozone removal by ozone photodissociation. Thus, ozone becomes depleted as we go below 30 km altitude and reaches very low concentrations at the tropopause.[
And since the necessary UV comes from Sun, ozone production ceases during night time. When Sun does not shine on a part of the atmosphere, ozone depletes rapidly as it is very unstable.
The graphic shows that ozone production (temperature) in the upper stratosphere above the equator decreases when the number of UV photons with wavelengths below 242nm decreases. The graphic does not show the temperature only at night.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Correct, and that just adds to the confusion.
Nate, Bindi, Ent, DBGWX, Tim, or somebody demonstrate that 4% of the thin atmosphere produces 91F warming. Let’s see the math.
Who claims that? Link?
At 100% Relative humidity and ISA water vapour makes up 4% by mass of the atmosphere.
91F is a little under 33C.
Stephen, are you asking how the increase in global average temperature due to the presence of greenhouse gases is calculated?
Sorry, insufficient caffeine.
A temperature change of 91C is a change of 50.6C.
Where did you get that from, Stephen?
Tim, Stephen
I think we all need caffeine
“91F is a little under 33C.”
No. A WARMING of 33 C is a WARMING of 9/5 *33 = 59.4 F. The fact you miss such a basic concept strongly suggest you are not anywhere near ready for a detailed discussion about the greenhouses effect.
Furthermore, the 59 F warming is the entire GHE. This includes CO2, and H20. And O3 and CH4. And clouds.
As a starting point, you might simply study the Trenberth diagram. The numbers are not perfect, but they are at least in the right ballpark. If the ability of the atmosphere to absorb IR disappeared, the entire 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface would escape to space resulting in an immediate cooling of the surface.
Tim,
” If the ability of the atmosphere to absorb IR disappeared, the entire 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface would escape to space resulting in an immediate cooling of the surface.”
–
Well, the atmosphere does what it does…
Let’s say it simple, if the entire atmosphere disappeared, there still would be the sun shining on the half of the Globe.
Our Moon doesn’t have atmosphere. The Moon’s dark side is very cold, allright, but it happens so because of Moon’s very slow diurnal cycle, when compared to Earth’s.
Earth’s diurnal cycle is 29,5 times shorter, than that of Moon’s. Also Earth is accumulating solar energy in the oceanic waters, which Moon doesn’t.
Therefore Earth’s surface, in the hypothetical absence of atmosphere, Earth’s surface without-atmosphere will not cool much.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”The Moons dark side is very cold…”
***
Only during the 14 days in which it faces a way from the Sun. During the other 14 days it becomes the near-side and becomes very hot.
Tim,
Yes, thanks for the correction. But, it doesn’t matter. All the greenhouse gases are approximately 0.4% of the atmosphere. However, 59F of warming from 0.4% of the atmosphere is impossible, unless you can show mathematical proof. We need a mathematical model using Laws of Physics like Berry did. It seems Christos’ model that the surface is 288K and the atmosphere is warmed mostly through conduction and convection and gets progressively cooler with altitude. I’m not saying there is no GHE. However, as Christos says, it is miniscule. Anything else is beyond belief. Again, you’re saying the planet is actually 255K and somehow is warmed to 288K with 0.4%. BS
Stephen, I think you’ve got your numbers confused.
There’s a sample calculation of the Earth’s temperature without an atmosphere here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law
Based on an equilibrium between 240W/m^2 incoming and 240W/m^2 outgoing it gives a surface temperature of 255K.
Observed global average surface temperatures are around 288K. Back-calculatiǹg using the Stefan-Boltzmann law that corresponds to a radiation output of 396W/m/^2 and a total forcing from all causes of 396-240=156W/m^2.
How much of that 156W/m^2 is due to GHG s?
Gavin Schmidt calculated the radiative forcing due to H2O and CO2 as 89 W/m^2. (His source code is available from a link here.)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
That puts the direct effect of GHGs at 57% of the total forcings, with the other 43% due to feedbacks and other factors such as cloud.
Ent,
“Observed global average surface temperatures are around 288K. Back-calculatiǹg using the Stefan-Boltzmann law that corresponds to a radiation output of 396W/m/^2 and a total forcing from all causes of 396-240=156W/m^2.”
–
There is not “Back-calculatiǹg using the Stefan-Boltzmann law”.
Stefan-Boltzmann law is about a hot body’s at uniform temperature the EM energy emission intensity.
Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t describe the incident EM energy/ surfase matter interaction processes.
Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t “work” at terrestrial temperatures, because it gives very much overestimated results.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
To whom ever.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been derived from first principles and is applicable to all temperatures.
Vournas
” Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesnt work at terrestrial temperatures, because it gives very much overestimated results. ”
*
Where is your scientific proof for such an utter nonsense?
Unless you give that proof you just do nothing else than replicating pseudo-skeptic blah blah.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been derived from first principles and is applicable to all temperatures.”
Anything to the 4th power has a lot of wriggle room.
–Bindidon says:
July 26, 2024 at 4:14 PM
Vournas
Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesnt work at terrestrial temperatures, because it gives very much overestimated results.
*
Where is your scientific proof for such an utter nonsense?
Unless you give that proof you just do nothing else than replicating pseudo-skeptic blah blah.–
Yeah where is proof, Vournas??
In meanwhile I will provide it. Earth global air temperature is related the average temperature of the entire ocean on Earth.
Our average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
And this is why we have been in an Icehouse climate for 33.9 million years.
This not an arguable point, everyone agrees.
No one has ever argued, that we are not in an Ice Age.
Which just another term, for an Icehouse global climate and this icehouse global climate has been the coldest in the last couple million years.
And kids were and should be taught this in elementary school. As kind of important in terms of human evolution and other things.
There is not Back-calculatiǹg using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Stefan-Boltzmann law is about a hot bodys at uniform temperature the EM energy emission intensity.
Stefan-Boltzmann law doesnt describe the incident EM energy/ surfase matter interaction processes.
Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesnt work at terrestrial temperatures, because it gives very much overestimated results.
Example:
It is said Earth, according to S-B law
emits 240 W/m^2 at Te=255K or -18C.
I have experienced the -18C what it is like. When outdoors at -18C it is a deadly cold. There is nowhere 240 W/m^2 emitting.
A small 3m x3m x3m room at -18C according to S-B should emit:
3m x3m x6 = 9m^2 x6 = 54m^2
54m^2 x240W/m^2 = 12960 W or ~ 13 kW
Have you experienced 13 Kw heater in a small 3m x3m x3m room ?
Have you experienced how it is inside a refrigator the size of 3m x3m x3m room at -18C ?
Therefore the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesnt work at terrestrial temperatures, because it gives very much overestimated results.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I have experienced the -18C what it is like. When outdoors at -18C it is a deadly cold. There is nowhere 240 W/m^2 emitting.”
You are not thinking this through. Your body at with a skin temperature of ~ 35C emits over 500 W/m^2. You are also receiving radiation from the surroundings, so the NET radiation is about
* 90 W/m^2 @ 20 C
* 150 W/m^2 @ 10 C
* 270 W/m^2 @ -18 C
The food you eat can keep your naked body warm if you are losing 100 W/m^2. The food you eat can NOT keep your naked body warm if you are losing 250 W/m^2.
The 240 W/m^2 is not GAINED by your body. The 240 W/m^2 is limiting the LOSS from your body.
Wrong again, Ent. The 240 W/m² (and the 255 K) all come from your cult’s imaginary sphere. The bogus 33K comes from comparing Earth to that imaginary sphere.
That ain’t science.
Tim,
The Sun heats the planet’s surface and the air which is 99.6% non-GHG, gets warmed through conduction and convection takes it up into the atmosphere. The whole SB-based model is idiocy.
So, you have Berry’s model which he derives from Conservation of Mass and you see this in many atmospheric physics texts and then he proves that the 140PPm rise in CO2 cannot be due to fossil fuels. He shows to believe this falacy, you have to believe that human produced CO2 is physically different than a naturally emitted CO2, hogwash. If you believe the SB model you have to convince yourself the Earth is a blackbody. It sure doesn’t look like a blackbody. The photos from space show a light blue planet.
“The whole SB-based model is idiocy.”
And yet the theory behind thermal radiation fits in perfectly wth the rest of physics.
And yet the IR radiation for earth and atmosphere can be measured.
And yet the IR radiation fits in with energy balance for the whole system.
–The food you eat can keep your naked body warm if you are losing 100 W/m^2. The food you eat can NOT keep your naked body warm if you are losing 250 W/m^2.
The 240 W/m^2 is not GAINED by your body. The 240 W/m^2 is limiting the LOSS from your body.–
Well, Mammals are better than Reptiles.
A human body generates about 100 watts when it’s resting.
Humans sweat and don’t have much fur, and they are better than other mammals.
The human brain uses a lot of energy. Most humans don’t use it, very much. Though female humans apparently use it, a lot.
Stephen,
” He shows to believe this falacy, you have to believe that human produced CO2 is physically different than a naturally emitted CO2, hogwash.”
The isotopic ratios of natural and fossil fuel carbon are different.
So, there is a physical difference.
Bob,
Those ratios will be slightly different but the difference is so small that there would be no discernable difference in their eTimes.
And, conductive and convective heat transfer fits in with physics. And, it’s more plausible that 99.6% of the atmosphere dissipates heat than 0.4% causes it.
Stephen,
That’s moving the goalposts.
But yes the mass of the isotopes affect the eTimes.
“Those ratios will be slightly different but the difference is so small that there would be no discernable difference in their eTimes.”
Plants prefer isotopes too, so that affects the eTimes as well.
Of course humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, a properly done mass balance shows that.
Nature is a sink, not a source of the CO2.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
The graphic shows ozone anomalies in the total column. It clearly shows excess ozone in the South Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly region, which has implications for blocking the southern polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/YjQc5Sq/to-g-de-e-1657217651de20240725.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2024.png
Debunking Emission Scenarios
https://youtu.be/VC1KpZyBZiU
bob d…”To whom ever.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been derived from first principles and is applicable to all temperatures”.
***
What would those first principles be, especially when Stefan derived it before the relationship between EM and atoms had yet to be derived? When Boltzmann added his fake science based on statitical mechanics, the same situation applied. He was using statistical inference to analyze fake atoms, the electron and neutron still being unknown. In fact, the only known atomic part, the proton, was known for only one element, hydrogen.
The basis for claiming EM in w/m^2 by Boltzmann is obviously in error since it is based on the 1840 finding of the scientist Joule, who found an equivalence between heat and work. Work is measured in HP with the joule being a European unit based on the horsepower. Therefore claiming radiation (EM) in watts, particularly at the time S-B emerged, is plain wrong.
The reason it is wrong is this. Radiation was considered at the time as a means of transferring heat as heat rays. Therefore, it was believed that heat moved through space as a form of radiation. It was also known from Faraday et al, that radiation was also associated with electric and magnetic fields, so there was considerable confusion about the meaning of radiation.
Stefan based his original T^4 relationship on Tyndall’s experiment in which he heated a platinum filament electrically till it glowed different colours as the current was incrased. That is the EM referenced in S-B, the colour temperature of a heated filament wire. Since that took place in a Temperature range of about 500C to 1500C, how can anyone claim it applies outside that range?
Furthermore, how can anyone claim the radiation to be measured in watts, a measure of work, which has a heat equivalent, not equality? Surely the are referring to heat dissipation at the radiating surface, not the radiation itself, which contains no heat and has a very different set of properties than heat?
They might be able to claim a heat equivalence, since the same radiation, when absorbed by a cooler body, can heat the body. However, the relationship is far from one to one.
Suppose we have a surface radiating EM. That radiation dissipates according to the inverse square law, so any cooler body absorbing that radiation will heat according to the distance it is located from the surface. Where in S-B does it deal with that issue?
Gordon,
I have already posted a link to the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzmann derivation.
You will have to google it now.
I have led you to the water hole, now it is time to drink.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
ent…”At 100% Relative humidity and ISA water vapour makes up 4% by mass of the atmosphere”.
***
Only in the equatorial Tropics. The average concentration of WV in the atmosphere is about 0.3%.
dmt…”You have just lost Jasper to the wild fires and here you are blathering about the moon.
You should be ashamed to call yourself a Canadian”.
***
Take it up with the Feds, not me. And don’t whine to me about flag-waving.
Would not doubt it if the fire was started by some eco-weenie arsonist trying to scare people about climate catastrophe. It happened a few years ago in the States where some eco-looney terrorists were setting fires for that very reason.
It’s a shame that Jasper burned but the same thing happened here in BC at Lytton a couple of years ago. Are you suggesting I go into mourning every time a fire is started, by lightning or by a looney arsonist?
Typical “frog in a heated beaker of water” comment.
We should call you Alfred E. Neuman
(famous for “What, me worry? )
We know why you are belabouring the point. Climate alarmists are spreading the propaganda that the fire is related to a 1C warming over 170 years.
Do you run around to other blogs badgering people because they are not talking about a fire 700 miles away?
“In what is becoming an unfortunately common occurrence, the town of Jasper, Alta. has been ravaged by a wildfire of unprecedented scale. Crews report witnessing 300- to 400-foot flames, while one-third of Jaspers buildings were destroyed. Luckily, there have been no reported fatalities so far.
If a fire can burn the town of Jasper in a national park that has the resources to deal with fire, what does the future hold for hundreds of small boreal forest towns across the country that do not have the means, know-how or resolve to accept that fire will come someday?
Jasper is the latest in a growing number of communities affected by wildfires. Twenty thousand people living in Yellowknife were evacuated from their homes for more than three weeks in 2023. The B.C. town of Lytton is still rebuilding after it burned in 2021.”
Yet you, as a Canadian, have the nerve to deny there is a problem. You should be ashamed.
There is no scientific proof that wildfires are anything other than weather events, arson events, or someone stoopid throwing a cigarette butt into tinder dry grass. As much as alarmist weenies rush to relate wild fires to climate change they have not an iota of scientific proof.
It’s all about consensus, not science. When we discuss the Moon or push our skeptical views we are doing so based on credible science.
BTW, if you look carefully, you will see what the Moon debate is about. All the alarmists claim the Moon rotates on a local axis and all the skeptics claim it does not. It’s about science and the different ways people represent science.
I have presented good evidence that the IPCC is corrupt and that governments using its review opinions are just as corrupt. Climate change theory is a blatant scam. There is no way a 1C warming over 170 years can cause the climate disaster projected. If you think it can, let’s see your evidence.
A few years ago, a Federal Liberal minister claimed it doesn’t matter if the science is wrong, they are doing the right thing by cutting back on CO2 emissions. They all know it’s bs., cutting back on CO2 is about something else, a political cause that entitles governments to tax us more.
When I worked in construction, we celebrated July 1st as the day we began earning money for ourselves, the previous 6 months earnings going to the government. I am tired of being nickel and dimed by governments for every stoopid idea they come up with, and climate change theory is a stoopid idea.
BTW…I am not a Tory.
If you have been anywhere near Jasper, and I have many times, you will notice how dry it gets in summer and how the town is presented as a quaint alpine town nestled in that tinder box. It is no surprise to me that this disaster has occurred, the surprise is that it had to happen before anyone noticed the obvious.
There is no way in a logical world, the town itself should have burned. It is gross negligence that it did.
Jasper is located in Alberta a Conservative bastion where they are too cheap to invest in decent utilities like an adequate fire response team. However, Jasper is under Federal jurisdiction, making it even worse.
Here in BC, we had the same problem till recently. We had a major flood a couple of years ago in the Fraser Valley simply because previous right wing government were too cheap to fix problems in a river dike.
The recent right wing government was led by Gordon Campbell, a right wing ijit who sold the Vancouver fire boat when he was major of Vancouver. A bit after selling it, the Coast Guard facility at Kits burned down because…ta da…they did not have a fire boat.
“Yet you, as a Canadian, have the nerve to deny there is a problem. You should be ashamed.”
Yes, there is a problem, several in fact.
1. For the past 100 years, every time there is a small fire breaking out there is a water bomber sent and the fire is extinguished. This practice has resulted in interference with the natural forest cycle which includes fires. Further, now when a fire starts, it can’t be put out due to accumulated fuel on the forest floor; its a ticking time bomb until it happens. So yes the Jasper fire is 100% due to human activity, regardless of how the fire actually started.
I can’t get anything else to post.
3. Climate Alarmism is a huge problem. This year the Jet Stream went south so California reservoirs are full and much of Western Canada didn’t get much moisture. Is variable Jet Stream, climate change, or is it simply Climate. I would suggest its climate; carbon dioxide is not the cause of Jasper fire.
4. Fires affect all communities in the Forest. Campbell River, my community, had a major fire in 1938 … putting paid to any argument that fires are due to AGW. Communities have been getting wiped out by forest fires ever since people have had the temerity to live in them.
5. As reference Here is Bloedel Fire 1938: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/scv/scv871.pdf
(did you know Carbon Dioxide is used in fire extinguishers)
Return to flight happening, now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZg8oq1QD5U
Watch live: SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket returns to flight with the launch of 23 Starlink satellites
rlh…”Anything to the 4th power has a lot of wriggle room”.
***
I don’t deny the T^4 relationship in the temperature range between 500C and 1500C. It appears modernists have taken Stefan’s relationship in that temperature range and presumed it can be extrapolated.
I don’t agree with everything said in the following article, but the author supplies much food for thought…
https://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
“I dont deny the T^4 relationship in the temperature range between 500C and 1500C.”
Nor me.
That author is completely clueless about radiation. The ‘food for thought’ is pure junk food.
As I said, the author raises interesting issues that are not being addressed by advocates of S-B.
For example, how can ice possibly radiate 315 w/m^2? It does according to S-B but in reality, that is nonsense. As the author states the true value for is is about 40 times less, making it about 8 w/m^2, and I thik that i an over-estimation.
Even at that, IR simply cannot be measured in watts, which is a measure of work. There is a heat equivalent related to heat being produced by a paddle turning in water. However, that is about weak hydrogen bonds, holding water molecules together, being broken and releasing heat. There is no such relationship between radiation and heat or work.
All that is known about radiation is the amount of heat lost at a surface as radiation is created. It needs to be understood that the heat is lost therefore no longer exists. In its place, a new energy is formed that has nothing in common with heat or work, therefore it cannot be measured in the same watts representing the lost heat.
Gordon ponders: “For example, how can ice possibly radiate 315 w/m^2? It does according to S-B but in reality, that is nonsense. ”
A block of ice can radiate 299 W/m^2 to a room full of ice, because the room full of ice is radiating 299 W/m^2 back. There is no net exchange; nothing warms or cools. No ‘nonsense’ here and no need to fudge the S-B law. The net exchange would be zero, whatever the fudge factor.
For the examples of the room with a floor of ice from the link, the floor is radiating 299 W/m^2 x 1500 m^2 = 14,950 watts. So far the author of the link is doing fine. [Except he is using an emissivity of 0.95 rather than 0.92 like he says. That is a minor issue that doesn’t affect the general conclusions.]
What the author fails to include is the room is, say, 20 C = 293 K, and the room is radiating (epsilon)(sigma)(T^4)(area) = 0.95 * 5.67e-8 * 293^4 * 1500 m^2 = 19,220 W back to the ice! There is a net transfer of (19220 -14950) = 4270 W. So what we actually have is effectively a 4270 W heater in the ice melting it, and a 4270 W cooler trying to cool down the room.
And this makes sense. The ice will be COOLING the rest of the room, not warming it! Proper physics to the rescue! The author raises issues that ARE addressed by advocates of S-B. It is the author himself that is not addressing basic important issues!
The surface temperature of the entire equatorial Pacific is falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
There’s still a lot of confusion about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The confusion appears to arise from the mis-application of the Law. The S/B Law is correct, but it can NOT be used incorrectly.
If a room has its ceiling, floor, and all 4 walls emitting 400 W/m², based on the S/B equation, then the MAXIMUM flux at the center of the room is 400 W/m², not 6*400 = 2400 W/m².
The S/B Law is correct, but fluxes do NOT simply add.
(Hope to have time later today to expand on this.)
What they say is when cube is irradiated on one side with 2400 W/m2, then in equilibrium it emits 400 W/m2 from all its sides.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correct, CV. A “perfect” cube will emit 400 W/m² if it receives 2400 W/m² on one side. The cube will then be at 454K.
A hollow cube at 454 K will be emitting 400 W/m² from each side, but a small object at the center of the cube will only be effectively receiving 300 W/m².
Fluxes don’t simply add.
TYPO alert — “…but a small object at the center of the cube will only be effectively receiving 400 W/m².”
Before you go any further I hope you are not confusing
“radiant intensity” (units of watts per steradian) which is directional
with
“radiant flux” (units of watts)
The radiant intensity inside the room (or large sphere if you like) is 400 W/m (from all angles). However, the amount received by an absorbing object inside the sphere (the total flux) is the integral of the of this intensity over all angles. It therefore can be added.
Shouldn’t the object in the center also emit 400 W/m2 ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Shouldnt the object in the center also emit 400 W/m2 ?”
Yes (at equilibrium).
Where does the emitted by inner walls the 400 W/m2 go ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Where does the emitted by inner walls the 400 W/m2 go ?”
If I understand your question, the inner walls both absorb and emit 400 W/m2. That is why they stay at a constant temperature at equilibrium.
“the inner walls both absorb and emit 400 W/m2.”
Thank you.
Do they absorb and emit at the same frequency?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“then the MAXIMUM flux at the center of the room is 400 W/m, not 6*400 = 2400 W/m.”
That is why everyone finds the flux at a surface in the center of the room but adding the fluxes ARRIVING at that surface, not the fluxes LEAVING from other surfaces. You CAN simply add fluxes ARRIVING at a surface.
For example, a surface facing up in your room might receive only 300 W/m^2 from the ceiling because of geometry and distance. It could receive 25 W/m^2 from each of the walls and 0 W/m^2 from the floor. Simply add these to get 300 + 25+25+25+25 + 0 = 400 W/m^2.
I don’t think anyone but you here is confused by this concept.
You’re WRONG as usual Folkerts.
If a room has its ceiling, floor, and all 4 walls emitting 400 W/m², based on the S/B equation, then the MAXIMUM flux at the center of the room is 400 W/m², not 6*400 = 2400 W/m².
Radiative fluxes do NOT simply add. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
“Youre WRONG as usual Folkerts” … and yet I am agreeing with your conclusion. The maximum flux is indeed 400 W/m^2, which is what I said.
And radiative fluxes arriving at a surface DO add. Two lightbulbs provide more light to a surface than a single lightbulb.
You are still trying to equate flux LEAVING a surface with light ARRIVING at a surface. 400 W/m^2 leaving the ceiling does not provide 400 W/m^2 arriving at a distant surface. Adding fluxes ARRIVING at a surface does NOT result in ‘ice boiling water’.
tim…fluxes don’t add in this situation, they are converted to heat and it might add. It depends on which frequencies affect the electrons in the atoms of the surface. Electrons react to specific discrete frequencies and once excited by a frequency they cannot be further excited by another frequency.
You may be thinking of the result of a diffraction grating, where light through it appears at a target screen producing interference patterns. In that case, the grating act as a prism that separates light by frequency then projecting them so individual frequencies interfere with each other at the target.
If you consider solar flux at TOA entering an area of 1 m^2, the flux represents all frequencies from the Sun entering and leaving that area. There is no way you can add/subtract those frequencies in that area or at any surface area.
GORDON:
“Electrons react to specific discrete frequencies and once excited by a frequency they cannot be further excited by another frequency.”
Nope! For several reasons.
1) Its not just the electrons that are collecting the energy, but the atoms. As the object gets warmer, the atoms themselves move with more energy. Except at low temperatures, the contribution of the atoms overshadows the contribution of the electrons.
2) Atoms can and do vibrate with combinations of frequencies. Study up on “normal modes”.
3) A molecule like CO2 can absorb multiple 15 um photons. An excited molecule can be excited more and vibrate with a larger amplitude.
“There is no way you can add/subtract those frequencies …”
Flux is an ENERGY flow. You add/subtract energies, not frequencies.
If there is a flux of 1000 W/m^2 in and a flux of 100 W/m^2 out, the net flux is indeed found by subtracting 1000 – 100 = 900 W/m^2 net flux in.
S-B is an anachronism, it applies only to an electrically-heated platinum filament in the approximate temperature range of about 500C to 1500C. It has been superseded by Bohr’s quantum theory, which was unkown at the time S and B produced their equation.
“it applies only to an electrically-heated platinum filament in the approximate temperature range of about 500C to 1500C”
Gordon, this is pure BS.
You offer no evidence to support this ridiculous claim.
SB law is valid over all temperatures and used regularly by engineers TODAY, e.g. every time they use an IR thermometer or camera!
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Notice above how Folkerts and pp try to pervert reality.
Folkerts is claiming the nonsense that leads to ice cubes boiling water. And pp is trying to confuse the issue by claiming flux has different units than “W/m²”.
What will they try next?
I will probably try to get you to explain how 315 W/m^2 from all the surfaces of a room results in 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface, and yet you think that 315 W/m^2 would boil water.
“but a small object at the center of the cube will only be effectively receiving 400 W/m.”
Not, just ‘effectively’, but actually! The top surface of a small cube at the center of the room will receive
* 133 W/m^2 from the ceiling (not 400 W/m^2)
* 67 W/m^2 from each of the 4 walls (not 400 W/m^2)
* 0 W/m^2 from the floor (not 400 W/m^2)
We can simply add the received fluxes: 133 + 67+67+67+67 + 0 = 400 W/m^2 (not 400 + 400+400+400+400 + 400 = 2400 W/m^2).
It’s not that complicated. Find the fluxes ARRIVING and simply add them.
Folkerts, maybe you don’t understand “center of room”?
And, you’ve changed the “small object” into a “small cube”.
But, you stumbled onto the correct result — the object effectively receives 400 W/m² MAXIMUM.
Fluxes do not simply add.
“Fluxes do not simply add”
You appear to be confused by not distinguishing between radiant intensity and radiant flux. In this example of a room (or a sphere) of course you cannot simply add up the intensities at a point in space.
However, once you define a simple absorbing plane, then you take into account the angle of each bit of incident radiation and the proportion of the “sky” that it occupies. That gives the radiant flux.
In the case of planetary atmospheres, we are effectively dealing with the transfer of radiation between layers or planes. This is a relatively simple configuration so adding the relevant radiant fluxes is perfectly legitimate.
“But, you stumbled onto the correct result”
I have been stating the same result for years. Good of you to actually read well enough to notice.
“Folkerts, maybe you dont understand center of room?”
I understand “center” perfectly. The numbers given are for a small horizontal surface at the center of your room. If you have different numbers, perhaps you could share.
“And, youve changed the small object into a small cube.”
Last I checked, cubes are objects. I specified “cube” just to make the calculations simpler.
Folkerts and pp use the same cult tricks. Let’s make it even harder for them —
Two sources can irradiate a surface equally. Each can provide 400 W/m², separately.
When one source is turned on, the surface reaches a temperature of 290K. When that source is turned off, and the other source is turned on, the surface again reaches 290K.
What will be the final temperature of the surface when BOTH sources are turned on?
“Lets make it even harder for them”
None of this is hard.
Since you didn’t specify the scenario but left it open, I will answer with a few scenarios.
1) The two 400 W/m^2 irradiances are from beams of sunlight. Putting these together gives a single 800 W/m^2 beam of sunlight. This warms the surface in question to 345 K.
2) A dome @ 345 K emitting 800 W/m^2 is over the surface in question. This provides a flux of 800 W/m^2 to the surface and the surface warms to 345 K. We turn off half the dome. The flux to the surface is 800/2 = 400 W/m^2 and the surface cools to 289 K. If we switch to the other half it will also provide a flux to the surface of 400 W/m^2, and again 289 K will be the temperature. Turn them both on, and we rise to 345 K again.
These are 2 simple, intuitive cases where it is clear the fluxes arriving at the surfaces DO indeed add.
IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH, quote it and provide your explanation
Sorry Folkerts, but 1) is WRONG, and 2) is just rambling.
You don’t have any understanding of radiative physics and thermodynamics. “Intuition” does not always work. So, it’s difficult to explain things so that you can understand them. I’ll make it as easy as I can.
The surface is already emitting 400 W/m², another 400 W/m² will not even be absorbed, let alone raise the temperature. An emitted flux corresponds to a temperature. You’re essentially trying to raise the temperature by adding more of the same temperature! That’s analogous to pouring together two glasses of water at 40 degrees believing the combination will be at 80 degrees. Intuitively you might say that you’ve added energy, so the temperature MUST increase. But, it doesn’t work like that. Your intuition fails you.
To raise temperature, the entropy must be decreased. Two glasses of water at the same temperature would have the same entropy. Two arriving equal fluxes would have the same entropy. Adding equal fluxes won’t decrease entropy.
You won’t understand any of this, so it always comes down to: “What will you try next?”
“What will be the final temperature of the surface when BOTH sources are turned on?”
Well, have you ever sat next to a 2-bar radiator to keep warm?
Are you saying that I can turn off one of the bars (saving money on electricity) and stay just as warm?
Unless I am missing something, your argument sounds fishy.
Reading the exchange between Clint R and Tim Folkerts it is clear who understands physics and who peddles views he got from blog sources. Tim Folkerts understands and posts real and valid physics. Clint R just makes unsupported and non-physics claims and will not even attempt to understand the real science.
Clint R will you ever provide any supporting evidence for you incorrect opinion that “The surface is already emitting 400 W/m, another 400 W/m will not even be absorbed, let alone raise the temperature”
What evidence do you use to support that radiant energy will not be absorbed? No text book on radiant heat transfer makes this claim. The only source for it is crackpots on blogs peddling their opinions. Like you do here on Roy Spencer blog.
So, its difficult to explain things so that you can understand them. Ill make it as easy as I can. Just a series of yes/no questions. If you answer “no” at any point, explain why. If you agree that the 345 K dome can warm the object to 345 K, congratulations, you have learned that irradiances simply add.
Can a dome at 345 K emitting 800 W/m^2 warm a surface under the dome to 345 K?
Will the surface be receiving 800 W/m^2 and also emitting 800 W/m^2?
If we turn off half the dome over the surface, will the surface underneath receive half as much flux, ie 400 W/m^2?
Will the surface cool until it is 289 K and emitting 400 W/m^2?
If we turn on just the other half the dome over the surface, will the surface underneath receive 400 W/m^2?
Will the surface remain at 289 K and emitting 400 W/m^2?
If we turn on both halves of the dome over the surface, will the surface underneath receive 400 W/m^2 from one half + 400 W/m^2 from the other half = 800 W/m^2 total?
Will the surface warm to 345 K due to the combination of the two 400 W/m^2 fluxes that are arriving at the surface?
What will they try next?
pp brings out a “2-bar heater”. He needs to understand the physics of an infrared heater, versus the physics of 400 W/m² source.
He can do this by putting his hand on the elements of the 2-bar heater (~2000F), and comparing to a 62F surface….
Next Norman stalks me with more of his insults and false accusations. He overlooks the fact that he couldn’t solve the simple problem — didn’t even try! He’s got NOTHING.
Then, Folkerts throws more crap against the wall. Now he’s building a “dome”, not realizing that he’s proving my point. If all points of the dome were considered separately, each emitting 800 W/m², an object in the middle would only be receiving 800 W/m². If the dome were divided into 10,000 sections, each emitting 800 W/m², the maximum flux to the middle would be 800 W/m², not 8,000,000 W/m². Radiative fluxes do NOT simply add.
What will they try next?
Then, Clint throws more crap against the wall, not realizing that hes actually proving my point. If all points of the dome were considered separately, each emitting 800 W/m, an object in the middle would only be receiving 800 W/m.
The key idea that Clint continuously fails to grasp is that emitting and receiving are two different things, and have to each be handled appropriately.
Let’s continue, focusing on the ideas of “emitted” vs “received” using Clint’s example.
If the dome were divided into 10,000 sections, each emitting 800 W/m, the maximum flux received at the middle would be 800 W/m, exactly as I stated. Not 8,000,000 W/m, because 800 W/m^2 is not being RECEIVED by the surface from each of the 10,000 sections. Because of distance and geometry, the surface would only be RECEIVING 800/10,000 = 0.08 W/m^2 from each of the 10,000 bits of the dome. Those 10,000 bits of 0.08 W/m^2 add to give 800 W/m^2 total being RECEIVED by the surface.
Emitted fluxes DO NOT add.
Received fluxes DO add.
Folkerts now has to pervert his own example to prove me right!
All portions of his dome would be emitting the same flux, assuming the dome is homogeneous and has the same temperature. IOW, half the dome is emitting 800 W/m², NOT 400 W/m². If the dome is divided into 10,000 sections, each section is still emitting 800 W/m², NOT 0.08 W/m².
Folkerts doesn’t understand the basics, as I’ve pointed out. He just keeps proving me right.
(I realize the cult will never get this, but they’re possibly now confusing responsible adults. So, I need to spend some more time on it — maybe late afternoon or evening.)
It is fascinating that I spell out the importance of EMITTED vs RECEIVED, and Clint plows right on past!
“IOW, half the dome is emitting 800 W/m, NOT 400 W/m.”
But the surface below is receiving 400 W/m^2, not 800 W/m^2, from that half of the dome.
“If the dome is divided into 10,000 sections, each section is still emitting 800 W/m.”
But the surface below is receiving 0.08 W/m from that 1/10,000th of the dome.
The RECEIVED flux at a surface is what determines to the temperature of the surface, not the EMITTED flux at some far away location.
The RECEIVED flux at a surface is what can be simply added, not the EMITTED flux at some far away location.
Clint R
I am not insulting you. I am asking you to prove your statements. They are opinions of yours when you offer zero evidence. They go against all physics so you need a lot of proof of your statements. You never do provide any evidence. You declare things (made up by you or pulled from some blog) but you never want to prove them. You make some vague and poorly defined thought ideas but you never seem to want to support your claims.
Two you have so far not provided any evidence. One is that photons are too big to make it through nitrogen gas. You made the claim but never provided any evidence.
The other is that radiant energy from a cold object will not be absorbed by a hotter surface. You just make it up and when asked for evidence you divert in endless rambling and whiny crying behavior. Is this what you are. A spoiled bully who will attacks most posters (except so far you have left DREMT alone) but cries at perceived insults. If you hate insults then you immediately stop any and all derogatory comments and just stick with giving evidence for you claims.
I know you will just go off and cry and whine some more and insult some more posters. One thing you will never do will be to support your false misleading opinions with valid source or experimental evidence.
No you will never do this.
Norman, there are about 5 false accusations just in your first paragraph.
That’s where I stopped reading….
Clint R
No false accusations, just real facts that you are not going to address!
I am correct. You do not support your claims. Your claims go against established physics (which is established via many experiments). All true. You just divert when challenged. It is the only tactic you know. You can’t prove it so you launch a false counter attack. Rather than just provide evidence for you claims you just continue to attack. It is all you know how to do. If you actually knew real physics you would offer some. However, since it is plainly obvious you do not understand physics or science you need to divert and pretend.
Norman, as I’ve said before, I’m willing to help you but you must stop the immature rants, insults, and false accusations.
Clint writes: “Im willing to help you but you must stop the immature rants, insults, and false accusations”
You are the problem Clint. No other way to describe your ‘participation’ here.
Ken, I realize losers like you are filled with hate. You don’t understand any of this, and you’re trying to blame me for your ignorance. You can’t identify one time I’ve got physics wrong.
You need to blame yourself, and those that have misled you.
But, you won’t. That would require some maturity….
To the alarmists pointing fingers at the Jasper fire, here is a link thanks to Ken, detailing the fire situation in 1938 here in BC and Alberta.
To put this in perspective, Jasper is a small town, more a village, only a few city blocks long. It’s not like the major fire in Fort MacMurray, Alberta, where a major town, several miles across, was gutted on the eastern end by a bog fire.
-thanks to ken for posting this link…
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/scv/scv871.pdf
“During the hot, dry, and hazy June of 1938, forest fires burned throughout western North America – from California to Alaska and far inland. East of the Rockies the situation was similar. By June 21, dense forest fire smoke lead to the cancellation of most flying in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Fires were burning around Grande Prairie, Lesser Slave Lake, and in the foothills northwest of Calgary. A few days later, cool weather and rain brought relief to northern Alberta.
In British Columbia forest fires were widespread from the Peace River to the Cariboo. Dense smoke hampered operation of the Forest Branch’s lookout system and by the third week of the month had grounded all aircraft in the Peace River, Omineca, and Cariboo areas. On June 23 two United Air Transport planes bound from Vancouver to Prince George made forced landings at Williams Lake and Soda Creek because of poor visibility. The major fire suppression operations soon shifted to central Vancouver Island. Fires were burning near Bowser, Great Central Lake, Campbell River, Quinsam, and Mohun Lake. In Victoria only 0.02 inches of rain fell, or 0.83 inches below normal. It was the driest June since weather records were first collected in 1874.
The scene was set. The most famous forest fire in British Columbia’s history was about to spring to life. Ignited in early July, during the next three weeks it burned over 74,495 acres. What follows is a diary of that fire, reconstructed from various newspapers, magazines, and fire fighter’s reports. It is written from the point of view of a correspondent filing a report at the end of each day, describing the action”.
Discussing Starship’s Fifth Test Flight with Fraser Cain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hemEcdEOlxw&t=1428s
They are not fans of living on Mars.
“It’s like living in Antarctica”
“It’s going to Mt Everest”
{over 10,000 people have climbed Mt Everest]
“It’s cold”
No it’s not cold, not like like Earth is cold.
The problem with Mars is same problem as the Moon- neither have been explored.
We might be able to mine lunar water. But no one is mining lunar water, because the moon has not been explored.
If the Moon is explored, than when lunar water can be mined, can be knowable. Or then someone might try to mine lunar water [which is likely to fail regardless of whether it’s mineable or not- because attempts to mine anything on Earth, tend to fail.
But at this point whether lunar water is mineable, lacks the exploration required.
Anyways you can’t legally live in Antarctica, just like you can’t legally live in park lands. You can homeless in a park or on any street corners, but can’t live in a park. Build a house, and lose your house- that’s not living.
Anyhow, NASA suppose to explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
And they aren’t doing it {yet}.
They tend to think Starship can launch thousands of satellites- that’s not a given, yet.
And they seem to have some dim understanding of importance of getting rocket fuel from gas station in orbit.
And considering it’s Musk, there is good chance, of starship launching thousands of satellites and having rocket fuel available in LEO in less than a few years.
Anyways, regarding Starship development, it’s roughly going as I thought it would. And have to say, FAA didn’t do as bad as I thought it could- they are somewhat reasonable. In terms of NASA and rest of world, I thought there would be more happening this year regarding lunar exploration- there still remains some of 2024 year, which could give some chance of improvement. And fair amount of hope for 2025, and India might do stuff. And Japanese rocket seems to work, and they might pick their pace in 2025.
Starship is going to have it’s test flight 5, pretty soon, and if they can successfully recover the first stage in 5 or 6, that is going to be pretty important. But it’s quite risky in terms of what FAA might do, if not wildly successful, So if there not a significant delay, we could get close to 3 or 4 launches this year. Or 5, 6, 7, and maybe 8 before end of year. And 7 or 8 might be trying to recover the second stage- and/or work on orbital gas station, stuff. And/or Starlink launches.
And if something like this happens, 2025, will be crazy, much more crazier than this year.
And New Glenn rocket is still trying to launch in Sept of 2024, And if New Glenn rocket successful launches, 2925 could pretty wacky with the New Glenn rocket gearing up.
Meanwhile Falcon rocket is still close to it’s target for 2024 launches- which would be quite crazy if not for the Starship stealing the show.
Continuing with above video, they talk of SLS. And they talking of future and saying SLS is 95 ton to LEO. After SLS takes crew to lunar orbit and Spacec {or Blue Origin] lands crew on lunar surface, the next SLS could be upgraded to Block 1B, also called EUS {or “Exploration Upper Stage” which allows SLS to lift 130 tons to LEO].
Also we talking about 2026 and later. We could have gas station in Orbit by 2026, or SLS could refueled in orbit, which changes “everything” in terms of payload beyond LEO. Or quite simply, it’s a “huge” upgrade to SLS. Or Starship gets 100 tons to Mars, because it’s refueling in LEO, SLS could lift more to Moon or Mars, if refueled in LEO. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin want a gas station in LEO, and either or both, could want to sell rocket fuel in orbit.
Selling rocket fuel in LEO, could be a big market. It basically allows everyone one’s larger rockets to go to Moon and Mars- it’s just SLS would be, basically the biggest one, but it’s not reusable, or can’t or isn’t designed to use Mars atmosphere [or Venus atmosphere or Earth’s atmosphere]. Or SLS can’t land 100 tons on Mars- though don’t know if Starship can do it, either. But with refueling can land stuff on the Moon.
Also if got gas station in LEO, it’s a small step to put gas station in Lunar orbit- then dinky rockets can land on the lunar surface {refuel in LEO, refuel in Lunar orbit {and also refuel on lunar surface- to leave the moon].
When I am talking about refueling rocket fuel in orbit, I am mostly talking oxygen rocket fuel or LOX {liquid oxygen].
Most of mass of rocket fuel is LOX.
The Moon could just make LOX, and it’s making “rocket fuel”.
Since more than 40% of the mass of lunar surface is oxygen- one can get oxygen by not mining lunar water. Water in terms of mass is 8 perts oxygen to 1 part hydrogen. Or 9 kg of water gives you 8 kg of LOX and 1 kg of LH2 [liquid Hydrogen]. But if happen to have some CO2, one transform LH2 into Methane. And with liquid Methane rocket fuel, one uses 4 parts LOX to 1 pert Methane.
But more important is it cost less energy to make/use Liquid Methane compared Liquid Hydrogen. So make gaseous oxygen and hydrogen from lunar water, and use the gaseous Hydrogen with CO2 to make methane, and liquefy the methane into liquid methane rocket fuel. Or it takes a lot energy to turn gaseous Hydrogen into LH2 rocket fuel
But since LOX is most of mass of rocket fuel, you could just make LOX, and import LH2 to Moon. Also when you make rocket fuel from Water, you get 8 O2 for every 1 kg H2, and for LOX/LH2 you use 6 O2 for every 1 H2- you get an excess of Oxygen. Though again if have CO2
and make methane, you are burning carbon as well as Hydrogen and it is 4 to 1 vs 6 to 1 with LOX and Liquid Methane.
But point is, if the Moon exports rocket fuel it’s exporting LOX, or if have lunar LOX in lunar orbit, you got most of rocket fuel to land, or you bring the less massive LH2 from Earth and get Lunar LOX in Lunar orbit.
Or on Earth LH2 is far more expensive, than LOX, but you use mostly LOX. Or rocket fuel is much cheaper than fuel for cars, because LOX is mined from Earth’s atmosphere and is it cheap.
And this true on the Moon and in earth orbit- LOX would be cheaper.
For example lunar LOX could be about $1000 per kg, and if so, LH2 would be about $4000 per kg {or more}. If there is CO2, and LOX is $1000, Liquid Methane would be about $2000 per kg [or more].
So, it would nice, when get to selling LOX for say $500 per kg in LEO, and LH2 will be around $2000 per kg, or perhaps as cheap as $1500 per kg. But what controls cost of rocket fuel is the LOX, or it’s cheap price on Earth makes rocket fuel cheap on Earth.
But the cheapest rocket fuel on Earth is LOX and liquid Methane- and one reason why Musk is using it.
Ozone blockage of the southern polar vortex in the Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly region.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/07/28/0500Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-1.53,-32.29,302
Solar wind
speed: 407.9 km/sec
density: 0.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Jul 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 178
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 204 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.29×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
48-hr change: +0.3%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991
10 numbered spots. 2 leaving within a day. None appear to coming from Farside, yet.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
22 July – 17 August 2024
Solar activity is expected to continue at moderate levels with
M-class flares (R1-R2, Minor-Moderate) levels likely and a slight
chance for X-class (R3, Strong) through 27 Jul as Regions 3751 (S08,
L=092, class/area Ekc/410 on 19 Jul) and 3761 (S10, L=081,
class/area Dki/300 on 21 Jul) rotate across the visible disk. Low to
moderate levels are likely from 28 Jul through 17 Aug.
There is a slight chance for a greater than 10 MeV proton event
exceeding the S1 (Minor) levels through 29 Jul due to the flare
potential of Regions 3751 and 3761.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to continue at normal to moderate levels.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be at mostly quiet levels
through 17 Aug barring any inbound CME activity. A potential for
G1-G2 (Minor-Moderate) levels is likely for 24 Jul due to the
arrival of the 21 Jul CME, however analysis is still in progress.
”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
As I expected, the NOAA experimental forecast still is not dead, yet.
And it seems it going remain alive for at least another month.
and likely more than 2 months.
But original NOAA forecast, I wouldn’t say has been far off, yet, either.
Our good old Sun was quite healthy this month:
https://tinyurl.com/yvyjw58w
It’s only the Estimated daily series, but EISN was quite near to SSN recently.
Monthly SC25 SSN average for July should be around 190+.
Sounds good.
Solar wind
speed: 323.3 km/sec
density: 0.48 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Jul 24
Sunspot number: 189
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.29×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
10 numbered sunspots, only 1 of 2 left, or the other will leave within a day. 3770 grew into a numbered spot, and it grew fast and big. And don’t see a spot coming from farside, yet.
“SOLAR ACTIVITY IS HIGH: Sunspot complex AR3765-67 is crackling with strong flares–and they’re getting stronger. An impulsive X1.5 flare this morning at 0237 UT caused a deep shortwave radio blackout over Japan, southeast Asia and Australia (map). More X-flares are in the offing as the sunspot complex turns directly toward Earth later today. Aurora alerts: SMS Text
CANNIBAL CME ALERT: A series of M-class flares over the weekend hurled multiple CMEs toward Earth. According to a NOAA model, the first two CMEs merged to form a potent Cannibal CME. Strong G3-class geomagnetic storms are possible when it reaches Earth on July 30th. Subscribers to our Space Weather Alert Service will receive an instant text message when the CME arrives. “
Solar wind
speed: 459.5 km/sec
density: 5.65 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Jul 24
Sunspot number: 211
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 223 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
10 numbered sunspots, a sunspot coming from farside [southern] and it will be numbered.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
29 July – 24 August 2024
Solar activity is expected to reach moderate to high levels, with
R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate) events likely to expected, and a slight
chance for R3 (Strong) or greater events throughout the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit, barring
significant flare activity.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to persist at normal to moderate levels throughout the
outlook period.
Geomagnetic field activity is likely to reach G1 (Minor) storm
levels on 29 Jul, G3 (Strong) storm levels on 30 Jul, and G2
(Moderate) storm levels on 31 Jul, all in response to the
anticipated arrival and passage of multiple CMEs from 26-28 Jul.
Quiet and quiet to unsettled geomagnetic field activity is expected
to prevail throughout the remainder of the outlook period. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 409.2 km/sec
density: 0.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 Jul 24
Sunspot number: 261
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 220 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.78×101^0 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Low
12 numbered sunspot, two more coming from farside, and no spot leaving within a day,
The surface is irradiated with a flux of 400 W/m2 intensity.
How do you know what the surface temperature in equilibrium with flux of 400 W/m2 intensity would be?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You get equilibrium temperatures when the amount of emitted radiation is the same as the amount of absorbed radiation.
If you know the amount of radiation absor*bed (in this case 400W/m^2) and you want to know the equilibrium temperature, calculate the temperature at which the surface emits the same amount of radiation as it absor*bs ( in this case 400W/m^2).
About 290 K for a perfect black body.
Thank you.
Why a perfect black body has its known, the perfect, the emitting frequencies curve ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A perfect black body at 290 K emits 400 W/m2 of energy.
Stefan and Boltzmann implied those 400 W/m2 of energy were heat.
They never said it backward. They never said 400 W/m2 incident on a black body would warm it to 290 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, what is being talked about is a “perfect” surface, “perfectly” insulated on its back. If the surfaced is irradiated with 400 W/m² long enough, it will then be emitting 400 W/m². The S/B equation then applies to that emission, resulting in a temperature of 290K.
Thank you, Clint.
So, a black body is “perfect”. What makes it to obey the equation
Jemit = σ* Τ^4 ΅/m2 ?
And why a perfect black body has its known, the perfect, for every T the respective emitting frequencies distribution curve ?
“If the surfaced is irradiated with 400 W/m2 long enough, it will then be emitting 400 W/m2. The S/B equation then applies to that emission, resulting in a temperature of 290K.”
“irradiated with 400 W/m2 long enough, it will then be emitting 400 W/m2.”
Irradiated at what frequencies ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, the S/B Law does not deal with frequencies, if I understand your question. The S/B Law provides the emitted flux from a surface, for a given temperature and emissivity. You may be referring to “Planck’s Law”, which provides the spectrum emitted by a surface, which varies with temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
“The S/B Law provides the emitted flux from a surface, for a given temperature and emissivity.”
Thank you, Clint.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Frost in South Africa.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/07/29/0500Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=20.81,-27.50,2189/loc=26.169,-29.976
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earths atmosphere is very thin.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is what we’ve been talking about.
The Earth’s surface and atmosphere absorb 240W/m^2 from the Sun. If this were the only input the surface would be at 255K and radiating 240W/m^2.
Instead the surface is at 288K and radiating 396W/m^2. To achieve this the surface must receive another 156W/m^2 from somewhere.
Of this 89W/m^2 comes from downward infra-red radiation due to water vapour and CO2. The remaining 67W/m^2 is reflected from the bottom of clouds or reradiated by other greenhouse gases.
The 33C difference between the 255K we might expect and the 288K we observe IS evidence for the greenhouse effect.
“The Earths surface and atmosphere absorb 240W/m^2 from the Sun. If this were the only input the surface would be at 255K and radiating 240W/m^2.”
In terms of averages, the ocean absorbs more per square meter [a bit more than 240 watts] and there is more of it, than land. And tropical ocean absorbs most of sunlight reaching the entire Earth’s surface.
ent…what the surface absorbs depends on the material making up the surface. For example, if you see green grass, it means the green part of the spectrum is not being absorbed. The absorp-tion is frequency dependent.
There are no provisions for frequency dependence in S-B other than emissivity. That covers only out-going radiation between 500C and 1500C, not incoming from the Sun.
If we say the UK is warmer due to Greenhouse effect. And we say warming regions which would otherwise be colder {like regions near the polar region and UK is near enough to polar regions] is a greenhouse effect.
Then the vast transparent tropical ocean surface area, is the largest greenhouse effect. And it warms the UK by a very significant amount.
Ent,
We all agree that radiant energy from the Sun is heating the surface. The entire spectrum is hitting the planet. We disagree on how much gets deflected or absorbed or how much of a black body the Earth is. But, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. Christos’ explanation is the simplest. And, no way is it possible that 0.4% of the atmosphere causes 60F of warming. Only a nutjob would think that.
Thank you, Ent.
“The Earth’s surface and atmosphere absorb 240W/m^2 from the Sun. If this were the only input the surface would be at 255K and radiating 240W/m^2.
Instead the surface is at 288K and radiating 396W/m^2. To achieve this the surface must receive another 156W/m^2 from somewhere.”
–
Earth’s surface doesn’t absorb 240 W/m^2 from the sun.
Earth’s average surface at 288K doesn’t radiating at 288K.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stephen, Christos
We may differ on the exact figures but we should agree on the fundamentals.
1) Energy, whether heat, kinetic energy, electromagnetic radiation or whatever can be converted from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed.
2) There are no perfect black bodies. In the real world matter absorbs slightly less than 100% of the radiation falling on it. Matter also emits slightly less thermal radiation than a perfect black body would.
This is allowed for in the SB equation by a term called emissivity which is derived from experiment and for most materials is about 0.95.
3) Under constant conditions matter such as Earth’s surface settles to a temperature at which the amount of incoming radiation absorbed by the surface is balanced by the same amount of outgoing thermal radiation.
Whatever theory you propose to explain Earth’s surface temperature must take account of these three principles.
For example, I regard Christof’s theory as wrong because it disagrees with 3). His theory has the surface absorbing about 112W/m^2 and radiating 396 W/m^2. A surface radiating more than three times as much radiation as it absorbs would be cooling rapidly. Instead we see a constant temperature.
Think of your bank balance. If you earned 112,000 lira a month and spent 396,000 lira your bank balance would shrink rapidly.
Thank you, Ent.
“His theory has the surface absorbing about 112W/m^2 and radiating 396 W/m^2.”
I never average over the entire planet surface, because it is not how the planet surface interacts with the incident solar flux.
But if you would like to see the averages:
No, not at all. My theory has the surface interacting on average surface with about 112W/m^2 and radiating the same 112W/m^2.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ent,
“2) There are no perfect black bodies. In the real world matter absorbs slightly less than 100% of the radiation falling on it. Matter also emits slightly less thermal radiation than a perfect black body would.
This is allowed for in the SB equation by a term called emissivity which is derived from experiment and for most materials is about 0.95.”
–
The S-B equation doesn’t say how radiation warms surface.
It is not correct to say that the emissivity is about 0,95 for most materials.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
If the surface is radiating 112W/m^2 its surface temperature would be below 255K, not the 288K we observe.
Google an emissivity table and you find, for example, that water has an emissivity of 0.95.
Thank you, Ent.
“If the surface is radiating 112W/m^2 its surface temperature would be below 255K, not the 288K we observe.
Google an emissivity table and you find, for example, that water has an emissivity of 0.95.”
–
I never average over the entire planet surface, because it is not how the planet surface interacts with the incident solar flux.
Please Google where it says a measured surface at 14C emits 396W/m^2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
bob d…a few days ago you posted…
“The equations to calculate the two kinds of angular momentum are in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
There is spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum”.
***
1)beware of wiki definitions, any ijit can post there.
2)what does ‘angular’ in angular momentum mean? They claim that angular momentum is an analog of rectilinear momentum, which is fair, but we must always remember that momentum is mass x velocity. Since velocity is a vector, it must have a linear direction. Any vector that is represented by a curved path is called a pseudo-vector, since it’s not really a vector but acts as a force might if it could act along a curve.
Momentum is caused by a force acting on a mass. I know of no force that can act along a curve unless it is driven by a radial arm turning in a circle whose circumference arc coincides with that curve temporarily.
To answer the question above, the angular in angular momentum is a reference to a radial arm, or a radius, moving about an axis. The angular reference an angle formed between the radial arm and the x- or y-axis for 2-D motion. Therefore angular momentum cannot exist without a radial arm turning about an axis.
The Moon has no radial arm and is fully dependent on its own linear motion for its momentum, meaning linear momentum. At no time can the Moon act by itself along a curve. It is dependent on Earth’s gravitational vector to move it instant by instant along a curved line.
Gordon,
I used Wikipedia because it agrees with my physics textbook, do you have one you could refer to?
“I know of no force that can act along a curve unless it is driven by a radial arm turning in a circle whose circumference arc coincides with that curve temporarily.”
Try the force of gravity.
Then try looking up the equations for angular momentum, they are not the same as momentum which is mass times the velocity vector.
Try angular momentum as the cross product of two vectors.
bob…trouble posting, see my reply somewhere below on the 29th. I posted it around 1:15 am PT.
Gordon,
“Momentum is caused by a force acting on a mass.”
No, it is not
.
Acceleration is caused by a force acting on a mass.
Go to your local community college and take a class in physics.
And try passing it this time.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
GR: “There are no provisions for frequency dependence in S-B other than emissivity.” Correct.
GR: “That covers only out-going radiation between 500C and 1500C, not incoming from the Sun.” Huh?
This is a strange statement.
S-B is simply the result of integrating the Planck function over all frequencies. Why would the integral break down at frequencies below that corresponding to 500C?
Are you suggesting some problem with the Planck function?
If so, please enlighten us. The whole physics world is waiting with bated breath.
Please explain how come bright chrome radiators (with very high emissivity) only have a small difference when compared to painted ones (with low emissivity). S-B offers no clues as to that.
Oops. For low read high and vice versa.
It would different in a vacuum.
On Mars you need to paint your radiators black.
Very important, and generally, hard to cool anything- even if painted black.
So, you want lakes on Mars.
Cargo cult is obsessed with Mars, they just don’t know it.
RLH,
“Please explain how come bright chrome radiators (with very low emissivity) only have a small difference when compared to painted ones (with high emissivity). S-B offers no clues as to that.”
Bright chrome radiators have a surface covered with large atoms of chrom. There are much less atoms at the surface compared to the painted ones.
The more atoms at the surface – the higher the surface’s emissivity.
Plank function and S-B do not deal with real matter. They reffer to the hypothetical perfect black body.
The real world consists from matter.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The more atoms at the surface the higher the surfaces emissivity.”
Huh??
Where from, Christos?
professor,
“S-B is simply the result of integrating the Planck function over all frequencies. Why would the integral break down at frequencies below that corresponding to 500C?”
The Planck function is built on a perfect black body assumption.
The real matter doesn’t posses the means to follow the theory when warmed at lower temperatures.
There are not the necessary amounts of energy in the real bodies at lower temperatures to emit.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…Planck was trying to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe produced by I = hf. That is, the intensity of radiation is proportional to its frequency. That makes sense since higher frequency, shorter wavelength, radiation has a higher intensity than lower frequency, longer wavelength radiation. It does not make sense that radiation intensity will get stronger with frequency till infinity is reached.
I = hf goes to infinity as f goes to infinity, a condition deemed a catastrophe. That relationship contradicts the known spectrum of EM radiation which has a bell-shape to it.
To solve the problem, Planck treated each radiation frequency as a tiny oscillator and tried to apply the appropriate mathematical function to it. He presumed each frequency has a discrete energy. The only way he could make it work was by curve fitting and adding an exponential function that would reduce the radiation in intensity for higher frequencies like UV. In essence, he fudged the math to get the desired bell-shape.
Later, when the electron was discovered, Planck claimed it would have made his life much easier had he known about the electron. It is the electron and its properties described by Bohr, that creates radiation and gives it unique frequency properties.
Why people claim that S-B is derived from this is not clear. It was derived separately based on an experiment by Tyndall.
test
One of the biggest fallacies in the GHE nonsense is that all fluxes are always absorbed. This fallacy is very, very important to the cult, because it allows CO2 to warm Earth’s surface. That is why you see so much effort from the cult to continue to support it.
Recently, a problem was posed:
Importantly, only one of the Warmists frequenting this site even attempted to answer. The one that did answer only got Problem 1a correct. Everyone of the Warmists should have been able to correctly answer Problem 1a. It is nothing more that a simple physics problem that their own cult uses. Only the numbers were changed to protect the innocent….
My point is, the Warmists do not even know their own cult’s propaganda.
Here is the correct solution to both 1a and 1b:
With only one source, 500 W/m² arrives at the sphere’s “disk”. Since the sphere begins at the temperature of deep space, all of the flux would be absorbed, and the sphere would warm to its final temperature, where it is emitting 125 W/m², at a temperature of 217K.
With a second source added, all 500 W/m² would again be absorbed, resulting in the sphere emitting 250 W/m², at a temperature of 258K.
With three sources, the sphere would be emitting 375 W/m², at a temperature of 285K.
With all four sources, the sphere would be emitting 500 W/m², at a temperature of 306K.
So the correct answer to Problem 1a is, “306K”.
At this point, all cultists need to ask themselves why they couldn’t answer the simple physics problem correctly. Gordon and bobdroege could only hurl their cult nonsense.
Now Problem 1b gets interesting. Two more sources, each supplying 500 W/m² to polar disks are added. But, the sphere is already emitting 500 W/m². So the additional flux would have no effect. That would be analogous to bringing two objects at the same temperature together, and expecting the temperature to increase. It doesn’t happen.
So the answer to Problem 1b is, “306K”.
Radiative fluxes do not simply add, just as temperatures do not simply add. If radiative fluxes simply added, as the cult believes, you could boil water with ice cubes.
The cult doesn’t understand radiative physics, or thermodynamics, or their own cult nonsense.
Clint R
So you could not keep from derogatory remarks and just stick to providing evidence for your claims. Sad.
Adding energy is not the same as adding two objects at the same temperature and not changing the temperature. I think numerous posters clearly explain to you that indeed you are adding energy to the system with two objects but you are also increasing the mass of the system. The energy does indeed go up (if you just calculated the total joules). But temperature is not just joules, it is average kinetic energy and K.E.= 1/2 MV^2. If you double the mass and double the energy your temperature will remain the same. You have never grasped that when you add both mass and energy you don’t have to increase temperature. If you add only energy keeping the mass the same the temperature will go up.
You use very bad logic and understanding to convince yourself your ideas are correct. You are not willing or able to challenge your own ideas and see the glaring flaws to your poorly developed logic. It won’t stop the endless points you make.
I have explained the ice cubes to you many many times but your brain processer is not logically wired to be able to understand the points. So in your childish ignorance, rather than see you are the one that is cult minded, illogical and unscientific, you go on the aggressive attack and go after any and all who tell you how poorly developed your ideas are.
Also it won’t really matter if you read any of this post. I know you are not going to change and see how poor your ideas are. I am hoping to help the other posters, that may not yet know your tactics, see that you are just an arrogant loud mouth who has no science background. That is why you will never support your ideas except with your poor logic and limited thinking ability.
norman…”But temperature is not just joules, it is average kinetic energy and K.E.= 1/2 MV^2″.
***
Temperature is a human invention to quantize relative heat levels. It is heat that is related to KE, and the joule is an equivalent heat level not a true heat level.
The scientist Joule discovered circa 1840, that he could raise the temperature of water by agitating it mechanically with a paddle turned in the water. By calculating the number of joule of mechanical energy to drive the paddle and noting the temperature rise in the water, he calculated an equivalent number of joules required to raise the water temperature in degrees C.
There is no one to one relationship between the joule and the calorie, the true measure of temperature related to a heat change. The calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 CC of water by 1C at 15C ambient temperature. The joule is defined as a unit of mechanical work.
Joule was adding no heat to the water with the paddle since a paddle has no heat to supply. Presumably, the paddle and the water are allowed to reach thermal equilibrium before the paddling action begins. After that, any heat produced is the result of the paddle breaking the weak hydrogen bonds that hold water molecules together as a liquid. Ergo, the heat comes from the water molecules themselves.
Stating temperature as average KE is essentially meaningless. The kinetic in KE means ‘in motion’. The question is, what kind of energy is in motion? Would you use temperature to measure mechanical energy, electrical energy, or gravitational energy? Hopefully not. The kind of energy measured by temperature is thermal energy, otherwise known as heat.
Therefore, heat is the kinetic energy in question and temperature is a human invention designed to quantify it.
Clint,
You need about 1100 watts/square meter to boil water, you can’t get that from a big block of ice.
I did your problem correctly, but I didn’t get the same answer as you did for part 1b.
But it must be higher than 306 because more energy is added, you don’t specify the temperature of the sources provided.
By the way I got 339 for 1b
Call me when you get your certificate to teach physics.
“Now Problem 1b gets interesting. Two more sources, each supplying 500 W/m to polar disks are added. But, the sphere is already emitting 500 W/m. So the additional flux would have no effect.”
You don’t understand radiative equilibrium. If additional sources provide more power, the sphere would absorb more energy and increase its temperature until it reaches an equilibrium where the power emitted equals the power absorbed.
Clint says: “One of the biggest fallacies in the GHE nonsense is that all fluxes are always absorbed. ”
You defined your surface to have emissivity = 1. By definition this absorbs all incoming light, ie all fluxes. So which is it?
* at all temperatures, emissivity = 1 and all flux is absorbed?
* above 306 K and/or above 500 W/m^2, some flux is not absorbed, and emissivity drops below 1?
“With only one source, 500 W/m arrives at the spheres “disk”.”
This is an odd way to describe a source and a sphere. It seems you mean a uniform beam of light with an intensity of 500 W/m^2. For example, the object could farther from the sun where the solar flux is 500 W/m^2. Then the flux arriving at the surface varies from 500 W/m^2 at the point facing the sun, down to 0 W/m^2 at the edge of the front hemisphere.
The average absorbed flux over the surface is indeed 125 W/m^2, so the emitted flux will be 125 W/m^2 and the temperature will be 217 K.
“With all four sources, the sphere would be emitting 500 W/m, at a temperature of 306K.”
So we add 3 more similar suns (or reflect sunlight from 3 other directions). We now have an average of 500 W/m^2 over the sphere (0 W/m^2 at the poles and up to about 700 W/m^2 at other locations). Temperature = 306 K
“So the additional flux would have no effect.”
Why? If two more suns are placed around the object, the object will get hotter. Heck, there could be 1000 suns around the object and the surface would be over 1200 K.
Are you really trying to tell us that 1000 suns around the object would not warm the object above 306 K?
“That would be analogous to bringing two objects at the same temperature together, and expecting the temperature to increase.”
No, it is only analogous IF THE SOURCES WERE ACTUALLY AT 306 K emitting 500 W/m^2. But of course, in that case the max temperature would be 306 K. If the sources are as hot as the sun, the sphere could get as hot as the sun.
The cult kids are still trying to boil water with ice cubes. They don’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
And, they can’t learn….
Clint is still confusing emitted flux and arriving flux, and projecting his confusion on to others.
No one thinks that 10 EMITTED fluxes of 315 W/m^2 from 0 C ice can be combined to create a 3150 W/m^2 ARRIVING flux to boil water.
He still can’t listen or learn.
Folkerts, how easily you forget.
You claimed that two 315 W/m² fluxes arriving the same surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m².
Are you now backing away from your fraudulent claim?
Clint, how easily you misunderstand! Repeat after me:
“Just because a 315 W/m^2 flux LEAVES a radiating surface does NOT mean that a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVES at an absorbing surface. These are two different concepts.”
It is INCORRECT that multiple EMITTED fluxes of 315 W/m^2 radiating from 0 C ice can be combined to create a 630+ W/m^2 ARRIVING flux to boil water.
It is CORRECT that multiple ARRIVING fluxes of 315 W/m^2 (for example, from the sun or from an IR heater) can be combined to create a 630+ W/m^2 ARRIVING flux to boil water.
The statement “You claimed that two 315 W/m fluxes arriving the same surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m” is completely correct. You only think it is wrong because you are thinking about 315 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING ice, not 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at a surface.
Tim Folkerts
Since you have quite the knowledge of physics I commend your attempt to educate Clint R and Gordon Robertson. You will find you cannot educate them. You will also find they cannot understand simple concepts even when you explain it to them dozens of times. Clint R has brought up adding energy does not raise temperature but he is adding both mass and energy. It has been explained to him numerous times how adding mass and energy to a system is NOT analogous to just adding energy without changing the mass. It does not click in his mind. He is not able to comprehend these simple and basic ideas. Gordon is of the same cloth. One can show his posts to be wrong over and over. He ignores the evidence and just keeps posting his own beliefs (with no supporting evidence) as if he had this expert knowledge. I am glad you post and try to correct the nonsense on this blog but it seems a hopeless task.
Sorry Norman, but mass cannot raise temperature. It requires the “right kind” of energy to raise temperature.
Folkerts does know a little more physics than you. But, that’s not saying much. At least he was able correctly solve Problem 1a. You were afraid to even try….
Aren’t you a little worried that he can’t support his nonsense that two 315 W/m² fluxes arriving the same surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m²? It’s almost like he’s just making up crap, huh?
Norman,
This is exactly why Ive been advocating for stricter moderation. These individuals are exploiting the lenient rules here. If you notice, Clint and Gordon dont participate in other forums. Even other contrarian blogs like Joe Postma’s, WUWT, or Climate Etc wouldnt tolerate their behavior.
We all appreciate the efforts you and Tim Folkerts have made, but without a fundamental change in our moderation policies, their disruptive behavior will continue. Even if they get banned, theyll return under different usernames.
Im willing to bet that Swen*son will be back soon. Hes just waiting for Roy to let his guard down.
JW, here you go again, full of vitriol and hatred.
And, as usual, you have no interest In science or reality.
At least you’re consistent….
Clint, Arent you a little worried that you cant support your nonsense that a 315 W/m^2 flux arriving at a surface must have come from a 273 K sheet of ice?
Clint,
In 1a, the north and south poles receive 0 watts/square meter.
Then you shine another light on them, the temperature has to increase.
You just didn’t think your problem all the way through.
Same old, same old.
That’s why I like simple problems like that, bob. You can’t solve them and have to copy from Folkerts, who at least got Problem 1a correct.
Clint,
I did the problem, but didn’t post, because I know a lose lose bet when I see one.
And as we found out, you didn’t do the problem correctly, just as I thought.
And you can illuminate the same square meter of a blackbody with two different spotlights.
And you can add the fluxes, especially if you know some maths, or how to use a lightmeter.
Well if you’re so convinced fluxes simply add bob, why don’t you help Folkerts find a viable technical reference supporting such crap?
Clint,
Get a Grip to show you.
I mean a guy or girl on a movie set responsible for lighting.
Or get a lightmeter and a couple of flashlights.
Do an experiment, you don’t need a technical reference.
“Well if youre so convinced fluxes simply add bob”
I never said that fluxes simply add, you have to use trigonometry to determine the flux normal to the surface, and then you can add the fluxes.
Once again, bob reveals he doesn’t understand ANY of this. Now, he’s believing more reflection somehow mean more absorp.tion???
He’s just throwing more crap against the wall because he has NO viable technical reference to support Folkerts’ Fraud.
What will he try next?
Clint R,
Last time I was part of a back stage crew for a public performance, and it happened to be West Side Story.
The stage was painted black, so there is no reflection of spotlights when they hit the stage floor.
Try to pay attention.
bob continues to exhibit his ignorance of the physics.
A floor painted black meant they did not reflection from it.
What will he try next?
“why dont you help Folkerts find a viable technical reference”
Ah! The old “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
‘Yes, I know you have presented many technical references in the past, and I know I could google many more, but they don’t support my position, so they clearly are not viable technical references.’
Clint,
How many spotlights can you focus on a single one square meter on the floor?
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
Except your trend of +0.014C per year is not for the surface.
Elon Musk Shares The Odds Of Starship Flight 5 Being Successful In Late August Or Early September
Ramish Zafar Jul 28, 2024
https://wccftech.com/elon-musk-shares-the-odds-of-starship-flight-5-being-successful-in-late-august-or-early-september/
Hmm, late August, Sept, in Musk time.
I thought it would be sooner. Is waiting for FAA, worth it?
I think it would go faster, to just repeat the last test flight.
I think it would also be faster, putting legs on first stage and try and land it a barge {and not an expensive barge].
But I would guess it’s likely just getting the first stage close enough AND with enough confidence that you can go for tower catch is not likely.
Or you wait for FAA and you end up, not getting the first near the tower.
Related:
FAA releases proposed environmental assessment of Boca Chica permitting more Starship/Superheavy launches
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/faa-releases-proposed-environmental-assessment-of-boca-chica-permitting-more-starship-superheavy-launches/
“In advance of several planned public meetings, the FAA today released [pdf] its proposed environmental assessment of SpaceXs proposal to increase the number of orbital launches allowed per year from Boca Chica from 5 to 25.
The report makes for some fascinating reading. First and foremost it indicates the FAAs general approval of this new launch cadence. ”
Hmm. Bureaucracies, tend to give general approval- it’s a trap!
In other news:
Senate spending bill pushes back on proposed NASA mission cuts
Jeff Foust July 28, 2024
https://spacenews.com/senate-spending-bill-pushes-back-on-proposed-nasa-mission-cuts/
–WASHINGTON A Senate appropriations bill closely follows the administrations request for NASA in fiscal year 2025 but with provisions about several missions the agency is seeking to cancel or curtail.
The Senate Appropriations Committee released the commerce, justice and science (CJS) appropriations bill and report July 26, one day after the full committee favorably reported it on a 263 vote. The bill offers $25.434 billion for NASA, $50 million above the administrations request. A House bill, by contrast, cut $205 million from the request. —
bob…as I pointed out before, my EE255 textbook, claims current flows positive to negative. What they don’t tell you is this…the basis of their current flow is an imagined positive test charge dreamed up by some ijit in the 1920s. It has since been well-established that electrons are the only charge carriers in a circuit and that electrons and their charges flow negative to positive.
Therefore, it is no surprise that your textbook offers an incorrect definition of angular momentum. There are far too many theorists coming out of the weeds these days and trying to rewrite long-established science.
Another example is the definition of curvilinear translation found in many texts. They define it as some ijiotic result of a silly condition. Newton had no problem inferring it as the motion along a curve when he claimed the Moon has only linear motion and that the linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity. Why modern texts have so much trouble with this simple concept is puzzling.
It’s plain simple…curvilinear motion is rectilinear motion along a curved path. Why have so many modern text books messed up such a simple definition?
Momentum is momentum, whether it acts along a straight line or a curve. Newton defined the property of a body that resists a change in its position from rest, or resists a change in velocity of mass in motion, as inertia. Somewhere along the line, the latter was redefined as momentum. Therefore momentum is inertia as applied to a mass in motion.
The velocity vector associated with momentum for a rigid body in motion can only act in a straight line. For a free standing rigid body like the Moon, there is no velocity vector acting other than in a straight line. There is no such thing as a curved velocity vector that can act in the direction of a curve.
The only way momentum can act along a curve is if the mass in question is attached to an axis and rotating about that axis. In that situation, the mass is constrained to move along a curved path. Looking at the problem more closely, one must ask where is the force that produced the angular momentum in the first place? Maybe it was someone’s hand turning a wheel, or maybe it was a motor turning the axle to which the radial arm is attached.
The point is, once the force is removed, or the motor torque, the body will continue to rotate and that is angular momentum. At least, the body will continue to rotate until resistance saps its momentum. That is, a force creates momentum and force stops it.
If the Earth’s gravity was cut, the Moon would fly off on a straight tangent line to its orbit, it would not continue to orbit since it has no momentum in the orbital direction. That’s because there is no force other than gravity acting on the Moon. Whatever force crated it current momentum is long gone, and as such, the Moon will continue to move in straight line until an opposing force acts to decrease its momentum or an aiding force increases it.
The motion is represented by a radial vector and it is measured by the rate of change of the angle between the vector and the x-axis. It could be measured using Cartesian coordinates but polar coordinates are much more convenient, hence the radial line. In EE, we call such a rotating vector a phasor.
You have to be careful applying cross-products since the result of A x B is usually pseudo-vector. That is, it is defined as a vector but normally has no existence. That means, angular momentum based on the cross-product is imaginary as well. There is no vector acting orthogonal to a plane representing the crossed vectors, which are in a plane.
To illustrate that, consider what I claimed before. If you use Cartesian coordinates rather than radial vectors, it becomes apparent that no vector can operate as a curved entity. The vector must always have a direction and a curve is not a definite direction, rather, it is the sum of linear vectors.
There are real applications of cross products. For example, if you have a conductor, with a vector representing its orthogonal motion through a magnetic field, and a magnetic field with a definite directional vector, when you cross them, you get an electric current vector moving in the direction of the cross-product of the magnetic and conductor vectors (right-hand or left-hand rule).
I other words, if you move a conductor through a magnetic field at right angles to the field, an electric current is induced in the conductor. You can use the cross-product to determine the direction of the induced current but you’d better be careful as to whether you are referencing real current flow or conventional current flow.
That is actually the only real application I can think of at the moment.
I stand by what I said, a vector can only ever act in a linear direction. If you want to apply linear vectors representing the velocities along a curve, you must apply each vector at any one instant.
ps. I came across a silly example of cross-product. They claimed a screw being turned into a piece of wood is an example of the cross-product. They are inferring a force into the wood produced by a rotating ratchet nut-driver lever.
That’s almost too silly to comment on. The screw is driven into the wood by threads on the screw that are angled so as bite into the wood. The screw being driven into the wood has little to do with the angular motion of the ratchet per see. The penetrating force is produced by the threads and their angle to the wood and the ratchet torque is required largely to overcome the resistance between thread and wood.
There is no force directing the screw into the wood other than a torque applied to the slanted face of the threads. If there were no threads, no force would be directed into the wood as is witnessed by a well-worn drill-bit which is happy to spin on the spot creating a lot of smoke. That’s particularly true for harder metal. In that case, the cross-product would be zero in all cases even though the crossed vector(s) were real and had magnitude.
Gordon,
Stop wasting your time and stop wasting my time.
That is, if you don’t mind being constantly wrong.
So many misunderstandings!
“the basis of their current flow is an imagined positive test charge”
No, it is based on the general definition of current.
* If a tank contains some water and later has less water (eg +10 gal down to +2 gal), then the current is AWAY from the tank.
* If an object contains a charge and later has less charge (eg +10 mC down to +2 mC), then the current is AWAY from the tank.
The fact that the current is physically negative changes moving toward the object doesn’t change the direction of the current.
“Newton had no problem inferring it as the motion along a curve when he claimed the Moon has only linear motion and that the linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion by Earths gravity.”
If the linear motion is ‘converted to curvilinear motion’, then isn’t the motion curvilinear, not linear?
“That is, it is defined as a vector but normally has no existence.”
Pseudo vectors simply behave differently than “polar vectors” under certain transformations.
“curvilinear motion is rectilinear motion along a curved path.”
Both a ferris wheel car and a rollercoaster car going around a loop fit your vague definition. Which one is “curvilinear lotion” in your understanding?
“Newton defined the property of a body that resists a change in its position from rest, or resists a change in velocity … Therefore momentum is inertia”
The concept in the first sentence is MASS!
Mass and mometum are not the same thing!
That is more than enough for now.
christos…”Bright chrome radiators have a surface covered with large atoms of chrom. There are much less atoms at the surface compared to the painted ones.
The more atoms at the surface the higher the surfaces emissivity”.
***
Good explanation. I presume it is the same for shiny surfaces which are created by polishing. Therefore, emissivity should be related to atomic structure and the number of electrons available in the orbits of those atoms.
There is little difference between aluminum, stainless steel and chrome in emissivity (ala S-B law).
prof p…”GR: That covers only out-going radiation between 500C and 1500C, not incoming from the Sun. Huh?
This is a strange statement”.
***
It’s a science myth that S-B was developed from Planck. S-B was derived independently by Stefan, before Planck put out his equation.
Personally, I don’t think Planck and S-B have much in common. Stefan derived the initial S-B from Tyndall’s experiment in which he electrically heated a platinum filament till it glowed different colours. The T^4 relationship is defined based on the ratio of the temperatures to the wavelengths of the colours.
Planck’s equation was derived using a different approach. In fact, he fudged the equation using curve fitting and guesses. S-B is based on a real experiment and its data, but in a restricted temperature range between about 500C and 1500C.
“S-B is based on a real experiment and its data, but in a restricted temperature range between about 500C and 1500C.”
Indeed, but measurements didnt stop in 1880. Over the next 140 y lots more experimental data over a wide range of T has been obtained, and agreed with the SB law.
As we can see in these graphs.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Oh well!
” the surface is at 288K and radiating 396W/m^2.”
–
Please, Nate, what measured data ?
Water at 14C does not emit 396W/m^2 !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How much does it emit then?
Make sure you provide a citation.
Antonin,
“How much does it emit then?
Make sure you provide a citation.”
–
Please Google where it says a measured surface at 14C emits 396W/m^2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Go here.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/ave_check.php
Select downwelling solar, downwelling infrared and upwelling infrared radiation for Table Mountain , Colorado.
In January 2024 you get 100W/m^2 downwelling solar and 300W/m^2 upwelling infrared . In June you get 300 downwelling and 450 upwelling.
The figures are way higher than your prediction and very unbalanced. To make them balance you need considerably more incoming energy to give balance.
The downwelling infrared fills the gap. Indeed there is enough extra incoming energy to account for convection and evapotranspiration.
“The radiation energy per unit time from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and can be expressed with Stefan-Boltzmann Law”
But black painted hot water radiators and shiny chrome radiators have massive differences in the radiation they emit, but little difference in temperature transfer or convection between the water and the air. See numerous examples.
“Please, Nate, what measured data ?
Water at 14C does not emit 396W/m^2 !!!”
The SB predicts 384 W/m2 for a black body. You do understand that emissivity matters?
For water it is high ~ 0.95.
So indeed ocean will emit 95% of 384 W/m2
In fact it is used to measure the sea surface temperature!
Its a Gordon myth that science stops once the first person makes a measurement or derives a result.
Today’s science stops when it’s not science. But to advance an agenda. Today’s Climate Science and Darwinian Evolution are the glaring examples. A functional protein would not self-assemble in a trillion years, much less 500 million, much less ever. And, 0.4% of the atmosphere will not cause 60F temperature rise. Both are used by the left to advance their agenda and so called scientists have sold their souls and objectivity.
Thank you, Ent.
“Go here.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/ave_check.php
Select downwelling solar, downwelling infrared and upwelling infrared radiation for Table Mountain , Colorado.
In January 2024 you get 100W/m^2 downwelling solar and 300W/m^2 upwelling infrared . In June you get 300 downwelling and 450 upwelling.
The figures are way higher than your prediction and very unbalanced. To make them balance you need considerably more incoming energy to give balance.
The downwelling infrared fills the gap. Indeed there is enough extra incoming energy to account for convection and evapotranspiration.”
The example is about solar EM energy interaction with surface’s matter.
It is not about the S-B emission law confirmation at 14C emitting 396W/m^2.
You should have a surface at 14C (288K) EMITTING 396W/m^2 in the absence of solar radiation, maybe at night time.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, RLH.
“The radiation energy per unit time from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and can be expressed with Stefan-Boltzmann Law”
But black painted hot water radiators and shiny chrome radiators have massive differences in the radiation they emit, but little difference in temperature transfer or convection between the water and the air. See numerous examples.”
–
Of course.
“black painted hot water radiators and shiny chrome radiators have massive differences in the radiation they emit”
And they have massive differencies, because they are not abstract black bodies.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes.
At night the surface continues to radiate, but the downwelling infrared is less intense than the upwelling infrared and so the surface cools.
Stephen
Nevertheless you are made up of functioning proteins.
Where do you think they came from?
Before you say “God” consider that she is also a functioning object. All you have done is moved the problem back a step. You then have to explain where your God came from.
Ent,
Random assembly doesn’t work. The Universe tends to a higher state of entropy. Everything has a cause. At some point we have to start with a Causeless.
More possible combinations of molecular structures means more entropy.
Which the universe likes, which means the universe favors life.
Nate,
“The more atoms at the surface the higher the surfaces emissivity.
Huh??
Where from, Christos?”
–
Please read what Gordon says:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680528
Don’t read what Gordon says. He’s a crackpot, and so are you, a wannabe famous scientist.
john…when you start backing your ad homs with science, maybe people will listen to you.
Heat absorbed by the surface is immediately emitted into the atmosphere and converted into kinetic energy of gas molecules. The best example is the production of ozone in the upper stratosphere. UV energy with a wavelength shorter than 242 nm is converted into kinetic energy of atmospheric particles, and this applies to both nitrogen and oxygen. An oxygen molecule is split (photolyzed) by higher frequency UV light (top end of UV-B, UV-C and above) into two oxygen zone creation:
O + O2 + A → O3 + A
where A denotes an additional molecule or atom, such as N2 or O2, required to maintain the conservation of energy and momentum in the reaction. Any excess energy is produced as kinetic energy.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Nullschool indicates the PV is squeezed between two high pressure systems. That could make for some good blocking!
And ENSO 3.4 is finally plunging out of the zone it’s been in for weeks. Still not a legal La Niña yet, but it’s trying.
That’s right.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Immediately? So surfaces NEVER warm in the sun?
— Ireneusz Palmowski says:
July 29, 2024 at 7:01 AM
Heat absorbed by the surface is immediately emitted into the atmosphere and converted into kinetic energy of gas molecules. The best example is the production of ozone in the upper stratosphere. UV energy with a wavelength shorter than 242 nm is converted into kinetic energy of atmospheric particles, and this applies to both nitrogen and oxygen.–
“Surface science is the study of physical and chemical phenomena that occur at the interface of two phases, including solid-liquid, solid-gas, liquid-gas, and solid-vacuum interfaces. It includes the fields of surface chemistry and surface physics. The science and technology of interacting surfaces in relative motion is known as tribology. Some related practical applications are grouped together as surface engineering. ”
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Surface_science
–What is an example of a surface in science?
In the physical sciences
For example, a surface may be the idealized limit between two fluids, liquid and gas (the surface of the sea in air) or the idealized boundary of a solid (the surface of a ball). In fluid dynamics, the shape of a free surface may be defined by surface tension.–
I will use in Sentence: the ocean surface warms Earth’s atmosphere
The ocean surface is transparent to sunlight, below 2 meters in depth, but large amount is absorbed in the top 1 meter, and most of sunlight is absorbed in the top 2 meters of the ocean surface.
The ocean can’t be understood, unless one takes into account the effect of ocean waves.
Which reminds me, in the open ocean, ocean waves can be very big.
And think humans could break these larger ocean wave, and thereby they can have ocean settlements.
Of course this can’t have a high cost, or has to be as cheap as possible.
ren…most of the surface heat is transferred directly by conduction. Radiation affects only a tiny amount of the atmosphere whereas conduction affects all air molecules.
There are something like 10*27 air molecules per m^2 and each one can absorb heat directly from the surface.
Frost in South Africa.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/07/29/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-337.72,-22.25,1521/loc=28.222,-29.572
Clint R wrote:
“The cult kids are still trying to boil water with ice cubes. They dont understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
And, they cant learn.”
In other words, he’s got NOTHING.
JW, as with most stalkers, your lack of integrity goes well with your lack of originality.
But keep stalking me. It makes Nate jealous….
What do you mean by nothing? Are you part of the brain-damaged alarmist cult who believes that the alleged 315 watts/m^2 generated by ice can boil water?
If ice generated that much heat we could go to the ice rink to warm up. Electrically-heated flooring ranges from 100 w/m^2 to 200 w/m^2. Heck, according to S-B, ice generates almost twice the heat, and for free.
It’s been cool in last couple days, here in the hottest region of the world, but was pretty warm for couple weeks. I had to use the air conditioner, even at night. But now, the nights pretty cool {but nowhere near cold enough to kill my little lemon tree. That never happens during the summer, here, as far as I know. Whereas when get near winter, it can be a problem.
In addition to being hottest region in the world, Lancaster, Ca, is better place for solar panels. The weather forecast was saying it was going have days of clouds, but it’s been cloudless, so far. So today it’s suppose to be cloudy, all I see is cloudless sky. And I checked radar maps and whole region [southern California] has been cloudless, but there was a large path of clouds a week or so, about 50 miles away from me- it didn’t last long, but there were some clouds somewhat close.
So, tonite is forecasted to be 66 F [19 C], and will get slightly colder tomorrow, suppose to warm up a bit next week. Anyhow suppose to cloudy today [as last several days] but it is a clear sky. And radar shows clear, all within 200 miles as clear {within 6 hours}.
The next state over, has clouds and it seems going to have a lot rain Arizona].
Anyways I was wondering how much they claim one gets from solar panels, specifically, fixed panels. And got this:
“Lancaster Solar Power Information & Peak Sun Hours:
Lattitude: 34.6934
Sunlight
Fixed Tilt Sunlight Hours: 5.8 hours per day
1-Axis Tilt Sunlight Hours: 7.5 hours per day
2-Axis Tilt Sunlight Hours: 8.8 hours per day
https://www.turbinegenerator.org/solar/california/lancaster/
And then look at town in northern California, Alturas:
Lattitude: 39.234
Sunlight
Fixed Tilt Sunlight Hours: 5.1 hours per day
1-Axis Tilt Sunlight Hours: 6.8 hours per day
2-Axis Tilt Sunlight Hours: 8.5 hours per day
And they say:
“The amount of hours from sunrise to sunset is equal to the total sunlight hours in a 24 hour period. Similarly, peak sun hours are the amount of total sunlight hours in a 24 hour period that are strong enough to provide power from being captured by a solar panel. Not every hour of sunlight delivers the same amount of energy resources. The sunlight at sunrise does not provide as many resources as the amount of sunlight mid-day. Thus, looking at the average peak sunlight hours for Rough and Ready is valuable for calculating your solar needs.
Knowing the latitude of Rough and Ready will help estimate average peak sun hours for your area. The latitude is used to accurately estimate the time of sunrise and sunset, thus giving you the total hours of daylight each day. Once you know the total hours of daylight, you can estimate the amount of peak sun hours based on a number of variables such as weather, time of year, the angle of the solar panel.”
I not particularly interested in there calculations of “variables such as weather” and in terms of practical matters, everyone uses fixed tilt {and with residential use, they tend to put them at wrong angle and direction in regards to the path in the sun- it’s comical.
But I thought I have significantly more peak solar hour, here, though wasn’t expecting much difference with a town in the north, Alturas, CA. Whereas there would be huge difference in Canada or UK, etc.
Must be a West Coast thing. It started raining Sunday night (Vancouver, Canada) and it’s still going Monday night. Current temp is 17C.
I guess they’d call this an atmospheric stream in the alarmist vernacular. It’s pretty pawthetic when they have to dream up rivers in the sky to illustrate their sci-fi climate alarm.
nate referenced this link as proof that the S-B equation extends beyond the 500C to 1500C range…
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The article starts badly by claiming …”Heat transfer due to emission of electromagnetic waves is known as thermal radiation”.
Heat is never transferred by radiation, nor can heat be radiated, and referring to such radiation as thermal radiation is wrong. That reference is an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century when it was believed that heat flowed through space as heat rays.
Bohr discovered the real relationship between heat and radiation and it parallels the claims of Newton as expressed in his Law of Cooling. That is, the rate of heat transfer is dependent on the temperature differential between a surface and its surroundings.
S-B does not begin to address this problem since it is simply a relationship between a surface temperature and the intensity of radiation it emits in a certain temperatue range. Ergo, S-B has nothing to do with heat or heat transfer, yet in the article they claim…
“If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as…
q = e.sigma.(T^4hot – T^4 cold).Ahot
Note how they have conveniently substituted heat for radiation, as if they are one and the same.
That is plainly a simple manipulation of the S-B equation and contradicts Newtons Law of Cooling….
T(t) = Tenv + (Tsur – Tenv) . e^-kt
T(t) = surface temp at time, t.
Tsur = initial surface temperature
Tenv = environment temperature
e = natural log function
k = constant
From the above, one should be able to calculate the approximate time required for a cup of coffee at Tsur should take to cool given an ambient temperature of Tenv, provided k is known.
It’s obvious that Newton’s law is a time-based function with an exponential component, whereas the S-B derivation is a simple transformation and extrapolation of the original S-B equation.
There are problems with the transformation, however. S-B was never intended to give the rate of cooling, it is a simple observation of the EM wavelengths given off from a heated body in the range 500C to 1500C. Therefore, it is ingenuous to add ad hoc values to it regarding the temperature of the environment.
It bothers me when people claim that Newton can be derived from S-B, when Newton issued his equation some 200 years before S-B was derived. That’s the same thing as claiming S-B can be derived from the Planck function when S-B preceded Planck and was based on experiment whereas Planck is based on curve fitting and fudging to arrive at a theoretical equation.
You can derive anything from anything with a vivid imagination and biased thinking.
S-B, on the other hand, is a radiation law and has nothing to do with heat. Bohr proved that heat is immediately dissipated as radiation is emitted. Therefore, the heat is lost and cannot be transferred. Any heat produced by the absorp-tion of that radiation is new heat and has nothing to do with the original heat.
That may sound like splitting hairs but it is a fact. Once we begin thinking in terms of heat changing places due to radiation we become ensconced in pseudo-science. Yet that is exactly hat is being claimed by those who refer to radiation as thermal radiation. They are dating themselves and their thoughts back to the mid-19th century.
ent…”Stephen
Nevertheless you are made up of functioning proteins.
Where do you think they came from?”
***
I have read, in some depth, the theory of how the formulae for proteins is encoded in DNA. I find the subject fascinating and wish I understood it at a deeper level.
The thing is, life for all of us begins as two cells uniting, and the information contained in the DNA is enough to build a complete human unit.
I am currently reading a book on the brain, and thus far the author has been discussing neurons and how they interface with certain negative and positive ions to affect behavior. That’s why modern drugs can affect behavior, by enhancing or suppressing the ion activity at synapses.
It makes no sense to me that simple ions can find a way to operate in conjunction to control life, not only locally where they operate but metres away in other parts of the body. Seems to me there needs to be a blueprint somewhere that offers the instructions on how and when to operate.
I had not realized till now that a neuron is essentially a cell complete with its own nucleus and other accoutrements of cells in general. The basic difference seems to be in the fact that neurons don’t divide like normal cells and we are given an allotment at birth that must last a lifetime. Even though we cannot grow neurons, the brain has a way to expand itself to learn new techniques and to adapt to its environment.
Having said that, apparently from the initial joining of cells at conception, there are instructions on how to build a scaffold in the brain, grow cells on it, then remove the scaffold afterward.
I fail to see how any of that could happen randomly via evolution. There has to be a design factor in there because it’s far too complex and wonderful to just happen by chance. In fact, some scientist have worked out the probability of it happening via evolution and it is billions and billions to one against.
Billions and billions against?
But you get trillions and quadrillions and pentillions of chances.
And, it isn’t enough to create even one.
Yes, but it happened.
Gordo,
Dawkins said it has only the appearance of design.
Entropy was mentioned.
Life is like an eddy in a srtream. It is an island of temporarily reversed entropy.
Your high level of order is achieved by increasing the rate of entropy increase in your surroundings.
The principle is similar to discussions about energy flow here. It is possible to locally decrease entropy in a living organism as long as the total entropy of the organism and it’s surroundings increases.
Ditto for evolution.
ent…entropy is a measure of heat unavailable to take part in a process. In the Gibb’s free energy equation, which is actually a sum of heat quantities, you have…
G = H – T.S
It’s saying that the total heat in a system,is the total heat, enthalpy, H, minus the entropy, T.S.
T.S comes from the Clausius entropy statement…
S = integral dQ/T. In words, Clausius stated entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat quantities in a process at a temperature, T. But here we want the heat related to entropy, which is Q, after integration, and equal to T.S, by transposition.
Restating Gibbs as heat quantities we have…
available heat = total heat – heat not available
G = enthalpy – entropy
Clausius never intended entropy to be a measure of disorder, that was a bit of lunacy introduced by Boltzmann. All Clausius said was that in an irreversible process, where heat is given off and lost (entropy) there is a tendency to disorder. He never claimed entropy is a measure of disorder, only that in irreversible processes where heat is lost and unavailable to do work, there is a tendency to universal disorder.
Therefore, the statement about disorder has to be re-stated to say, whenever heat is lost from a process, there is a tendency to disorder. One cannot claim entropy itself is a measure of disorder since it is measuring heat loss.
You tell me that evolving from a simple to a complex organism is impossible because of entropy.
Please explain how increasing complexity in living organisms makes heat unavailable for use.
Neither Ent nor gordon understands Entropy.
In early Thermodynamics, first discussed by Clausius, Entropy refers to a measure of “useable” energy. For example, ice emits 315 W/m². So one square meter of ice would be emitting 315 Watts. But that is nowhere close to the same as three 100W light bulbs. The ice has too much entropy — the energy is not “ordered”, or “organized”. That’s why saying “Entropy is a measure of disorder” confuses some. And also why some are confused by seemingly “hot” ice.
After Clausius’ work, Shannon greatly expanded the concept of entropy to include “information”. That can be observed in human behavior. A child can have all the information needed to build an airplane in some library, but still can’t build an airplane. He is unable to “organize” the necessary information. Or, as observed in the comments here, folks can have access to all the information on the Internet, but are still unable to understand a simple ball-on-a-string.
It takes Intelligence to organize Information — lower the entropy.
Clint R,
Boy are you mixed up.
“In early Thermodynamics, first discussed by Clausius, Entropy refers to a measure of useable energy.”
“entropy, the measure of a systems thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system.”
Ent,
You’re claiming in a Universe that, no evidence exists where things can cause themselves, that all life on this planet caused itself. Logic suggests that something outside of the Universe caused the Universe and life on this planet.
Stephen
Evolution is not just a random process. It’s full name is evolution by natural selection.
Mutation is random but mutations are then subject to natural selection.
A mutation which decreases an organism’s probability of survival and reproduction is selected against and becomes rarer or disappears.
A mutation which increases an organism’s probability of survival and reproduction is selected and more common.The
Over 3.7 billion years there have been many billion opportunities for mutations to arise and be tested. Your body is the accumulation of a vast number of favourable mutations, all arising randomly and then selected because they worked.
No cause is necessary, and no creator. Just enough time for natural processes to work.
Finally you don’t even need life to produce order. When you grow a salt crystal from solution the crystal has a lower entropy than the dissolved molecules from which it formed.
This is thermodynamically possible because while the crystal has a lower entropy, the entropy of the whole system, crystal+environment has increased. This applies whether you think of entropy as disorder or Gibbs free energy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/30/renewables-overtake-fossil-fuels-to-provide-30-of-eu-electricity
I have always had the feeling that the EU is headed for a big crash. It’s a system of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ that is not sustainable. They don’t even speak the same languages.
The EU is currently scurrying to hide behind the skirts of the US, in the hopes the US will protect them from the big, bad Russian bear. The outcomes of their lies is a rush toward Armageddon as thy challenge Russia’s nuclear force.
If Trump gets back in, he will soon sort the freeloaders out.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Can we all at least agree that there are not two axes of rotation for movement like the “moon on the left” (MOTL) in the animation below?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
After all, that was mathematically proven by Ftop_t, here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
No.
Even a mathematical proof is not good enough for some of them.
A mathematical ‘proof’ offered by you is less than reliable.
See all the comments below the ‘proof’ you referenced.
Offered by Ftop_t.
If there were two axes of rotation, one in the moon and one in the Earth, the moon would present all sides to the Earth. That is evident if you follow the proof. Or even just follow Ftop_t’s description of it. Or even if you just use an online transmographer, for yourself.
Sure, read all the comments. Here’s one, from a “Spinner”:
“FTOP,
I think most of us agree with what you show. We understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And we understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles.
But I hope you can agree that this does not apply in general to orbiting planets or Moons, which
a. move in elliptical orbits
b. all points on them DO NOT move in concentric circles around an external point.
c. rotate around internal axes that are often TILTED to their orbital plane, as is the Moon’s”
Then I said:
“Ftop_t, I assume you know that most of the Spinners do not agree with what you show. There are a whole group of them who do not understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And they do not understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles. I have spent an enormous amount of time arguing with these people. It would have been nice if any of the Spinners who thought differently had at any point helped out, but of course they did not have the integrity to do so.”
The point is, this does not settle the moon issue. Still, everyone should be able to agree that there are not two axes of rotation for movement like the MOTL.
No, DREMT 10:11 am, as you could have learned from the previous blog post, not before one accounts for the location & motion of the reference frame from which our Moon is observed.
ftop_t’s math proof was later shown by ftop_t to be for observing from an accelerated frame such as viewing our Moon while located on Earth where only one lunar motion (orbital) is seen so “there are not two axes of rotation for movement like the “moon on the left” (MOTL) in the animation” as observed located on the inner circle.
RLH is correct: “See all the comments below the ‘proof” (DREMT) referenced.”
There are two axes of rotation for movement like the “moon on the left” (MOTL) in the animation” as observed from the inertial frame. All motion is relative.
Properly accounting for the location & motion of the observing reference frame resolves all of our Moon’s motion issues along with the MOTL, MOTR.
Incorrect, Ball4. Ftop_t is using rotation matrices.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix
“For example, using the convention below, the matrix … rotates points in the xy plane counterclockwise through an angle θ about the origin of a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system”
The coordinate system used is akin to an inertial reference frame centred on the orbited object. His proof is not from an accelerated frame.
The word “inertial” is DREMT’s & is not found in the link. Rotation matrices can be used in both inertial frames and accelerated frames. They are used throughout industry when needed to go from one reference frame coordinate system x,y,z (say a car engine) to another x’,y’,z’ (say a car body).
Remember DREMTs referenced “ftop_t’s math proof was later shown by ftop_t to be for observing from an accelerated frame”, as RLH writes DREMT needs to read ALL “the comments below the ‘proof’ (DREMT) referenced.”
Properly accounting for the location & motion of the observing reference frame resolves all of our Moon’s motion issues along with the MOTL, MOTR.
“Remember DREMTs referenced “ftop_t’s math proof was later shown by ftop_t to be for observing from an accelerated frame””
No such event occurred. You can link to no such comment.
See my 10:19 am comment from which it is copied & DREMT’s own ftop_t past comment reference from the last blog post.
Properly accounting for the location & motion of the observing reference frame resolves all of our Moon’s motion issues along with the MOTL, MOTR and even the ball on string.
See? Ball4 can link to no such comment. He just makes it up as he goes along.
The proof is not from an accelerated frame.
DREMT is on a witch hunt for links he can find himself. More importantly, DREMT cannot put up a comment with a valid dispute to my 10:19 am comment thus DREMT must accept its conclusions concerning reference frames as did ftop_t long ago. Thanks, DREMT.
Again, properly accounting for the location & motion of the observing reference frame resolves all of our Moon’s motion issues along with the MOTL, MOTR and even the ball on string.
No link = no reason for anyone to take you seriously, Ball4.
If your “mathematical proof” disagrees with observations, then the mathematical proof has some errors in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
more stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
“The rotational axis of the Moon is not perpendicular to its orbital plane, so the lunar equator is not in the plane of its orbit, but is inclined to it by a constant value of 6.688 (this is the obliquity). As was discovered by Jacques Cassini in 1722, the rotational axis of the Moon precesses with the same rate as its orbital plane, but is 180 out of phase (see Cassini’s Laws).”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680686
Like the link I posted to, there are two axes, one the Moon revolves around and one the Moon rotates around.
These are repeated observations, so we should be able to agree that there are two axes, not one.
So now bob is arguing that “orbit without spin” is a rotation about an external axis! Amazing. Who, from the “Spinners”, will challenge him first?
DREMT,
Repeat after me
Orbits are not rotations.
DREMT,
I also did not say the Moon was not spinning, so I was saying nothing about “orbit without spin”
I was pointing out that there is an observed axis about which the Moon is rotating.
Please pay attention.
OK, bob, then your earlier statement:
"Like the link I posted to, there are two axes, one the Moon revolves around and one the Moon rotates around.
These are repeated observations, so we should be able to agree that there are two axes, not one."
was false. You instead believe there is only one axis of rotation, within the moon itself, and that the moon translates in an ellipse at the same time.
Note…still only one axis of rotation. Not two.
Ok then DREMT,
One axis of revolution and one axis of rotation.
Still two axes, as observations show.
Which is what is observed, the Moon rotating around an internal axis.
"One axis of revolution and one axis of rotation."
An axis is exclusive to rotation bob, so by "axis of revolution" I can only assume you mean, "external axis which the moon rotates about".
DREMT
“An axis is exclusive to rotation bob,”
Sorry, but that is incorrect.
“Line around which an object rotates
An axis of rotation (also called an axis of revolution) is a line around which an object rotates. It is usually imaginary in calculus and physics1. When a plane figure is rotated around this axis, it creates a solid of revolution2.”
DREMT,
You are losing the thread, this is not an argument about whether the Moon revolves or rotates around the Earth.
It is about whether the Moon is spinning on an internal axis.
Or are you giving up that argument, and agreeing the Moon is rotating on an internal axis?
You just provided a definition that says an “axis of revolution” is just another name for an “axis of rotation”, bob. Would you like to try again? Try to get one which says an “axis of revolution” has anything to do with translation, if you can.
Or, just accept that movement like the MOTL does not involve two axes of rotation.
DREMT,
If that is the case, then there is only one axis of rotation for the Moon.
The internal one, that the Moon rotates around.
So, bob, do you now agree that there are not two axes of rotation for movement like the MOTL, and understand why that fact doesn’t resolve the moon issue?
There are not two axes of rotation for movement like the MOTL when the observer is on the inner circle since there is only orbit on R seen, but, as ftop_t and wiki animate, there are two axes of rotation (on R and r) for inertial movement like the MOTL.
So, DREMT, properly accounting for the location & motion of the observing reference frame does resolve all of your Moon’s motion issues along with the MOTL, MOTR, and even the ball on string.
I asked bob, Ball4. Nobody is interested in your extremely repetitive drivel.
… except for those wanting to read about the correct lunar relativity since all motion IS relative.
Thanks, DREMT, for finding no valid dispute with my comments.
Awaiting a response from bob…
ftop_t mathematical ‘proof’ is just an observation that a simple translation can be mathematically applied to a frame that has nothing to do with the Earth/Moon pairing.
DREMT,
“So, bob, do you now agree that there are not two axes of rotation for movement like the MOTL, and understand why that fact doesnt resolve the moon issue?”
and this
“An axis is exclusive to rotation bob, so by “axis of revolution” I can only assume you mean, “external axis which the moon rotates about”.
So if there is only one axis, it’s the axis the Moon is rotating around.
Because orbits are not rotations.
No, RLH, it’s a proof that movement like the MOTL cannot involve two axes of rotation.
bob, I’ll take it that you concede the point then.
DREMT,
I’ll concede the point that the Moon does not rotate around an external axis, if you concede the point that the Moon does rotate around an internal axis.
Because you have stated that there is only one axis.
“Notestill only one axis of rotation. Not two.”
I won’t take credit for the goal, it should be scored as an own goal for the DREMT team.
I don’t concede that, for example, a ball on a string, which moves as per the MOTL, is rotating about an internal axis. Clearly, it is rotating about an external axis…and since it is mathematically proven that there is only one axis of rotation for such movement, it cannot be rotating about an internal axis.
As for the moon, it’s more a question of if the moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”), or two (“orbit” and “spin”).
DREMT,
Another own goal
“for example, a ball on a string, which moves as per the MOTL, is rotating about an internal axis.”
But we were talking about the Moon, which rotates around one axis, as we agreed.
Since that axis is not an external one, because the Moon orbits in an ellipse, the only one left is an internal axis.
Which means you finally admit the Moon rotates on an internal axis.
And you also have just admitted the ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis.
Do you want to try the chalk circle?
Adding clarity to DREMT 6:43 pm, as for our Moon, it’s only a question of location if our Moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) as observed from Earth, or two (“orbit” and “spin”) as observed from the sun.
bob has another reading comprehension fail. I said I don’t concede that the ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis. In other words, it isn’t.
“No, RLH, its a proof that movement like the MOTL cannot involve two axes of rotation.”
Wrong.
[TIM FOLKERTS] I think everyone here knows that MOTL is not the sum of two rotations about two axes.
[RLH] Wrong.
Fluxes add but rotations don’t.
bob felt the need to say something.
DREMT,
Here is what I asked you to concede
[Me] “if you concede the point that the Moon does rotate around an internal axis.”
“I dont concede that, for example, a ball on a string, which moves as per the MOTL, is rotating about an internal axis.”
The point you didn’t concede was about the Moon, and then you said the ball on a string is rotating about an internal axis.
So, who has reading comprehension issues?
You.
Graham D. Warner.
DREMT,
Pick one.
An axis of revolution is the same as an axis of rotation.
An axis of revolution is different than an axis of rotation.
“An axis is exclusive to rotation bob, so by axis of revolution I can only assume you mean, external axis which the moon rotates about.”
“You just provided a definition that says an axis of revolution is just another name for an axis of rotation, bob. Would you like to try again? Try to get one which says an axis of revolution has anything to do with translation, if you can.”
We are discussing Astronomy, not kinematics, so leave translations out of it, especially since you don’t get it.
Rotations specifically apply to internal rotations, not orbits.
The Moon is revolving around the Earth, not rotating around the Earth.
So, Yes, there is only one axis of rotation with respect to the Moon, it’s the axial one where the Moon rotates around its internal axis once every
DREMT,
Pick one.
An axis of revolution is the same as an axis of rotation.
An axis of revolution is different than an axis of rotation.
“An axis is exclusive to rotation bob, so by axis of revolution I can only assume you mean, external axis which the moon rotates about.”
“You just provided a definition that says an axis of revolution is just another name for an axis of rotation, bob. Would you like to try again? Try to get one which says an axis of revolution has anything to do with translation, if you can.”
We are discussing Astronomy, not kinematics, so leave translations out of it, especially since you don’t get it.
Rotations specifically apply to internal rotations, not orbits.
The Moon is revolving around the Earth, not rotating around the Earth.
So, Yes, there is only one axis of rotation with respect to the Moon, it’s the axial one where the Moon rotates around its internal axis once every 29.5 days
OK, I pick what I have said all along, that an axis of revolution is the same as an axis of rotation. My point about translation obviously went over your head, like most things on this subject.
DREMT,
Except they are clearly different.
An axis of rotation goes through the body.
When the axis is not through the body, it’s an axis of revolution, or the axis of an orbit.
Clearly not the same thing.
As spinning and orbiting are not the same thing.
bob…there aren’t two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. It doesn’t matter what you call them, either.
Your denial is never-ending.
And Graham D. Warner still misrepresents Flop’s trick!
I see DREMT, that we both agree that there is only one axis of rotation for the Moon and the ball on a string.
We disagree as to where that axis is, for the Moon I say it is through the body of the Moon, you say its the axis the Moon revolves around.
One of us is right, that’s me.
“I see DREMT, that we both agree that there is only one axis of rotation for the…ball on a string.”
Finally. So, where is the axis of rotation for the ball on a string, bob?
DREMT,
It is obviously through the center of the ball.
Lol. So, the ball is not being swung around on the end of a string?
Amazing. Your denial is absolute.
DRMET,
Of course it is, it is revolving around the held end of the string.
Ah, so you agree the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis. Good. Then you agree that it’s not rotating about an internal axis.
DREMT,
I said it was revolving, not rotating.
It’s revolving and rotating, two motions, one of which is rotating on an internal axis.
Ah, so by “revolving” you mean “translating in a circle”.
There’s a bit of a problem with that, though. If the ball on a string is not an example of something rotating about an external axis, then “rotation about an external axis” may as well not exist as a transformation.
It does exist, though.
DREMT,
“Ah, so by revolving you mean translating in a circle.”
Are you paying attention?
Orbits are not circular.
Astronomy, not kinetics.
We were talking about a ball on a string, bob.
DREMT,
Yeah, Right, first line in the first post of this thread.
“Can we all at least agree that there are not two axes of rotation for movement like the moon on the left (MOTL) in the animation below?”
Jesus wept. The discussion had moved on to the ball on a string, bob. That is what we were literally just talking about.
You tried to change the subject because you were losing.
Ummm…you’d lost, so you changed the subject, bob.
Without rehashing old arguments, let’s just consider Occam’s Razor.
The simple fact is that the actual moon does NOT rotate around the earth; the path is not circular. It ONLY rotates on its own axis.
Occam’s Razor demands a consistent description. All orbits are translations around an ellipse and rotations about an internal orbit.
eccentricity = 10: translation + internal rotation
eccentricity = 1: translation + internal rotation
eccentricity = 0.1: translation + internal rotation
eccentricity = 0.001: translation + internal rotation
Why would anyone want to switch to “external rotation” when eccentricity shifts a miniscule amount from 0.001 to 0? Why invoke two different rules when one rule will work for all cases?
The consistent, logical, physically valid choice is “rotation about an internal axis + translation about the path.” Period.
Sorry, Tim, you appear to have posted in the wrong thread. This one is simply about the mathematically proven fact that you cannot describe movement like the MOTL as involving two axes of rotation.
… mathematically proven in an accelerated frame; DREMT somehow forgets to mention ftop_t’s specific results.
… in ftop_t’s mathematical accelerated frame.
Tim, meet Ball4. Ball4 believes that the movement of our moon is composed of two motions (“orbit” and “spin”) wrt an inertial reference frame, but only one motion (“orbit”) wrt an accelerated frame.
Ball4, meet Tim. Tim believes the moon’s movement is composed of two motions (“orbit” and “spin”), regardless of frame of reference.
You two have a lot to discuss! So, get to it.
“…about the mathematically proven fact that you cannot describe movement like the MOTL as involving two axes of rotation.”
That would be a pretty boring conversation. I think everyone here knows that MOTL is not the sum of two rotations about two axes.
I guess it might also be a bit boring to discuss how the moon is NOT rotating about its own axis, but only rotating about its internal axis.
This is all stuff that is perfectly well understood.
“That would be a pretty boring conversation. I think everyone here knows that MOTL is not the sum of two rotations about two axes.”
Erm…have you read the thread, Tim? Particularly Ball4’s comments, bob’s initial comments, and RLH’s too!?
Seems like everyone is pretty keen to disagree about something you claim they all know is correct!
“Tim believes the moons movement is composed of two motions (orbit and spin), regardless of frame of reference.”
There are at least 3 ways that what “Tim believes” is not accurately summarized by what you wrote. I can see you are also misinterpreting Ball4.
So I suspect people are mostly keen to disagree with your misattributions.
Some examples of your mischaracterizations:
** You have been careful to say the discussion is about the idealized motion of “MOTL”, but you say “the moon” here. Those are two very different motions. Which are you meaning now?
** Relative to a reference frame attached to the moon, there no movement at all; no orbit; no spin. Reference frames matter in how we describe the motion.
** We can’t say definitively what a motion ‘is composed of’. The best we can do is say what sort of mathematical operation(s) can simply and accurately *describe* the motion.
*For MOTL there are two good ways.
*For the real moon, there is one good way.
No, Tim, I am not misinterpreting anybody. Ball4, upthread:
“Adding clarity to DREMT 6:43 pm, as for our Moon, it’s only a question of location if our Moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) as observed from Earth, or two (“orbit” and “spin”) as observed from the sun.”
I assume you disagree with him, but lack the character to argue with him.
DREMT,
“Sorry, Tim, you appear to have posted in the wrong thread. This one is simply about the mathematically proven fact that you cannot describe movement like the MOTL as involving two axes of rotation.”
Right, and since the only one available is the one through the Moon, that the Moon rotates or spins about, the Moon is spinning.
There can not be an axis the Moon is orbiting about, because its motion is not circular.
"Right"
So, you agree that you cannot describe movement like the MOTL as involving two axes of rotation. Excellent. That’s point 2) agreed with (again). You should find that point 1) follows on rather easily from accepting point 2).
DREMT,
Since there is only one axis of rotation for the Moon, and since it can’t be the one the Moon revolves around, then it must be the one through the Moon which the Moon is rotating around.
You should agree with point 1), bob. Let me know when you are prepared to concede that. Point 3), as well (that was settled up-thread).
DREMT,
Use of the correct reference frame resolves the issue, and the ball on a string rotates on an axis through the ball as well as revolves around an axis perpendicular to the non ball end of the string.
That’s settled and has been settled, although there are still some hold outs on uncharted islands in the Atlantic Ocean.
DREMT: “No, Tim, I am not misinterpreting anybody. ”
Yes. You are.
I just pointed out how you are misinterpreting me. Your projection of what I think is wrong on multiple counts. I am not going to address what you think OTHER people think until you admit you mischaracterized my positions.
I’ll just ignore bob.
Tim, you think the moon both “orbits” and “spins”, yes? Two motions. I’m just keeping it simple.
And, I asked you what you would say if somebody said the moon was just completing one motion (i.e. “orbit”) wrt an accelerated frame, and you said they would be wrong for an elliptical orbit.
Now, I have shown you an example of somebody saying exactly that. You won’t say they’re wrong, though!
Since “Spinner” will never argue against “Spinner”.
Also, more to the point of this thread, we have:
[BOB] …the ball on a string rotates on an axis through the ball as well as revolves around an axis perpendicular to the non ball end of the string.
[TIM] I think everyone here knows that MOTL is not the sum of two rotations about two axes.
Another clear contradiction. We know that no matter what, bob and Tim won’t discuss their differences either.
Graham D. Warner keeps misrepresenting Tim.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680988
DREMT,
There is no contradiction between my statement and Tim’s.
I said there was one rotation for the Moon, and Tim said there was not a sum of two rotations.
We are in agreement.
The contradiction is with the statement of yours I quoted, bob. Which is about the ball on a string. Not the moon.
“Ill just ignore bob.”
That’ll be the day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mDGcxbAusg
Kind of seems like you’re the one following me from thread to thread though, bob.
Yes, you tried to change the subject, because you were being beaten.
You can’t even comment in the right place, let alone win an argument, bob.
One last postcard:
> JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-couch-sex-joke-author-speaks-2024-7
^
^
^
See the woke Marxist grasp at straws.
https://www.sincitycouches.com/
Lighten up. Show me any male who has not at one time or another indulged in a sexist joke. Or an ethnic joke.
Besides, we are talking about politicians, which elicits a joke.
What do you call a politician at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
Mr. Asshat displays his lack of reading skills once again.
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Graham D. Warner has no business trying to PSTer me in my own thread.
Little Doxer, please stop t-word-ing.
Graham D. Warner keeps going:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Little Stalker, please stop t-word-ing.
Right after having stalked me in my own subthread, Graham D. Warner whines and PSTers.
Little Sociopath, please stop t-word-ing.
According to the dachshund, I’m not very good at making predictions.
I’ll ignore that for once and predict that the MOTL-based discussion of the rotation of the Moon around its polar axis will not lead to any conclusion in the next 10 years.
Simply because it makes no sense to think that such a complex matter as the rotation of the Moon could be successfully discussed on the basis of such a trivial idea as the MOTL.
Bindi, it’s NOT complex. It’s very easy. The issue is as easy as a ball-on-a-string.
The problem is that you cultists can not accept reality.
For example, do you know that you have been unable to come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, in over 2 years now? Even with all your ancient astrologers, you can’t come up with a model that works. That’s the reality you ignore.
And, THAT should tell you something….
The viable model of “orbiting without spin” was explained many years ago, Clint R just always ignores it.
What, Ball4!? Nothing about reference frames!? You’re slacking.
Interesting video.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/the-moons-rotation/
You can see the Earth rotating 27 times while the Moon rotates once.
Clint R
Orbiting without spin is the state in which an object orbits a larger primary due to gravity while gyroscopes on the object detect no rotation.
The gyroscopes on The Apollo lunar landers recorded a rotation period of 27.3 days, the same rotation period of the Moon relative to the stars.
The Moon is therefore not orbiting without spin.
Sorry Ent, but gyroscopes can’t tell the difference between orbiting and spinning.
Neither can you….
Orbital motion without axial rotation is when I plant my elbow on the arm of my chair, and pointing my forearm up and make circles with my fist.
ent…a gyro maintains a constant orientation wrt the stars. The key word is orientation. It is not detecting a lunar spin, it is detecting a change in orientation wrt the stars, and that describes curvilinear motion without local rotation.
Spinners are confusing near=side orientation with local rotation.
“The Moon is therefore not orbiting without spin.”
Correct.
The lunar motion is not complex, it is stoopid simple.
You spinners are reading far too much into the problem. It’s as simple as a ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry go round, a locomotive constrained to run on an oval track, a car running around an oval track, or a jetliner orbiting the Earth. They all keep the same face pointed at the point they orbit yet none of them spin on a COG.
… as observed from the point they orbit.
Observed by a distorted human mind. The same distorted mind insists that the Sun is orbiting the Earth since it appears to rise in the East and set in the West.
Gordon
” The same distorted mind insists that the Sun is orbiting the Earth since it appears to rise in the East and set in the West. ”
Exactly.
Our terrestrial viewpoint gives the illusion that the Sun goes round the Earth.
It also gives the illusion that the Moon is not rotating.
I predict that Ball4, Bindidon, and bobdroege will continue to school the pseudomod.
Except I’m obviously the one in the right, schooling them.
john…you have been wrong about everything thus far, better quit while ahead.
[BINDIDON] But Blindsley H00d aka RLH wrote something incorrect too:
” … it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars. ”
Either a celestial body spins or it doesn’t – regardless from where and with respect to what.
[BALL4] Properly accounting for the location & motion of the observing reference frame resolves all of our Moon’s motion issues along with the MOTL, MOTR and even the ball on string.
______________
So, that is two completely opposing viewpoints, being put forward by Ball4, and Bindidon. Yet, they won’t argue with each other! Hilarious.
“Either a celestial body spins or it doesn’t regardless from where and with respect to what.”
The Earth does not spin WRT itself, but does WRT the Sun (and the Moon).
DREMT,
“So, that is two completely opposing viewpoints, being put forward by Ball4, and Bindidon. Yet, they wont argue with each other! Hilarious.”
You found disagreement where there is none, because you believe the Moon is not spinning.
Reference frames do resolve the issue, if you pick the correct one.
Parallax of stars position measured from an Earth centered inertial reference frame is only an apparent motion not a true motion.
Both the Moon and the Earth are rotating with respect to an Earth Centered Inertial reference frame.
Obviously Bindidon and Ball4 disagree.
No disagreement DREMT 11:32 am. Proper use of Galilean reference frames do resolve the issue.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680807
JW predicted right.
The discussion won’t be over in ten years because “Spinner” refuses to argue with “Spinner”, despite their many, many, absolutely fundamental disagreements.
Actually there are no fundamental disagreements to argue as a DREMT’s termed “spinner” is physically correct. DREMT however remains physically incorrect in many comments.
Scroll up.
I did & didn’t find any fundamental disagreements to argue among DREMT’s termed “spinners”. It is DREMT et. al. “non-spinners” (DREMT term) that are many times so obviously physically incorrect in comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680804
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680814
rlh…”ftop_t mathematical proof is just an observation that a simple translation can be mathematically applied to a frame that has nothing to do with the Earth/Moon pairing”.
***
Richard, I can see the other spinners indulging in this denial but you have a Master’s degree. You are surely not going to indulge in this reference frame dodge, are you?
He is talking about orientation in space wrt th stars as opposed to rotation about a local axis. Prove him wrong by demonstrating his math is wrong..
You have become solidly in denial that the ball on a string is a decent model for lunar rotation. You won’t discuss why, you just keep repeating the same mantra that a BoS does not represent lunar motion. Now you are dismissing a perfectly good proof, cleverly based on vector calculus and linear algebra, for the same reason.
I have not yet followed ftop’s logic but he is proceeding with the proper analysis based on matrix theory as applied to sines and cosines, one that is used in computer graphics to establish the rotation and non-rotation of a line or vector. He is obviously schooled in vector calculus and linear algebra.
I would prefer to see you use logic to defeat his argument rather than dismiss it simply because it does not involved linear momentum affected by a gravitational field.
All motion is relative to some frame or another.
A BoS only represents a BoS.
ent…”Interesting video.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/the-moons-rotation/
You can see the Earth rotating 27 times while the Moon rotates once”.
***
All this proves is that NASA is wrong and has to resort to obfuscation to get their point across. Note the short line inside the circle with the rotational arrow. The line always points to the Earth and represents the near-side of the Moon. NASA uses a cheap trick of showing the light shining on the Moon from the Sun which gives the illusion that the Moon is turning. It’s not, the lit portion simply changes orientation as the Moon orbits.
Shame on NASA for resorting to chicanery.
Now go back to the short line extending from the near-side of the Moon. Extend it through the Moon and draw three tangent lines (at right angle to the line), to represent the orbital paths of the near side, the far side and the COG. Note that they are always moving in parallel (concentric circles).
That motion denotes curvilinear translation without local rotating and is the same as a car running around an oval track, or a ball on a string.
Yes, the near side changes orientation wrt the stars through 360 degrees but changing orientation is not local rotation.
… when observed from the location they orbit.
More reference frame propaganda. Reference frames do not exist in the real world, only from the perspective of a human observer. Rotation has nothing to do with reference frames, it is a property of a mass turning about an axis, either internal or external.
Rotation does not care about the human mind. When a body rotates about an axis, it is rotating in any reference frame. It is an illusion of the human mind that the rotation can be stopped by viewing the object from peculiar and artificial reference frame created by the human mind. However, people prone to this illusion are also prone to other human mind peculiarities like anthropogenic warming.
“Reference frames do not exist in the real world”
Wrong.
Gordon, when a body rotates about an axis, it is observed rotating in THAT reference frame, not necessarily in other reference frames. The Earth isn’t rotating under your feet in YOUR reference frame.
Galileo showed that there indeed exist preferred reference systems in which a body will move with uniform velocity or remain in a state of rest unless acted upon by external forces. This is referred to as a Galilean reference frame.
Gordon remains WAY behind Galileo in studying, learning, and applying methods of analytical dynamics.
“Note that they are always moving in parallel (concentric circles).”
No. They aren’t.
The moon is moving in an ellipse, not a circle. And the tracks are not ‘parallel’. They get closer and farther apart during the orbit.
“the same as a car running around an oval track”
No, it’s not. A car keeps one side facing straight ahead. The moon does not.
All you guys offer are incorrect analogies.
Tim, your response to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1679922
is where you take an opposing stance to what Ball4 said, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680779
Will you argue with Ball4?
Wrong again Folkerts. Moon keeps the same side facing in the direction of its travel, just as a car does. Or a ball-on-a-string.
You don’t understand “orbiting without spin”.
Tim’s comment is not an “opposing stance” (DREMT term) to my comment so there is no reason to argue with Tim in comments. DREMT could ask why that is so but probably wouldn’t understand & continue to argue since DREMT’s study of, & accomplishment in, Galilean reference systems is so lacking.
Our Moon really is in “orbit” in an ellipse about Earth as Tim writes but the BOS, MOTR, MOTL are each in a circular “orbit” of their central object as I explained to DREMT without success in the last blog post.
Clint 8:25 am should understand that our Moon is a viable example of “orbiting without spin” as observed from Earth.
Maybe (I doubt it) this will help DREMT reconcile comments. BOS, MOTL, MOTR move in circular orbits inertially on R and r both of which distances are constant & can be (have been) measured. Two inertial motions over two distances.
As Tim writes, our Moon moves inertially in an ellipse in orbit of Earth so its R is not constant thus it is R(t) but r does remain essentially constant. Helpful? No? I thought not.
“Moon keeps the same side facing in the direction of its travel, just as a car does. “
This is not up for debate. The moon has a specific libration as it orbits. Motion like a car driving around an ellipse would produce the wrong libration. Since your hypothesis disagrees with the observed motion, your hypothesis must be discarded.
Your hypothesis also violates conservation of angular momentum; another reason it must be discarded.
Still wrong, Folkerts.
Libration is not an actual motion. It’s an “apparent” motion as when viewed from Earth, due to Moon’s elliptical/slanted orbit. Moon has no angular momentum. This has all been discussed, many many times. But you still don’t get it.
You don’t understand “orbiting without spin”, and you can’t learn.
You keep throwing crap against the wall because you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
What will you try next?
Clint,
There are two kinds of angular momentum for orbiting bodies, orbital angular momentum and rotational angular momentum.
The Moon has both, because it is orbiting and spinning.
Astute readers will note the contradiction between the two comments I mentioned, and that they both specifically involve our moon.
Wrong on both, bob.
But, you don’t care. Science and reality mean NOTHING to you.
You keep throwing crap against the wall because you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
… except Earth’s Moon orbit as observed from Earth.
Any integrity, Tim?
“orbiting without spin”
Without spin referenced to what? The Sun/fixed stars? The Earth?
No, RLH. "Orbit without spin". It’s a motion. Could be either like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
RLH has been stalking here for years. Always spewing nonsense like “The BOS is only relevant to the BOS”.
Yet, the doesn’t even know what “spin” refers to!
He knows NOTHING, and he can’t learn.
Clint,
Take a physics class
“According to the reference provided by Roger Wood (1), the orbital angular momentum of the Moon is 2.9×10^34 kg.m^2/s.”
from https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/50502/how-much-of-the-total-angular-momentum-of-the-earth-moon-system-is-due-to-the-mo
Then he says ” The rotational angular momentum of the Moon is negligible.”
Which only means it is small compared to the orbital angular momentum.
But you could calculate the rotational angular momentum of the Moon if you knew how.
But you don’t because you erroneously think the Moon does not rotate.
bob, astrologers don’t understand angular momentum.
But, this deserves a full explanation, when I have time.
Maybe this weekend….
Clint,
Roger Wood is an adult, I don’t need to wait for your childish crayon scribblings about angular momentum when I have all I need from an Astronomer.
He is not an Astrologer, just like you are not a physicist.
Go play with your ball on a string, I do not need your views on Astronomy.
“Libration is not an actual motion.”
I am glad you know this much. But libration IS caused by actual motions. Different actual motions would cause different librations as seen here on earth.
Specifically, librations of longitude would be different if the moon
a) kept one point always facing the earth
b) kept one point always facing ahead (like a car on a track)
c) kept one point toward the center of the ellipse
d) rotated at a constant rate on its axis
All four of these are different and they CAN tell us which of the four motions correctly predicts the moon’s observed libration.
Spoiler alert: the correct answer is (d).
On longitudinal libration, there is an actual motion.
That motion is due to the difference in the axial rotation of the Moon versus the radial velocity of the Moon in its orbit.
Newton’s laws on one hand and Kepler’s laws on the other, combine to produce an actual motion allowing more than 50% of the Moon’s surface to be viewed from Earth.
[TIM]“Libration is not an actual motion.” I am glad you know this much.
[BOB] On longitudinal libration, there is an actual motion.
We already know they won’t argue with each other, though.
“[TIM]Libration is not an actual motion. I am glad you know this much.
[BOB] On longitudinal libration, there is an actual motion.
We already know they wont argue with each other, though.”
Rather disingenuous to skip the rest of what I wrote. Where I said that ‘actual motion’ causes libration. Where I challenged people to explain the ‘actual motion’. You skip the rest of my post to argue semantics.
And of course, you offer no answer, and no criticism of the non-spinners who give no answers or conflicting answers to the actual science.
See the top-level post below for follow-up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680960
See? He just wants to argue with me. Never someone from his own side.
Graham D. Warner still tries to deflect from the first comment in this subthread.
Clint,
“Wrong on both, bob.
But, you dont care. Science and reality mean NOTHING to you.
You keep throwing crap against the wall because you have no viable model of orbiting without spin.”
Find a high school AP physics student to help you, you need a child to explain physics to you.
I do have a model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
I place my elbow on a fixed point and rotate my fist in a circle.
Some librations are actual motions but some are not.
I’ll let you non Phd people try to figure it out.
Yes, bob, the one you said is an actual motion (libration in longitude) is not an actual motion. Sorry for your loss.
DREMT,
Of course it is, it’s the difference between the orbital speed of the Moon and the rotational speed of the Moon.
Your failure is linked to your misunderstanding of the rate of rotation of the Moon.
The libration in longitude is an apparent motion, not an actual motion. Look it up.
DREMT,
Yes I looked it up
“Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit around Earth; the Moon’s rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position. The lunar libration in longitude was discovered by Johannes Hevelius in 1648.[3] It can reach 754′ in amplitude.[4] Longitudinal libration allows an observer on Earth to view at times further into the Moon’s west and east respectively at different phases of the Moon’s orbit.[2]”
Two things, the source say the Moon rotates, and exactly the same thing I just said.
DREMT,
And I said it was the difference between two actual motions, so stop gaslighting me.
The libration in longitude is an apparent motion, not an actual one.
DREMT,
Since the Moon is actually moving, libration is an actual motion.
Due to the orbit and rotation of the Moon, two motions, one of which is not a rotation.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov//5195
“Libration in longitude is an apparent east-west, side-to-side rotation of the Moon, as if the Moon were slowly shaking its head "no."“
Caused by the variation in orbital speed with respect to rotational speed.
You stand corrected. Great. Finally.
DREMT,
You like to use contranyms, I like to stay away from them, lest you interpret what I say as the opposite of what I say.
Apparent is a contranym, it means both real and illusory.
Like the word “fast” it means both moving and stuck.
Just admit you were wrong, bob.
Graham D. Warner still tries to deflect from the first comment in this subthread.
DREMT,
No, I am correct, longitudinal libration is a real motion.
Like I have sail all along, it’s the difference between the orbital and rotational velocities of the Moon.
It is also an apparent motion because it appears to move that way, because it does move that way.
“clearly visible or understood; obvious:
“it became apparent that he was talented” “for no apparent reason she laughed”
seeming real or true, but not necessarily so:
“his apparent lack of concern”
It’s a perfectly cromulent word if you are trying to deceive.
OK, so I said it was an apparent motion, Tim said it was an apparent motion, Clint R said it was an apparent motion, and NASA said it was an apparent motion. You said it was an actual motion.
But, you say you are correct. How confusing.
DREMT,
Yes you and all of them said it was an apparent motion. I said it was an apparent motion.
I even posted the definition of apparent, which is a contranym, it means both real and illusory.
No no, bob…later you said it was an apparent motion. After you’d been caught out.
DREMT,
See what I mean, you don’t know what I meant when I said libration is an apparent motion. I am using a denier trick of using different definitions of a word.
Any way, you can’t account properly for libration unless you concede that the Moon is rotating on an internal axis.
Whether you use one definition of apparent or the other opposite definition of the word.
Try taking your case to a local astronomer and see how well you fare.
DREMT,
“You stand corrected. Great. Finally.”
Great, so you admit this statement of mine is correct.
“Caused by the variation in orbital speed with respect to rotational speed.”
So, you admit the Moon is rotating about an internal axis.
Perfectly cromulent.
bob is being silly again.
I’ll let Elvis tell you
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m2KzXCTOxY&t=8s”
You have admitted the Moon is rotating on an internal axis.
Welcome to the Spinners.
Very silly.
Yes, DREMT, it is silly for you to deny that the Moon rotates on an internal axis, but now you have acknowledged that I was correct when I said longitudinal libration is due to the Moon revolving and rotating at different rates.
Welcome to the “spinners club”
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Ridiculous, in fact.
DREMT,
You have been caught out again.
DREMT,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681039
You support your argument about libration with a cite from NASA
“The Moon spins on its axis at a slow, steady rate, turning once each orbit,”
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
bob, are you one of those strange people that believes if you link to something, that means you agree with every word of it?
“The Moon spins on its axis at a slow, steady rate, turning once each orbit”
It takes concerted effort to stay in such a state of denial.
Could DREMT suggest an alternative coherent explanation of libration?
DREMT,
“bob, are you one of those strange people that believes if you link to something, that means you agree with every word of it?”
It’s not about belief.
It’s about repeatable observations.
The Moon is observed to rotate, just like the source you cited says.
Talk about missing the point.
DREMT,
It is your privilege to believe the Moon does not rotate on an internal axis.
But it is an observed fact that the Moon does rotate on its internal axis.
bob, if you’d just conceded you were wrong about libration in longitude being an actual motion, maybe you could be taken seriously.
As it stands, though…
DREMT,
Two things, one stop using the word apparent, especially when you want to be clear and concise, because it means both real and illusory.
So libration is both an apparent and not an apparent motion.
The nodding back and forth is indeed not a real motion, but then it takes a long exposure video to even produce that illusion.
The real motion is the difference in the rotational speed of the Moon and the orbital speed of the Moon causing more of the Moon’s surface to be visible from Earth.
Face it, you lost this one.
I’ll face that I’ve won every argument we’ve ever had.
DREMT,
Only in your dreams of electric sheep.
I’m not an android, bob.
Gordon,
Local or not
“Yes, the near side changes orientation wrt the stars through 360 degrees but changing orientation is not local rotation.”
That is how rotation is measured.
Gordon,
Curvilinear translation does not allow for a change in orientation.
If a body is changing orientation while translating that is curvilinear translation plus rotation.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
Discussion on Forest Management as it pertains to Jasper Fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l7RXI3o9eg
Very informative video, at least until he started blethering propaganda about the indigenous people being great forest managers.
Other than that he nailed it. The blame for the fire goes to pressure put on governments by eco-weenies who think it a crime to cut down a tree or even remove a branch from a tree. Therefore, extremely dry deadwood builds up in the hot season and is a time bomb waiting for a fire like the one that devastated Jasper.
He stated that the problem stems back to the 2000 decade and even further, where politicians in Ottawa were advised by fire experts that the forests had to be better managed with regard to cleaning out the build up of dry debris, and cutting down trees where necessary.
He also revealed that dating back to 1600, such fires were expected every 30 years or so. Therefore, this has nothing to do with climate change, it is a simple fact that existed well before anthropogenic warming became an issue.
Gordon,
“He also revealed that dating back to 1600, such fires were expected every 30 years or so. Therefore, this has nothing to do with climate change, it is a simple fact that existed well before anthropogenic warming became an issue.”
–
Yes, exactly.
Also I would like to add that the periodical forest fires is the mechanism the fossil coal created.
When trees burnt, they are not burnt completely, because the carbonized trunks do not favor the fire and they stop burning.
When fallen on ground the coal is sequestered in thousands of meters deep coal mines.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
…is the mechanism by which the fossil coal was created.
We are getting these huge fires nearly every year, instead of every 30 years.
bobdroege,
“We are getting these huge fires nearly every year, instead of every 30 years.”
It takes more than 30 years to build up enough wood to make a huge fire.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When was the last biggest fire in Greece?
“We are getting these huge fires nearly every year, instead of every 30 years.”
Jasper hasn’t had any large fires in over a hundred years.
The region has huge fires nearly every year.
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Like Mr. Asshat, Graham D. Warner has no business here.
Little Doxer, please stop t-word-ing.
Graham D. Warner is cute when he’s gaslighting.
Little Stalker, please stop t-word-ing.
troubleshooting…
***
ent…it’s the opposite, the human mind creates an illusion that the Moon is rotating about a local axis. Even NASA has succumbed to the illusion. Several of us have offered proof that the Moon cannot rotate like that and none of you spinners have supplied proof that it does. All you guys offer are intangibles like reference frames.
None of you seem to get it that rotation about a local axis is simply a mass with angular velocity turning about an internal axis. The Moon does not have such a momentum about an internal axis. It does have a linear momentum about an external axis and that’s why it keeps the same face pointed at Earth, like a ball on a string.
A BoS only represents a BoS.
Gordon,
“The Moon is Earth’s only natural satellite. It orbits at an average distance of 384,400 km (238,900 mi), about 30 times the diameter of Earth. Tidal forces between Earth and the Moon have over time synchronized the Moon’s orbital period (lunar month) with its rotation period (lunar day) at 29.5 Earth days, causing the same side of the Moon to always face Earth. The Moon’s gravitational pull and to a lesser extent, the Sun’s are the main drivers of Earth’s tides.”
Sorry dude, the Moon rotates once every 29.5 days.
The Sun rises and sets on the Moon because the Moon rotates on an internal axis.
What was that equation for angular momentum?
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
Gordon defined his reference point & definitions. Whereas the usual willards resort to sophistry. Little surprise the script kiddy is amongst them.
Is a biker on the wall of death rotating? According to the usual alarmist Willards he would be.
Gordon defined his reference point & definitions. Whereas the usual willards resort to sophistry. Little surprise the script kiddy is amongst them. Is a biker on the wall of death rotating? According to the usual alarmist Willards he would be.
Gordon also doesn’t believe that reference frames mean anything, thus contradicting Newton (amongst others).
So is the biker on the wAll of death spinning? Doesn’t require bringing Newton into the post unless you are being a total willard.
“So is the biker on the wall of death spinning?”
Referenced to what?
Q-Anon
” Whereas the usual willards resort to sophistry. Little surprise the script kiddy is amongst them. ”
*
Do I understand you right, Q-Anon Hypergenius? Do you really believe in Robertson’s trivial, simple-minded, pseudo-scientific trash?
Then you believe, like do Clint R, Robertson, the pseudomoderator DREMT, the Hunter boy and some other geniuses in the blog’s silent background, that the Moon doesn’t spin just because we always see the same face of it.
How far are you then, do you think, from those who still believe in a flat Earth, and from those who still believe that the Sun revolves around Earth each day?
*
Did you ever take some time to read even the smallest piece of text in any of the documents you can access from this list:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
The list begins… with Isaac Newton.
This genial science man has perfectly understood how Cassini did his job.
*
Come back to us, Q-Anon Hypergenius, when your scientific education and technical skill have grown to a level allowing you to understand what Tobias Mayer did in 1750:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790
*
The script kiddy read all the treatise’s 130 pages.
Even if he can’t follow Mayer’s spherical trigonometry step by step, he nonetheless understood what he did.
He strongly doubts you would ever.
Bindi, are you still believing “spherical trigonometry” has anything to do with this Moon issue? Obviously you don’t know anything about spherical trigonometry. It is what is used in mapping a sphere. It has NOTHING to do with spin. The fact that the Moon can be mapped from Earth tells you it is NOT spinning.
You can’t understand that because you don’t know what “orbiting without spin” looks like. You don’t have a viable model of such. With all your sources, you can’t come up with one. Cassini didn’t know what “orbiting without spin” looked like. Ancient astrologers didn’t either.
Your cult has misled you, and your have followed blindly.
Clint,
In order to know what orbit without spin is, you have to know what spin is.
Your cult lacks the knowledge of what spin is.
So you keep building your airplanes out of the available vegetation, never learning to fly.
bob, see if you can find a responsible adult to help you.
it’s amusing, to me at least, that you can’t even copy an alias correctly.
But your resort to your usual sophistry was expected rather than answer the simple observation that a biker on the wall of death isn’t spinning.
Perhaps it’s too complicated for you, along with anything computer related.
Is it a motorcycle or a bicycle?
Anyway, it’s all spinning, the rider is spinning, his wheels are spinning, gears are spinning, pedals or footpegs are spinning, everything is spinning.
Even the wall of death itself is spinning.
Anon for a reason
I’m very well able to copy any alias correctly.
I modified yours a bit because it perfectly matches your discrediting tones you use against me without being able to technically contradict anything I did in the context of software engineering.
You behavior perfectly matches your mix of arrogance and ignorance when writing:
” But your resort to your usual sophistry was expected rather than answer the simple observation that a biker on the wall of death isn’t spinning. ”
Firstly, you are absolutely unable to describe what you mean with ‘usual sophistry’.
Secondly, what the hell does your trivial ‘biker on the wall’ nonsense have to do with how the lunar spin period and the inclination of the lunar spin axis with respect to the Ecliptic are computed since centuries?
Why don’t you start with Newton’s Principia, Book III, Prop XVII, Theor XV?
Are Newton’s words also sophistry for the Q-Anon hypergenius?
You behave even worse than Robertson, Clint R and the other members of thew lunar spin denial gang.
Clint R
” Obviously you dont know anything about spherical trigonometry. It is what is used in mapping a sphere. It has NOTHING to do with spin. The fact that the Moon can be mapped from Earth tells you it is NOT spinning. ”
*
Not only are you, Clint R, making yourself look more ridiculous than ever.
Furthermore, you don’t come anywhere close to proving astronomer Tobias Mayer wrong.
Download his paper
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790
and prove him wrong, equation by equation, from chapter 8 to chapter 14.
*
No offense, Clint R :–)
We all know that neither you nor all your friends in the lunar spin denial gang would EVER be able to do this. Like them all, you lack scientific education and technical skills for such a job.
Bindidion, just evaluate your reply to see what I mean by your usual sophistry. Btw I’m still amused by your attempt to define your computer skill level. Now claiming to be a software engineer, any evidence you can provide?
Btw why can’t you state whether the biker on the wall of death is spinning? Too difficult?
Dear QAnon,
Please reflect on your lack of argument.
“Then you believe, like do Clint R, Robertson, the pseudomoderator DREMT, the Hunter boy and some other geniuses in the blog’s silent background, that the Moon doesn’t spin just because we always see the same face of it.”
That’s not at all why I think the moon doesn’t spin. It’s a little complicated, but not really, and starts with accepting and understanding that my points 1) – 4) are correct.
Is it in anyway related to the denial that Earth/Moon barycenter is traveling at about 1000 mph a couple thousand km below the Earth surface?
No denial involved.
Pseudomod
” It’s a little complicated, but not really, and starts with accepting and understanding that my points 1) 4) are correct. ”
Here you behave dishonesty again.
Upthread I wrote this:
” Therefore, if one writes like Blindsley H00d, despite all the requests for correction over the years:
” … it IS spinning with respect to the fixed stars ”
one is forever supporting the claim of the Pseudo-skeptics that if the Moon rotates on its axis with respect to the fixed stars, perhaps it does not do so when viewed from the Earth, which is completely false. ”
Your answer on July 26, 2024 at 4:16 PM
” Bindidon shows agreement with my point 3), again. ”
This is dishonest: you intentionally misinterpret ans misrepresent what I wrote: that the Moon always spins, regardless from where it is observed, as my agreement to one of the points supporting your view: that the Moon does not spin.
Explain how I am misrepresenting you.
It doesn’t matter that we come to opposite conclusions, point 3) is that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. So many people are getting caught up in it. It just holds back any progress in the discussion.
I’m not saying reference frames don’t matter, either.
This is turning into a complete joke. Even when there is agreement between the two sides, there’s still somehow a problem. And, if you’re going to keep accusing me of dishonesty, you can gfy.
“No denial involved.”
Well, perhaps you can say that about yourself.
But I am referring to endless discussion on the topic.
Not that I am complaining or anything.
I interested in the Moon, myself.
What is your position on the issue, gbaikie?
What is our Q-Anons point?
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/31/the-effect-of-a-colder-solids-thermal-radiation-on-a-warmer-solid-exposed-to-sunlight/
Ent found another link he can’t understand.
(Don’t tell Ent that the ONLY way to eliminate conduction and convection is with a vacuum.)
Or a freezer
So what is your point?
Lol, guess who this is:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/31/the-effect-of-a-colder-solids-thermal-radiation-on-a-warmer-solid-exposed-to-sunlight/#comment-3948952
The author is seriously confused about the argument. It’s not the GHE that contradicts the 2nd law, it’s the AGW theory. The GHE only claims, albeit incorrectly, that a greenhouse warms due to infrared energy trapped by the glass. It’s the AGW theory that claims cooler CO2 and WV can trap IR, warm, then radiate some of that energy back to the surface where it is allegedly absorbed and increases surface temperature.
This aspect of the AGW theory not only contradicts the 2nd law, it supports perpetual motion and fails to acknowledge very significant losses in the system. It is simply not possible to radiate from a surface, where the result of radiation is heat loss, then expect to radiate a smaller portion of that energy back to the surface and expect it to raise the temperature of that surface. Furthermore, any system that dissipates heat by radiation, and recycles the radiation to raise the temperature of the surface where the heat was lost, is an example of perpetual motion.
An explanation of the author’s heat increase is relatively simple. The bottom plate was not only losing heat by radiation it was losing significantly more heat via conduction/convection. Of course, the rate of dissipation depends entirely on the temperature difference between the plate and its environment.
When the top plate was replaced by a plate 30C warmer, it had to heat the air adjacent to it which represents a reduction in the temperature differential between the bottom plate and its environment. When the plate sees a warmer environment, it stops radiation as much and warms.
Newton’s Law of Cooling prevails here, not the 2nd law.
> The GHE only claims, albeit incorrectly, that a greenhouse warms due to infrared energy trapped by the glass.
The greenhouse effect does mot claim anything.
The greenhouse effect is not about glass.
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Felix newbies:
20:40 / 21:06
SpaceX Finally Ready For Starship Flight 5! What Now? + Block 2 Starship Taking Shape!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8If_Znh32A
I think it’s worth noting that corporate news has been in long duration RUD, and we need the news when we land crew on the Moon.
Moon is just a gravity hole; no need to go there.
Let me know when there is a colonist ship headed for Fiddler’s Green.
Moon rotates to slowly for crops to grow properly.
Well, many think Mars could be a habitable planet, and habitable planet is where one can grow crops. Mars could grow crops for the people living in Venus orbit- and they will tend not to want to be farmers. One thing is sunlight in Venus orbit is valuable, and crops will cause too much shade [and waste of a very useful sunlight].
It’d be easier to populate Antarctic than Mars.
“Itd be easier to populate Antarctic than Mars.”
Well that could be correct. And one might even say Antarctic is less explored. Is there any mineable gold in Antarctica?
But there isn’t a million people who would want to live in Antarctica.
And people are fleeing California, and it has nice weather, here.
A issue is, is there any mineable water on Mars. Evidence of lakes of water on Mars billions of year ago, matters little, today. And alien life on Mars could be a pretty big problem for anyone wanting to live on Mars.
We also don’t know effect of living anywhere where gravity is different than Earth. It could be, bad, bad, and bad, Or good and bad. Or simply don’t know.
People say dumb stuff, like radiation is hundreds of times worse than on Earth. The same can be said about living on ISS. And little doubt of effects of microgravity on humans and other creatures.
So, NASA wants to first explore the Moon, and then explore Mars.
And before NASA was told to do this, NASA for decades wanted to send crew to Mars- and never had ability to do it, never studied artificial gravity, etc, etc.
And after being told, Obama said go find a space rock and mine it- of course, it didn’t happen.
One might say, after NASA has to crashed ISS into Earth, they might explore the Moon. Or perhaps, not.
Meanwhile there is richest person in the world, he building what he has called Starship and has been testing it. And second richest guy in the world, is building a rocket called New Glenn.
China says going to go to Moon and also Mars.
And far more “other players”, Japan, India, etc, Rocket Lab, and others.
Musk thinks he going to make a lot money with starlink, China going to launch their version of starlink. In terms of launch it is mostly SpaceX at the moment, and trailing is China. World used to launch ruled by Soviet Union, Russia, And european launch, And China launch. And only in last few year it’s lend by Musk- came to US, because of “freedom”.
yes…zero rotations about a local axis per orbit is slow.
If Moon and Mars were solid gold, it still wouldn’t be worth the cost of the gravity hole to send anyone there.
If you want to colonize another planet then find one that has a moon, an atmosphere, and habitable temperature.
— Ken says:
August 1, 2024 at 8:07 AM
If Moon and Mars were solid gold, it still wouldnt be worth the cost of the gravity hole to send anyone there.–
Well we have not explored the Moon. We did a flags and footprints programs as PR effort related to Cold War.
But despite not exploring the Moon, we did some science stuff- as it would have been not very good PR if we didn’t. And found out a lot things about Earth- and we could find out more stuff about Earth if did some more {probably}.
But NASA wants to explore Mars.
As can be seen, by failing so far in exploring the Moon, we almost got a starship which could send crew to Mars. And that “effort” so far, in terms of NASA, is a promise of pay 3 billions to land and return a crewed mission to Southern pole on the Moon.
Now could also count the +40 billion dollar spent on SLS- but it wasn’t much about building a rocket, it was a “jobs program” some the US states, wanted- and they claimed it was essential for national security, also.
And one thing about Apollo, it brought back, about 9 tons of lunar sample, lunar material was and is worth far more than gold, gold about $50 per gram, and lunar material will sell presently for more than $1000 per gram. Or a part of the science was returning lunar samples. There not comparison of the amount lunar sample return to Earth as compared to the crewed lunar mission. Really smart idea to bring up some rocks from the Moon- genius level in terms anything any governmental effort ever did.
Well, on Earth we travel at a low velocity, until such time as suborbital travel- where you travel anywhere on Earth in less than 1 hour.
On Mars suborbital travel is slower and takes longer to go, point to point {this another reason global warming cargo cultist want to live on Mars, as they are religiously against fast travel].
Anyways with suborbital travel on Earth, one can use far less CO2 emission and less energy in general to get some far distance upon Earth surface. And on Mars you no longer worried about CO2 emission ending existance {another reason the cultist want to live on Mars}
But in terms gravity holes, if going fast enough, they aren’t a problem. And unless one want dig deep tunnels on Moon, gravity allows to go faster as compared to having your speed limited.
Though speed limit on the Moon is slower than Mars or Earth.
And on Earth, Earthlings, are not going to like things traveling fast, near Earth. Whereas it’s likely the people of Venus orbit will be more permissive, which helps them to be in the center of solar system.
Space Missions to Watch in August: SpaceXs Busy Month With Starship and Polaris Dawn
SpaceX has seven missions planned for August.
https://observer.com/2024/07/space-missions-to-watch-august-2024/
Here are the top space missions to watch in August 2024:
Aug. 5: China launches G60 Starlink megaconstellation.
,,,
Aug. 15: Russia sends a cargo mission to the ISS.
…
Aug. 18: SpaceX launches the Crew-9 mission for NASA.
…
TBD: SpaceX test launches Starship for the fifth time.
…
TBD: SpaceX launches delayed Polaris Dawn.
…
SpaceX has several more Falcon 9 missions scheduled throughout August.
–Why is the Suns Corona So Hot? One Hypothesis Down, Many to Go
The temperature of the Suns corona is a minimum of 100 times hotter than the Suns surface, despite the corona being far less dense and extending millions of miles from the Suns surface, as well. But why is this? Now, a recent study published in The Astrophysical Journal could eliminate a longstanding hypothesis regarding the processes responsible for the coronas extreme heat, which could help them better understand the Suns internal processes. This study holds the potential to help scientists gain greater insight into the formation and evolution of our Sun, which could lead to better understanding stars throughout the universe, as well.–
https://www.universetoday.com/167997/why-is-the-suns-corona-so-hot-one-hypothesis-down-many-to-go/#more-167997
On my side got 3, and one them is tropical storm, Carlotta, two other are 20% and 10% of cyclone formation, And Atlantic has one 0% chance of cyclone formation.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Anyhow none forecasted to get anywhere near me- or any person.
Forecasters predict Tropical Storm Carlotta to grow into hurricane
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2024/08/01/Carlotta-Pacific-Ocean-storm/5281722530140/
–“Strengthening is forecast during the next couple of days and Carlotta is expected to become a hurricane today or [Friday].”–
binny…”Download his paper
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790
and prove him wrong, equation by equation, from chapter 8 to chapter 14″.
***
Better still, why don’t you explain what he is saying, so we can translate it and verify your translation.
Robertson
” Better still, why dont you explain what he is saying, … ”
Just like you forget since years that none of the references entitled ‘Theory of the libration of the Moon’ in the list
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
has anything to do with libration but exclusively explains its causes, you forget also since years that I gave you long time ago explanations about what Tobias Mayer did.
You are and keep so stubborn, arrogant and ignorant that you simply denigrate such explanations, with your incredibly ridiculous ‘He fails to grasp the obvious’.
More styupid you die.
*
” … so we can translate it and verify your translation. ”
YOU, Robertson, verifying a translation from 1750’s German into English?
Ha ha haaah… You are not even able to correctly use Google’s Translator for a translation out of nowadays’s German.
*
How many days, do you think, did I need to produce this translation
https://tinyurl.com/Lagrange-1764-intro
you were absolutely unable to grasp?
Oh dear, the little script kiddy is yet again trying to prove his/her/they/zee/….. superiority.
Only starts to works when people stop laughing at you.
So yet again can the script kiddy answer the simple question of, does a biker on the wall of death spin. ?
Oh dear…
Q-Anon can’t get rid of asking for the umpteenth time the same styupid stuff as what others asked years and years before him, using other examples, however: the oval track, the merry-go-round, the ball-on-a-string, etc etc etc.
How is it possible to be so dumb, so stubborn, so opinionated, so ignorant not to understand that the own question is absolutely irrelevant, because the overall lunar motion cannot be explained by such trivial thoughts?
Why does Q-Anon not have the courage to go to an observatory, and asks how astronomers computed the spin of the Galilean out of their observations?
Answer: Q-Anon ticks exactly as do Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod and the Hunter boy: they all love to discredit what others do.
Asking specialists would be fatal, because it would mean the end of what they need so much.
Look as if the script kiddy is yet again show casing her/his/they sophistry rather than trying to answer the question directly. What a complete Willard, with an added inability of looking at any issue from more than one perspective. Which tends to be a needed skill in software engineering.
Look at QAnon doing QAnon stuff without realizing that Mr. Asshat’s position contradicts all the other Moon Dragon cranks’!
” What a complete Willard, with an added inability of looking at any issue from more than one perspective. ”
Sorry, Q-Anon: you just perfectly described YOURSELF with this trivial statement.
It is the ability of looking at any issue from more than one perspective that helped Humanity to discover
– that the Sun does not orbit Earth
– that Earth is not flat
– that the fact that Moon shows us the same face means it must spin.
That prompted Domenico Cassini to make a first attempt to calculate the most important properties of Moon’s rotation about its axis, and in turn motivated Isaac Newton to explain Cassini’s results to the German astronomer Nicolaus Kauffman alias Mercator as early as 1675, which he published a year later, and so on, and so forth.
Feel free to further deny all that, Q-Anon.
*
” Which tends to be a needed skill in software engineering. ”
What you never have shown at any time on this blog with any valuable result.
Your ‘skill in software engineering’ sounds exactly like Robertsons 100% fabricated engineering resume.
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
rlh…”Gordon also doesnt believe that reference frames mean anything, thus contradicting Newton (amongst others)”.
***
I did not say they don’t mean anything, I said they have meaning only to the human mind. Reference frames are not required in the real universe and the human mind cannot visualize certain relative motions. The human mind has difficulty with simple relative motion like the Sun as observed by the human mind. Everyone I encounter refers to the Sun rising in the east and setting in the west, an illusion peculiar to the human mind..
If the human mind visualizes a real sphere rotating on a real axis, as being stopped in one of his imaginary reference frames, he is experiencing an illusion. If a sphere has angular momentum about an axis, it can stop rotating only when sufficient force is applied to counter its rotational velocity, until its rotation stops. No change of reference frame can accomplish that.
In the real universe, the Moon is obviously not rotating about a local axis. The proof is dead simple using tangent lines to the near side, far side and COG. The tangent lines are perpendicular to a radial line drawn from Earth’s centre to the lunar centre and the tangent lines always move in parallel as the radial line rotates. They are locked to the radial line and cannot turn inide the radial line.
The same tangent lines on the Earth, which does rotate, rotate around a point on the radial line as the radial line rotates about the Sun. Not the same thing. Even if the Earth rotated only once per orbit, the tangent lines would rotate about a point on the radial line once per orbit.
“the Moon is obviously not rotating about a local axis.”
Yet the Sun rises and falls on a predictable sequence.
You are introducing a false comparison.
“a false comparison”
What is that?
Comparing the Moon to a motorcycle introduces a false comparison.
You compare being at the centre of an orbit with being on the orbiting object. Pretty obvious that. Unless you are a complete Willard, which on evidence so far you haven’t plumbed those depths.
QAnon must be late to the party for Richard has always been adamant to insist that we talk about the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system…
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
If Moon were not rotating about its own axis, the Lunar day would had lasted 365 days.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wrong.
Or right, depending on your viewpoint/frame.
If Moon was tidally locked with the Sun- which “might” happen in a billion years {if humans don’t mess with it- and don’t eat it}
So here is everyone’s chance who considers themselves an expert on orbital mechanics.
Consider the diagram linked below. Relabel it as “Earth” and “moon”. Imagine at Point A we draw a little “x” on the moon on the point directly facing the earth and 90 degrees from the direction of travel.
Then pick another point — let’s choose “D”. What direction will the “x” be pointing?
a) still 90 degrees from the direction of travel?
b) still straight toward the earth?
c) still straight toward the center of the ellipse?
d) straight ‘up’, 90 degrees from the original orientation?
e) something else?
Each is different. Each produces a different observed libration, so only one can be correct. Which is it, and why?
http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
Tim goes through the motions of making the same argument he makes every single time. Ultimately, it comes down to him arguing that the moon has two motions, “orbit” and “spin”, rather than just one motion, “orbit”, because (he argues) the moon is “spinning” at a more constant rate, whilst “orbiting” at a varying rate, and that is his understanding of why we see the libration in longitude that we do. So there “must be” two different motions occurring, according to Tim.
To which Ball4 ought to come along and say again, “the moon has two motions (“orbit” and “spin”) wrt an inertial reference frame but only one motion (“orbit”) wrt an accelerated frame. Then, finally, we might see Tim arguing with Ball4 over my point 3).
Rotations are circular, orbits are not.
That should resolve your confusion on the number of motions for the Moon.
I predict you will remain confused.
I did not mention the word “rotation” once in that comment, bob. Better luck next time.
This is not about “how many motions” or “reference frames” or the definition of “orbit” or an other obfuscation DREMT tries. This is about the actual motion of the actual moon.
It’s pretty clear DREMT can’t or won’t answer. Maybe someone else can.
Of course it’s about the number of motions, Tim…but I’m glad you agree it’s not about reference frames.
Now, argue with Ball4.
a,b,c,d, or other. Which is the actual motion of the moon?
“Motions” of the moon, Tim, in your opinion. Plural.
I will come back later, once you have made your point for the twentieth time, and it is revealed that, of course, you are arguing that the moon is both “orbiting” and “spinning” – two motions.
DREMT
“I did not mention the word rotation once in that comment, bob. Better luck next time.”
But you did mention orbits, which you claim are rotations.
So I made a point, but it went over your head.
You are constantly arguing from the premise that the Moon is not rotating.
If your premise is wrong, all your conclusions are wrong, except for blind luck.
“Orbit without spin” is movement like the MOTL, bob. I can’t be bothered saying that’s a rotation about an external axis any more. Too much pointless shrieking about how rotation “must” be in a circle.
DREMT,
Orbit without spin can’t be the MOTL, because the Moon is spinning.
You need to stop shrieking like a banshee.
What an argument that is, bob. Well done. Is there a particular reason you are obsessively following me about from thread to thread?
DREMT,
And you are not obsessed with everyone of my posts?
No.
a,b,c,d, or other.
We all agree the CoM of the actual moon follows an ellipse. This is easily explained by Newton’s Laws of Motion and Newton’s Law of Gravity.
The only thing left to describe is the orientation as it follows that ellipse. Bonus points if you can give a reason based in physics to support your a,b,c,d, or other answer.
Tim, what if “orbit” was one single motion, in which the CoM of the object moved around the ellipse at varying rates, whilst the orientation of the object changed at a more constant rate, producing the libration in longitude that we see…
…and then “spin” was a separate motion to that, altogether.
You seem to be asking “what if the moon had one single motion that I explain by describing the sum of two separate motions?” You seem to be making this more and more complicated just to maintain your position.
You are left with more questions to answer like …
* WHY does the orientation act as if it were rotating at a constant rate on its axis once per trip around the earth? Why is ‘d’ correct?
* What would happen to a ball on string if the string suddenly broke and it is no longer ‘orbiting without spin’? Would the ball move ‘without spin’ as it traveled straight forward? Would the ball suddenly START to rotate on its own axis?
"…the sum of two separate motions"
Bingo! There we go. That’s why I asked you, Tim, because I knew you’d cut to the chase, and reveal that your argument does indeed boil down to the idea that there "must be" two different motions occurring.
So, first of all…I didn’t misrepresent you.
Second of all, where’s Ball4? Now’s his time to say, once again, “the moon has two motions (“orbit” and “spin”) wrt an inertial reference frame but only one motion (“orbit”) wrt an accelerated frame."
Then, finally, we might see you argue with Ball4 over my point 3).
And so Graham D. Warner keeps misrepresenting Mighty Tim.
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
How many comments will Graham D. Warner be able to write in response to Tim’s puzzle without addressing it?
Unable to follow the discussion, Little Willy?
Graham D. Warner makes a 193th comment in this thread.
NONE of them are related to climate.
I’ll take that as a “yes”.
Watch a slow motion video of a hammer throw.
Look at 1.55 here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw&source_ve_path=MTc4NDI0
The ball on a string rotates counterclockwise. during the spin-up and continues to rotate counterclockwise after release.
If it was rotating after release it would have to be rotating before release. The ball-on-a-string shows that the Moon is rotating.
Oh, wow! A totally new argument from Entropic Man! Nobody has ever brought this up before! It hasn’t been discussed at least thirty times already!
What an issue settler!
Graham D. Warner mocks people who gives him sound arguments after he tried to peddle one of his three pet topics on this site once again without providing anything he hasn’t said a thousand times already.
The horror!
Actually, my arguments have developed over the years. The “Spinner” arguments remain exactly the same. If other people can be bothered to respond to Entropic Man’s PRATT then good on them, but I certainly can’t.
DREMT, Forget the word “orbit”. It’s not ultimately an argument about words. It is an effort to decide how to best describe the actual motion. A description that is simple, self-consistent, and in agreement with the laws of physics.
The motion of the moon (or any moon or any planet) can be accurately described as the sum of:
A) a translation of the CoM around an ellipse, in accordance with Kepler’s Laws and Newton’s Laws.
B) a rotation of the moon around its CoM at a constant rate, in accordance with conservation of angular momentum.
Sweet. Simple. And it seems you just agreed this is a good description.
[In particular, the motion cannot be accurately described as a) a rotation about an external axis, b) a ball on a stretchy string, c) a car driving around an elliptical track. These fail to produce the correct motion.]
If you want to call this “orbit without spin”, that is your prerogative. It seems kind of silly that “without spin” should mean rotating on its axis one per trip around the earth, but that is your choice.
Yes, Tim, you want to describe the movement of the moon as being composed of two motions. There’s no need to keep proving over and over again that I wasn’t misrepresenting you. Astute readers will already have been well aware of that fact.
Now…when will Ball4 appear to tell you that from an accelerated frame, the moon’s movement is composed of only one motion? He’s said that before…why won’t he say it again?
You’ve already said that somebody saying so would be wrong. The stage is set for the showdown of the century, then!
I’ll get the popcorn ready.
> what if the moon had one single motion
…it wouldn’t move the way it actually does.
If you say so, Little Willy.
DREMT, I ‘want to’ describe the moon’s motion as the sum of two motions because that simply and accurately describes how the moon actually moves. That is the goal of science.
Why would anyone ‘want to’ describe the motion in a way that is complicated and/or inaccurate?
Also, I could imagine calling the debate about plate tectonics “the scientific debate of the century”. Or quantum mechanics. Or relativity. Or DNA. Or Global warming.
Six random commenters trying to get a grasp on freshman physics doesn’t even count as the debate of the hour.
Tim, you’re still not getting it.
The debate I’m referring to is between you, on the one hand, and Ball4, on the other, and it is about relativity. Not the moon, specifically (although that provides the “background” for the debate).
Do you not see the significance that you are, in effect, saying the moon’s movement is “absolutely” composed of two motions? If you were saying otherwise, you would concede that Ball4 is correct, and that the moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) wrt an accelerated frame. You already said that was wrong, though.
Do you not think that the argument about relativity is more important than the moon issue (even though it springs from discussing the moon issue)?
DREMT, Tim does “get it” since the MOTL movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) wrt the accelerated frame as viewed from Earth (i.e. on the center planet surface in the wiki animation) thus when that accelerated frame motion is accounted for & corrected back to inertial space, then find Tim is correct “in effect, saying the moon’s (MOTL) movement is “absolutely” (i.e. inertially) composed of two motions.”
There is no argument with Tim only arguments with an incorrect DREMT after something like half a decade. DREMT’s training in relativity is long term demonstrated to be lacking in depth while Tim’s is not.
All motion is relative.
Talking about the actual moon, Ball4. Not the MOTL. You stated up-thread:
“Adding clarity to DREMT 6:43 pm, as for our Moon, it’s only a question of location if our Moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) as observed from Earth, or two (“orbit” and “spin”) as observed from the sun.”
Tim disagrees.
Tim does not (yet!) disagree with what I’ve written on our Moon’s motion (or the MOTL, MOTR, or BOS motion) using Tim’s own words. Quote Tim verbatim not what DREMT writes about Tim.
DREMT’s lack of training in relativity is showing again. All real motion is relative except in DREMT’s imagined & physically inaccurate writing.
DREMT,
“Yes, Tim, you want to describe the movement of the moon as being composed of two motions. Theres no need to keep proving over and over again that I wasnt misrepresenting you. Astute readers will already have been well aware of that fact.
Nowwhen will Ball4 appear to tell you that from an accelerated frame, the moons movement is composed of only one motion? Hes said that beforewhy wont he say it again?
Youve already said that somebody saying so would be wrong. The stage is set for the showdown of the century, then!
Ill get the popcorn ready.”
See, reference frames matter.
The accelerating reference matter hides the missing motion.
Here, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1679924
> Do you not see the significance that you are, in effect, saying the moons movement is absolutely composed of two motions?
More misrepresentation by Graham D. Warner.
From the guy who claims that rotation is absolute, no less.
I just linked to the exchange demonstrating I am not misrepresenting Tim, but whatever.
[MIGHTY TIM] I would also say that ALL motion must be measured relative to some coordinate system.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] A B S O L U T I S M
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681409
Graham D. Warner keeps misrepresenting Tim.
This time he projects onto him his own absolutism.
In the linked discussion Tim says rotation is absolute, if you had bothered to read through all the comments.
[TIM] I would say that their description – like your description – fails for elliptical orbits.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] A B S O L U T I S M
“So while we cannot say in absolute terms whether or not an object is translating, we CAN say in absolute terms whether or not an object is rotating”
– Tim Folkerts
[TIM] A merry-go-round horse is not rotating relative to the platform, but is rotating relative to the ground.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] A B S O L U T I S M
If Tim chooses to contradict himself, that is up to him.
Graham D. Warner is free to misrepresent Tim and lie about what he said, it should go without saying.
Verbatim quotes ain’t lies, Little Willy. I can only go by what he says.
A verbatim quote of the contention that Tim is contradicting himself is “I am contradicting myself.” But even then we’d have to wonder if that’s true.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again.
Yeah, right. If you say so, Little Willy. Others can read, and decide for themselves.
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
I already know what the argument is. So I am skipping the “playing along with his game before he gets to the point” part.
I’ve noticed that pseudomoderator loves to get the last word. Is it because in his mind, getting the last word is a victory?
No.
Exactly, JW.
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Here you show for the umpteenth time that you are one of this blog’s worst tr0lls.
Incorrect.
Looks like Graham D. Warner keeps mistaking usage and mention.
Looks like Little Willy is the worst t-word on the blog, by quite some margin.
To mention the t-word isn’t exactly to use it.
Graham D. Warner only looks sillier and sillier.
God only knows what Little Willy is on about now.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Little Willy, why is it that you are so incapable of clearly expressing what you mean, do you think?
Graham D. Warner, who failed once again to relitigate an issue that has NOTHING to do with this blog, has nothing much to contribute.
Little Willy…where did I mistake usage and mention? What are you actually referring to?
EVERY time Graham D. Warner PSTer people he is using the t-word. Which means that he is trying to bypass moderation by using “t-word.” But his simulacrum fails the usage-mention distinction. Compare and contrast:
(Usage) Please stop t-wording.
(Mention) Graham D. Warner is using the t-word.
Another way to see it is to ask: is Graham D. Warner applying the concept underlying the t-word? Yes he is. That’s not the case when one merely mentions the t-word.
Isn’t Graham D. Warner supposed to an honors undergraduate or something?
Have I tried to criticise someone for merely mentioning the t-word, Little Willy. If so, where?
Otherwise, I don’t see what your problem is.
Is Graham D. Warner trying to evade the main presupposition of his PSTering by asking rhetorical question?
Of course he is!
Please explain, as clearly and simply and concisely as you possibly can, what exactly your problem is.
Graham D. Warner does not always ask for a sammich, but when he does he’s always asking for a second one. Then a third. And so on and so forth.
I guess I will assume you don’t really have a problem, then.
Great.
And so Graham D. Warner once again found a way to reply to Tim’s comment without responding to it.
Almost 200 comments from him now.
Just general bitching and moaning then, Little Willy? You’re not even going to stick to one issue on this sub-thread?
203.
32 comments today, from Little Willy, under this article. Plus 4 under the new article. He’s started slow, after his brief hiatus, but he’ll soon be back to being the most prolific t-word on the blog.
Another comment that shows how “ironic” Graham D. Warner’s abusive moniker really is.
You are not a genuine moderator. If you conducted yourself this way on even WUWT or Climate Etc, you wouldn’t last a day. You’re here to exploit the lenient moderation, just like Gordon Robertson and Clint R.
You act like I’m doing something wrong. Mostly, I just argue about issues that others have brought up in the first place. So, if it’s off topic, it’s not like I’m the instigator. Then, I also politely request that t-words like you, John W, stop doing what you do. Big whoop.
Exactly, JW.
The best part of this is that Graham D. Warner is directly responsible for Mike Flynn’s ban.
But he never owned anything in his life, except perhaps a guitar.
Yeah, right.
Why don’t you ask t-words like Gordon Robertson or Clint R to stop tro+lling? The mind boggles.
The mind boggles at who you are, and why you’ve decided you have such a problem with me, John W. Do I know you?
I highly doubt it. But going forward, I’m fine with just ignoring you. Cheers.
That would be fantastic. Thanks.
Perhaps you could ignore Graham D. Warner like he ignored Nate for so long, JW.
Pretend you don’t read his comments, yet systematically respond to them.
Perhaps we can all just stop wasting each other’s time.
#2
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the first time you said it.
#3
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tims comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the second time you said it.
#4
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tims comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the third time you said it.
#5
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the fourth time you said it.
#6
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the fifth time you said it.
#7
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the sixth time you said it.
#8
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the seventh time you said it.
#9
Graham D. Warner once again replies to Tim’s comment but does not respond to it.
Wasn’t true the eighth time you said it.
Solar wind
speed: 405.8 km/sec
density: 0.66 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Aug 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 271
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 235 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.98×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
48-hr change: -2.0%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
13 numbered sunspots.
They haven’t given July averaged total, yet.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
” They havent given July averaged total, yet. ”
Sure?
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-daily
*
Comparing SC 25 / 24 / 23
– daily
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
– monthly
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
SC 25 in July: 196.5, 13 month smooth now at 134.5
Still not there:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I don’t play baseball, just sometime watch it.
Nice graphs.
In any case, NOAA experimental is alive and kicking, still. And will unlikely change in another month. It seems to me, it’s got, at least a couple months. And I thought it would over by now.
But we still in Solar grand minium, unless it at least hits above the upper end of their guess.
Which is possible, of course.
Ir’s there, now:
196.5
It’s higher than I thought it would be.
But it hasn’t changed the blue line, much.
Much less than I thought it would.
Of course it’s only 1/2 value.
But unless next month is as high as July, which then should definitely cause a jump, …
But what important is this month’s high may keep the NOAA experimental cast alive with much higher chance for the next 2 months or more. More waiting, arrgh.
I didn’t it would take so long.
Solar wind
speed: 387.3 km/sec
density: 4.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 260
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 234 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.8% Low
13 numbered spot. 3776 grew/appeared on nearside. And 3768 is leaving to farside.
A 2×4 vehicle has two wheels rotating about their axis, and two wheels just orbiting their axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What a bunch of nut cases.
tim f…” Its not ultimately an argument about words. It is an effort to decide how to best describe the actual motion. A description that is simple, self-consistent, and in agreement with the laws of physics”.
***
Tim, you are using semantics coupled with a red-herring argument.
Newton described the motion several hundred years ago. He said the Moon moves with a linear motion which is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field.
You talk about the laws of physics and they are right there in Newton’s statement. The Moon has only a linear momentum. Were it not for Earth’s gravity, the Moon would keep moving in a straight line.
Now consider that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth. If it were not for gravity, and the Moon was passing Earth, it would keep the same face pointing at Earth as it moved in a straight line. Any rotation would surely be observed.
Do you need any more proof than that? That is what is going on throughout the entire orbit. The Moon is always moving in a straight line and being moved off that path just enough by gravity to form an elliptical orbit.
Your problem, Tim, is that you cannot grasp the simplicity of that argument, nor can you rebut it. Rather, you resort to obfuscation by offering definitions for physical problems that need no re-definition. You simply fail to grasp what physical rotation about a local axis means. It requires a physical momentum about an internal axis.
Based on Newtons claim, there is no physical rotation, the Moon moves only with a linear motion. Do you not think that Newton would have referred to such a physical rotation if it was there?
All we have to relate Newton’s work to lunar rotation is the translation of his work in Old Latin. The translation is murky and does not reflect what Newton said about lunar linear motion converted to curvilinear motion by gravity. That’s why I claim the translator erred in the translation.
Gordon, first you say: “[Newton] said the Moon moves with a linear motion which is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earths gravitational field.”
And then:
“The translation is murky and does not reflect what Newton said about lunar linear motion converted to curvilinear motion by gravity.”
It is clear you don’t actually know what he said. Furthermore, science is not done by appeal to authority (doubly so when you just admitted that your authority is ‘murky’ on the topic!). Science advances, and the words and experiments of centuries-dead scientists does not define the current state of physics.
The moon does NOT move with curvilinear motion, like a bead sliding along a wire or a car driving along a track. Quoting Newton or evoking the word “curvilinear” does not change that simple fact. All parts of the moon do NOT move exactly in parallel. An angle bisector does NOT tell us the orientation of the moon.
I do grasp the simplicity of your argument. I also grasp it is wrong.
Do you grasp that Ball4 is here, ready for you to argue with him?
Graham D. Warner is still stalking Tim!
Does that make him a sociopath?
Of course not. It’s everything else that he does that does.
Nah, just trying to get him to do the decent thing.
Were Graham D. Warner any decent he’d have changed his moniker a long time ago.
Oh, the name! So offensive! Please cancel DREMT!
Graham D. Warner, forever the victim:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
If you say so, Little Willy.
tim f…”Consider the diagram linked below. Relabel it as Earth and moon. Imagine at Point A we draw a little x on the moon on the point directly facing the earth and 90 degrees from the direction of travel.
Then pick another point lets choose D. What direction will the x be pointing?
….
Each is different. Each produces a different observed libration, so only one can be correct. Which is it, and why?
http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
****
Tim…I have explained this to you in detail and the fact you cannot grasp the explanation means you lack the ability to understand it let alone rebut it.
The diagram at your link is not a proper representation of an elliptical orbit. Here is a proper diagram…
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/images/7/75/Ellipse-1.png
Consider now that F1 is the location of the Earth and M the position of the Moon. Therefore F1-M is a line connecting Earth’s centre to the Moon’s centre.
Note the angle F1-M-F2, where M is the location of the Moon. If you bisect that angle it gives you a radial line through the planet. A line at right-angles to the radial line at M is a tangent line and gives the direction of the planet at that instant.
The radial line also indicates the direction the near-face is facing at that instant. As the planet orbits, that radial line will point at different angles to the line F1 – M from centre to centre. However, that line F1 – M is also the line of sight of a human observing the near-face. Therefore the angle between the near-face and that line changes throughout the orbit.
That change in angle is longitudinal libration. It allows an observer on Earth to see about 5 degrees around the edge of the Moon at times.
“The diagram at your link is not a proper representation of an elliptical orbit. “
Yes, it is. There is the central object at one focus, and an orbiting object that sweeps out equal areas in equal times. This is EXACTLY what Kepler’s Laws state.
The lines on my diagram are exactly your line F1-M at various times in the orbit. Both are accurate representations of orbits. Mine is actually more informative because it illustrates the ‘equal areas’.
“The radial line also indicates the direction the near-face is facing at that instant.”
No, it doesn’t. You have a fancy way of saying (a) = still 90 degrees from the direction of travel. Like a bead on a wire or a car driving around a track. That is wrong.
The moon sweeps out equal areas in equal times. And it changes orientation by equal angles in equal times. On my diagram, that gives to a 30 rotation between each letter and the next.
You predict the moon rotates 90 degrees from “A” to “C” but really it only rotates 60 degrees.
From “A” to “D” the moon rotates 90 degrees, while your prediction would be ~ 120 degrees.
“I have explained this to you in detail …” but your explanation is still wrong. Your method DOES produce libration, but it produces the wrong amount.
Tim…don’t you think you should be arguing with Ball4, rather than Gordon?
I think the reference frame issue is a little more important than the moon issue. You know, you actually have the chance to understand and be a part of something bigger. Why not take it?
Graham D. Warner forgets to mention that he disagrees with Mr. Asshat on the linear thing. Just like he disagrees with Puffman on tidal lock. But for some reason he never really hash it out with fellow Moon Dragon cranks.
One has to wonder why…
We have discussed our differences before. “Spinners” never will.
Graham D. Warner is cute when he’s gaslighting.
Obsess over someone else.
tim…Kepler won’t help you determine the direction of the tangent line to the near face, which was what you asked. My method base on the link I posted gives you the exact direction.
The direction is 90 degrees from the radial line to the curve and you get that radial line by bisecting the angle formed by drawing a line from each focal point to the Moon.
BTW…it’s not ‘my’ way, it’s the official way of finding the radial line to a point on the ellipse. With any curve, the tangent can be found by finding the radial line to a particular point on the curve. It’s just easier with an ellipse. To find the radial line to any curve involves drawing a chord from two points on the curve at the point in question.
The tangent line does rotate ‘about’ 90 degrees between A and C, presuming C is 1/4 way around the orbit. The tangent line re-orients through 360 degrees per orbit wrt the stars. The point C is approximately where the semi-major axis intercepts the ellipse.
If you draw a line A to G and bisect it, the semi-major axis would be 90 degrees to that line and should intercept the ellipe near C and K.
Hey, Dremt, how’s it going?
Good thanks, Gordon. Still getting stalked by various sociopaths on here! Other than that, fine. How are you?
“The direction is 90 degrees from the radial line to the curve ”
Gordon,
Yes, you have the ‘official’ way to find the line normal to the ellipse at each point.
No, that is not the direction the moon is facing. Your solution does not conserve angular momentum.
“The tangent line does rotate about 90 degrees between A and C, presuming C is 1/4 way around the orbit. “
A to C is 1/4 of the DISTANCE around the orbit, but A to D is 1/4 of the TIME around the orbit (that is where Kepler’s law comes in). And since the moon rotates on its axis at a constant angular velocity (as required by conservation of angular momentum), the moon rotates 1/4 of the way around (ie 90 degrees) at D not C.
“I think the reference frame issue is a little more important than the moon issue.”
The reference frame issue is a tangent to the moon issue, which is the core of the discussion. Reference frames are important, but only insofar as they help us accurately describe and discuss how the moon actually moves.
“You know, you actually have the chance to understand and be a part of something bigger. ”
The reference frame issue is not bigger; just different. It is one tool to help us accurately describe and discuss how the moon actually moves.
“dont you think you should be arguing with Ball4 …”
I could. I don’t agree with everything he says about reference frames or how he says it. He is right that reference frames help us understand MOTL motion. For that situation, the MOTL is not rotating on an internal axis with respect to the rotating frame centered on the earth. But for the real moon, it is not that simple.
“… rather than Gordon?”
Gordon does not accurately describe how the moon actually moves. That is the bigger issue. As the moon translates along the ellipse, it rotates on its axis at a constant rate, not at a varying rate as he suggests.
Getting the basic motion wrong indicates a fundamental misunderstanding. Relative to the stars, our moon (and every other moon an every planet and the sun) rotates on its axis at a constant rate with constant angular momentum.*
* Other than tiny changes due to tidal interactions, but that is way beyond the scope of the current discussion!
"Reference frames are important, but only insofar as they help us accurately describe and discuss how the moon actually moves."
Sure.
"The reference frame issue is not bigger; just different. It is one tool to help us accurately describe and discuss how the moon actually moves."
You’re not quite grasping what I mean. We’ll get there.
"I could. I don’t agree with everything he says about reference frames or how he says it."
That’s a very diplomatic way of saying he’s an utterly incompetent clown.
"He is right that reference frames help us understand MOTL motion. For that situation, the MOTL is not rotating on an internal axis with respect to the rotating frame centered on the earth. But for the real moon, it is not that simple."
OK, let’s discuss MOTL motion. Upthread, you stated:
"I think everyone here knows that MOTL is not the sum of two rotations about two axes."
Ball4 would say that wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is rotating about two axes, but wrt an accelerated frame, the MOTL is rotating about only one axis.
Your thoughts?
Graham D. Warner just can’t listen.
No wonder he keeps misrepresenting Mighty Tim.
“Your thoughts?”
Once again, we can talk about both (the MOTL and the actual moon) and consider both (an inertial frame and a rotating frame). Four distinct cases. People (including both B4 and DREMT) are sloppy about which of the 4 they are thinking about at any given time.
1: Inertial Frame, MOTL can be described as:
* a translation of the CoM in a circle and a rotation about the moon CoM
* a rotation about the earth CoM
* a translation of the near side of the moon about external axis and a rotation about the near side of the moon.
* an infinite number of other descriptions.
Because all of these are equivalent, in the inertial frame, we can equally well say the moon is rotating about the earth, or about its own internal axis (or about any number of other axes).
2: Frame Rotating with Moon CoM, MOTL can be described as:
* the frame is rotating, but neither the earth nor moon is moving (not translating and not rotating about any axis).
[Ball4 seems to be accurate about these. In the rotating frame, the moon is not rotating.]
3 Inertial Frame, real moon can be described as:
* a translation of the CoM in an ellipse plus a rotation about the CoM at a constant rate.
* a rotation of moon CoM at varying rates about the earth, plus an translation of hte moon CoM in and out along that line, plus a rotation at varying rates back and forth (ie a wobble) around the moon CoM.
Only the first is simple. The second is akin to epicycles.
4: Frame Rotating with Moon CoM, Real Moon can be described as:
* The earth is stationary; the moon is translating in and out, and wobbling back and forth (to create libration).
[For (4) B4’s description is not accurate. The moon is wobbling back and forth in this rotating frame frame, rather than not rotating at all.]
That was WAY too much to get across the ideas, but (baring typos or errors cutting and pasting) everyone knows where I stand and doesn’t need to misunderstand what is happening.
“For (4) B4’s description is not accurate.”
I don’t quickly recall my comment describing motion observed from an elliptical Earth orbit Frame Rotating with (Real) Moon CoM, that would be fairly difficult to write about or even imagine the scene.
Perhaps Tim can provide a verbatim quote or link.
OK, let’s try that again:
Upthread, you stated:
"I think everyone here knows that MOTL is not the sum of two rotations about two axes."
Ball4 would say that wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is rotating about two axes, but wrt an accelerated frame, the MOTL is rotating about only one axis.
Is he correct, in your opinion, yes or no?
DREMT queries: “Is he correct, in your opinion, yes or no?”
I would rather respond to what B4 ACTUALLY said. But I can respond briefly to what you state (which is actually answered in what I just wrote).
“wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is rotating about two axes”
This depends on what you mean precisely.
* The MOTL is not the SUM of two separate rotations, which was what I accurately said in the section you quoted.
* The MOTL can be described equally well as (maintaining a constant distance from either the earth CoM or the moon CoM) and (changing orientation relative to either CoM), so it can equally well be described as rotating about either axis. In *this* sense it is rotating about both axes.
“wrt an accelerated frame, the MOTL is rotating about only one axis.”
With respect to the rotating frame (@ earth CoM), MOTL is not rotating (or translating) AT ALL! The *frame* is rotating about the earth CoM, and the moon is not rotating within the rotating frame.
Whether this is actually what B4 thinks, or just your projection, that is the answer.
“Perhaps Tim can provide a verbatim quote or link.”
Sorry B4 — this is what happens when DREMT asks all sorts of hypotheticals about what people might have actually said or might have actually meant.
I was addressing how I *would* respond if his interpretation for your position was applied to elliptical orbits.
[See various recent posts for what I actually, directly think.]
Ball4 knows what he’s said, time and time again. I’ll let him respond to your corrections of his endless, repetitive droning.
Well, Tim…you almost got it right. I’ll add my corrections (only discussing MOTL)…
1: Inertial Frame, MOTL can be described as:
* a translation in a circle and a rotation about the moon CoM.
* a rotation about the earth CoM with no rotation about the moon CoM.
In other words, there is only ever possibly one axis of rotation for movement like the MOTL. There are not two axes of rotation for an object moving like the MOTL.
Graham D. Warner always asks that we quote him verbatim, but he seldom reciprocates.
Why trust him?
No DREMT that 1:40 pm comment is partly wrong, as Tim & ftop_t correctly point out to you, your 2nd one under 1: in the inertial frame one observes all sides of the MOTL thus the MOTL is rotating on an internal axis wrt to that inertial observer as ftop_t showed in his later animation and as one observes in the wiki animation situated on the picture frame.
The real moon and the MOTL have inertial spin on their internal axis which can be found from any accelerated frame once the accelerated frame motion is accounted. Proper use of Galilean reference frames resolves all the lunar motion issues.
All motion is relative.
Ball4:
“The MOTL is not the SUM of two separate rotations, which was what I accurately said in the section you quoted.”
If you accept that wrt an inertial reference frame the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis, then with that description, Tim’s comment should make clear to you that it is not rotating about an internal axis. I’m not sure why none of you get this, especially since it was proven mathematically. Or you can test it for yourself just using an online transmographer.
Before we get waylaid with Ball4 and Tim both arguing against me rather than what they should be doing, arguing against each other, can I try to briefly steer this back to my original point?
Ball4 said, up-thread:
“Adding clarity to DREMT 6:43 pm, as for our Moon, it’s only a question of location if our Moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) as observed from Earth, or two (“orbit” and “spin”) as observed from the sun.”
Tim, here, already said the accelerated frame part was wrong:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1679924
Tim seems to be saying that the moon’s movement would be composed of two motions either from an inertial reference frame or an accelerated frame. In other words…absolutely.
Ball4 seems to argue that number of motions for our moon is also determined by reference frames.
> In other words…absolutely.
Graham D. Warner keeps projecting his own absolutism.
Newton would be proud.
[DREMT] So, yes, your argument is that the moon’s movement is composed of two motions. What would you say to someone that argued that from an accelerated frame of reference, the moon’s movement was composed of only one motion?
[TIM] I would say that their description — like your description — fails for elliptical orbits.
…and, just to prove I didn’t make up Ball4’s position re the number of axes of rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1680598
Read through from there. bob’s “stiff wire” scenario basically refers to an object moving like the MOTL. I pointed out that it has only one axis of rotation, not two, Ball4 shows up to try and tell me it’s dependent on reference frames, again!
“Tim seems to be saying …”
Nope. Not even close. Its like you don’t even read what I say and we have to go back to square one every time.
The moon moves. One measurable, observable motion. That one motion is the same in all reference frames (but the values that describe the motion will be different in different frames). (Not “two motions”, or different numbers of motions in different frames. Just motion.)
Our goal is to be able to describe and predict that motion. One simple accurate way is to describe the singular motion as the sum of a two mathematical actions — a translation around an ellipse (sweeping equal areas in equal times) and a rotation about an axis through the CoM (at a constant rate) in a non-rotating frame centered at the earth-moon barycenter.
[TIM NOW] Not “two motions”, or different numbers of motions in different frames. Just motion.
[TIM EARLIER] DREMT, I ‘want to’ describe the moon’s motion as the sum of two motions because that simply and accurately describes how the moon actually moves. That is the goal of science.
Tim can’t keep his story straight. But, at least he’s agreed there’s not different numbers of motions in different frames, directly contradicting Ball4, who said:
“Adding clarity to DREMT 6:43 pm, as for our Moon, it’s only a question of location if our Moon’s movement is composed of one motion (“orbit”) as observed from Earth, or two (“orbit” and “spin”) as observed from the sun.”
I can’t read your minds, you guys. Only your words. They suggest to me that Tim and Ball4 are in direct disagreement, but won’t argue with each other.
And so Graham D. Warner confuses the finger with the Moon once again.
The motion of the Moon.
Rotation as a motion.
These are not the same things!
Tim…Ball4 said that there were a different number of motions for our moon’s movement dependent on reference frames. As you have said you disagree, you should say so…to him.
Ball4 also said that the number of axes of rotation for movement like the MOTL was dependent on reference frames. As you have said you disagree, you should say so…to him.
Then, since I have backed up everything I’ve said with links and/or verbatim quotes, perhaps you should apologise to me for suggesting I’m making this up.
DREMT, I don’t know why you are so obsessed with “numbers of motions”.
The moon HAS motion. How we DESCRIBE that motion varies. There are different ways to describe it in different frames.
I could DESCRIBE MOTL as translating and rotating about an internal axis in an inertial frame.
I could DESCRIBE MOTL as rotating about an external axis in an inertial frame.
I could DESCRIBE MOTL as not moving at all in a rotating frame.
These are not 2, 1, and 0 motions respectively.
Tim, I don’t know why you are disputing Ball4’s comment with me. I also don’t know why you’re disputing your own earlier comment that the moon’s movement is composed of two motions. However, looking only at your two inertial reference frame comparisons, the more accurate word would be “transformations”; and yes, absolutely there are 2 transformations in your first example, and only 1 transformation in your second. You could informally refer to them as “motions”. The first involves “spin”, the second doesn’t.
To be extra clear, “the first example involves “spin”, the second doesn’t.”
> I also dont know why youre disputing your own earlier comment
Graham D. Warner not only keeps misrepresenting Tim, but he blames Tim for it!
An absolute disgrace.
Tim’s earlier comment:
“DREMT, I ‘want to’ describe the moon’s motion as the sum of two motions because that simply and accurately describes how the moon actually moves. That is the goal of science.“
I can only go by what he says. Is he now saying he thinks this is wrong? Is he disowning his entire libration in longitude argument? I don’t know…because he seems to chop and change what he is saying every five minutes.
DREMT,
“Read through from there. bobs stiff wire scenario basically refers to an object moving like the MOTL. I pointed out that it has only one axis of rotation, not two, Ball4 shows up to try and tell me its dependent on reference frames, again!”
You lost that one DREMT.
It has two axis of rotation, and since you can’t exactly bend the wire back 90 degrees, the two axes are not parallel.
You rotate one end of the wire, that produces the orbital motion, and the other end of the wire keeps oriented towards the center of the orbital motion, clearly showing that both ends are rotating on an internal axis at those ends.
Serious comments only, please.
If Graham D. Warner really went with what Tim says, then this:
[MIGHTY TIM] Our goal is to be able to describe and predict that motion. One simple accurate way is to describe the singular motion as the sum of a two mathematical actions
would be the end of it.
But Graham D. Warner will relitigate just about anything.
DREMT,
How many axes of rotation does a flexible socket driver extension have.
I’ll us your cults system of counting.
One, two, or many?
I said, “serious comments only”.
Nice attempt at censorship, DREMT, I thought you were against censorship.
You’re free to make your silly comments, I’m free to say “serious comments only”.
DREMT,
Then how about making some serious comment?
Start with “I was wrong”
And how about not linking to sites that say the Moon rotates on its axis.
If your case is that the Moon does not rotate.
bob, I’m not wrong. There is only one axis of rotation in your “stiff wire” scenario. How can you possibly accept that there’s only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, but think that there’s two with your bent bit of stiff wire!? You just can’t think clearly on this subject.
DREMT,
The wire can’t stop rotating on its axis just because it is bent.
Remember, axes of rotation are straight lines.
It’s a perfect model of what you call orbital motion without axial rotation.
But both ends are still rotating on different axes.
If you put a ball on the end, it keeps one face towards the inside of the orbit.
Just like the Moon, the ball on a string, the chalk circle, and your my little pony.
The ball on a string is revolving because one can’t keep the center of rotation perfectly still to make it a rotation.
Yes, bob, axes of rotation are straight lines.
There is one axis of rotation, where the drill is. Then, all parts of the piece of wire, and the ball, are rotating about that one axis.
I predict you still won’t understand.
DREMT,
Still wrong, and every time I correct you, you gaslight me, saying I don’t understand.
Conservation of angular momentum, the wire is spinning before it is bent, so by that law, it is still rotating on an axis after it is bent.
Using a flexible socket extender, where are, and how many axes of rotation are there.
Considering the law of conservation of angular momentum.
You claim to have studied science?
As predicted, he still doesn’t understand. Hilarious,..but, I’m happy being better than him. No worries.
Someone doesn’t understand the law of conservation of angular momentum.
And he doesn’t care.
Just sticks his nose in the air and waves his pinky ring.
There is one axis of rotation before bending the wire, and there is still one axis of rotation after bending the wire. It’s located where the drill is. Nothing in this Universe can change that pure, perfect, absolute, mathematical fact. There are not two axes of rotation in your scenario.
DREMT,
Try holding an end of the wire in each hand and revolve one end around the other, and tell me the wire does not spin in both hands.
You know experimental evidence trumps your psychopathic desires to be always correct.
Experimental evidence shows both ends to be spinning around different axes.
bob, the end of the wire furthest from the one single central axis will turn in your fingers because it’s rotating about the one single central axis.
I’m not a psychopath bob, I just am correct on this. Geez.
DREMT,
You may not be a psychopath, but you do a pretty good imitiation of one on YouTube.
A psychopath thinks he can win an argument by just declaring himself the winner.
Is that you Charlie?
If you say so, bob. If you say so.
Thanks Charlie,
and how is Squeaky?
If you say so, bob.
DREMT,
“…end of the wire furthest from the one single central axis will turn in your fingers because its rotating about the one single central axis.”
No, it’s your hand holding the wire that is revolving around the end in the drill, the wire is rotating in your hand.
Any one can see, that there are two motions going on.
Rotating and revolving.
One axis of rotation. Not two.
DREMT,
We don’t know what you mean by axis of rotation for an internal rotation.
We don’t know how you would test for it.
Until you define what you mean by rotation on an internal axis, you have not won any argument.
Come on, put an end to this eternal squabbling and define what you mean.
By rotation on an internal axis.
Til then, you got nothing.
You already tried that, bob.
DREMT,
That’s right, I tried that.
But you did not respond with a definition of rotation about an internal axis.
You can’t win if you don’t define your terms.
Orbital motion without axial rotation is still as dead as Franco.
That is a lie, bob. I gave you a definition. I will not be bothering to repeat it.
Sorry I must have missed it.
The Moon still spins on an internal axis.
Liar.
That’s rich, a Moon rotation denier calls me a liar.
Utterly obsessive stalker, begone.
DREMT,
You can’t address my arguments so you want me gone.
Why don’t you leave instead loser.
I’ve refuted all your arguments, and I want you gone, since we’re at the boring stage where you just lie about things I’ve said, and start declaring yourself the victor, and start whining about personal remarks when you dish out a thousand times worse pretty much every day.
DREMT,
Please stop projection your insecurities on me.
“No, you”, says bob, with his typical maturity.
john …”You are not a genuine moderator. If you conducted yourself this way on even WUWT or Climate Etc, you wouldnt last a day. Youre here to exploit the lenient moderation, just like Gordon Robertson and Clint R”.
***
Any ijit who cannot see the humour in Dremt’s nym should be commenting at WUWT or climate etc.
And an ijit who sides with wee willy (aka dickus modicus), a scumbag who stalks people to the extent of finding their real names and posting them, should definitely not be here.
Do you seriously think wee willy would last an hour at either of your sites?
Can you name a single friend of yours on here who isnt a tro+ll?
“And an ijit who sides with wee willy (aka dickus modicus), a scumbag who stalks people to the extent of finding their real names and posting them, should definitely not be here.”
Gordon, you shouldn’t make serious accusations without evidence.
He’s correct, John W. Little Willy is an absolute disgrace. Of course, he’s on “your side”, so you’ll all tolerate anything he does without question.
Every comment you make here can be referenced or potentially taken out of context at any time in the future.
Thats the nature of the internet. If that bothers you, you should not post public comments.
See? Little Willy’s behaviour is already excused. In fact, it’s now my fault, apparently.
Here’s a comment that does not need any context, JW:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1240543
It shouldn’t be too hard to find Graham D. Warner’s name. In fact he still says where he lives. Were he really that concerned about his personal information, he’d have scrubbed the trace a long while ago.
Ripping off his shirt is too important to this little scumbag.
See? Little Willy had no choice but to dox me, since I posted a link to a YouTube video. He had to repeatedly post my real name, on here, hundreds of times. He just had to.
Graham D. Warner has no choice but to leave all the information that refutes his claim that I’m doxing him.
Poor sod.
Pardon, doxer?
john…you have no idea what a trohl is. Any of my acquaintances on here strive to present science. We also try to support Roy. The trohls are those who intentionally disrupt the flow of science and are here only to disrupt the science presented by skeptics and oppose Roy’s science.
None of them, including you, will engage in a scientific discussion. They respond only with red-herring arguments and distortions.
You don’t seem to be too bright so you won’t understand that.
Mr. Asshat still tries to portray the recurring denials of his bunch of cranks as S C I E N C E.
What a buffoon!
DREMT, I found your Facebook account with just one click from your YouTube account, which shows your real name as your email address. You made this information available for anyone to see. How is that considered stalking? Are you just trying to get attention now? Go make some real-life friends.
…and before I posted a link to any YouTube video, Little Willy had posted a comment stating roughly where I lived.
Still think he’s not a stalker, John?
> Go make some real-life friends.
For that Graham D. Warner would have to leave his house, JW.
Will I see a dodgy looking van with you sat inside it, watching my front door, if I do?
Nobody believes anything you say, DREMT.
Lol, OK. Enjoy your new online friendship with an absolute disgrace of a human being.
Here’s even better, JW:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
What better than a smut song projecting his own inner violence to show that Graham D. Warner is really afraid?
You were caught lying about your real name being leaked here. Without any evidence to support your claims, why should I believe anything you say?
Caught lying by the fact that Little Willy indeed "stalks people to the extent of finding their real names and posting them"? It was Gordon who said it, and it wasn’t a lie. Little Willy found my name, and posted it.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting, once again by equivocation.
Why would anyone trust him?
Little Willy, “why would anyone trust him” is your ultimate aim in nearly everything you comment about me. You’re just trying to poison the well.
I can back up my claim that you posted where I lived (very rough location) before I even linked to YouTube. You know I can, because I did before. You just kept changing the subject. What I would like is for you to just admit it…
Graham D. Warner continues his gaslighting, this time trying to crank his sammich requests.
Why would anyone waste time trying to please this scumbag?
The evidence you requested, John W:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230928204206/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1160735
More relevant for you to consider, JW:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220405161016/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1231780
Little Willy, the upload date of the video itself is after the timestamp of the comment where you reveal roughly where I live. You found out roughly where I live before I even uploaded the Moon Rotation video, let alone linked to it on here.
You’re rumbled.
Mr. Asshat was saying stuff about finding real names.
JW called him out on it.
Instead of acknowledging that Graham D. Warner himself posted a video that leads to his FB page on which WE CAN STILL read his name and his email, he’s throwing another fit about non-identifying information, which has NOTHING to do with doxing.
The little scumbag is at it again.
How did you find out roughly where I live, Little Willy?
JW is right –
Graham D. Warner has been caught lying about his real name being leaked here.
It’s a funny old world when agreeing with an accurate description of what happened is called “lying”.
Little Willy has never once explained how he came to find out roughly where I live, although the only rational explanation is that he got it from my IP address when I commented at And Then There’s Physics, a website where he is a moderator (if you can believe that!).
The moral of the story is…don’t comment at ATTP unless you want to pick up a stalker.
#2
JW is right –
Graham D. Warner has been caught lying about his real name being leaked here.
Still wrong, Little Willy.
#3
JW is right –
Graham D. Warner has been caught lying about his real name being leaked here.
#2
How did you find out roughly where I live, Little Willy?
#4
JW is right –
Graham D. Warner has been caught lying about his real name being leaked here.
#3
How did you find out roughly where I live, Little Willy?
#5
JW is right –
Graham D. Warner has been caught lying about his real name being leaked here.
DREMT,
I know I said I was going to ignore you. But since you addressed me, I reviewed your “evidence”. Suffolk is a county with over 700,000 residents. This information is not specific enough to identify you. To put you at ease, I’ll share that I live in New South Wales.
What Willard did may warrant, at most, a serious conversation with him via private email about appropriate conduct in the future. Given that Willard is a moderator at ATTP, it should be easy to contact him privately.
If you were truly concerned about your safety, why did you leave that comment up for over a year instead of asking Dr. Spencer to delete it? The comment was posted in February 2022, while your web archive snapshot is from September 2023.
And why would you feel comfortable linking your YouTube and social media on the blog 2 months after Willard wrote that comment? Is that a fair question to ask?
John…why is it my fault?
#6
JW is right
Graham D. Warner has been caught lying about his real name being leaked here.
John…if you apologise for falsely accusing me of lying, apologise for suggesting I made up the claim about Little Willy somehow finding out roughly where I live and posting it on here, generally change your bad attitude and start accepting that Little Willy is entirely in the wrong on this issue, and that his stalking is to be evidenced throughout the blog where he follows me around from thread to thread writing his snide little personal remarks, that what Gordon said about him was entirely correct, and generally stop acting like this is all my fault…
…then I might consider answering your questions.
“those who intentionally disrupt the flow of science and are here only to disrupt the science presented by skeptics and oppose Roys science.”
Gordon shamelessly forgets that he regularly disputes Roy’s science!
Dr. Spencer provides a forum that is dedicated to free speech with the very minimum amount of moderation or interference of any kind. He trusts and hopes that people will behave responsibly. So here we have a discussion of people who shamelessly brag about their abuse of this privileged with the justification that others are worse.
Shameful!
I would assume that Dr Spencer takes a dim view of online harassment and stalking, though.
rlh…”the Moon is obviously not rotating about a local axis.
Yet the Sun rises and falls on a predictable sequence”.
***
You have finally convinced me that any ijit can get a Masters degree.
binny…”Just like you forget since years that none of the references entitled Theory of the libration of the Moon in the list…”
***
You can bluster all you like, I have never seen an explanation of lunar motion from you, nor an explanation of Meyers.
All you offer are appeals to authority since you lack the ability to understand even basic physics.
Robertson shows definitely signs of dementia.
I guess that’s how it must look to someone like you with fill-blown dementia.
The Global Warming is an orbitally forced natural phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Agreed. And also global cooling, like the LIA.
Each year, the orbit causes extreme cooling in the Arctic and Antarctic. Between 1400 AD and 1850 AD, the Little Ice Age occurred and it has to be related to the orbit or to variations in solar energy. Maybe both. Now the planet is warming, controhled by the orbit, which causes cooling as well.
Gordon,
You must mean the axial tilt of the Earth’s rotation.
yes…but the axial tilt would not do much without the orbit.
wee willy scumbag…”The best part of this is that Graham D. Warner is directly responsible for Mike Flynns ban”.
***
Mike Flynn was never banned. If he was, you would not be able to enter his name without modding it.
This demonstrates how much of a lyar wee willy is.
That doesn’t mean “never”, Gordon, since Dr. Spencer may have modified his blog banned list from time to time.
> Mike Flynn was never banned
Perhaps Mr. Asshat missed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1677745
That could not have been Mike Flynn since he had not been around for several years before July 2024.
It was the lyar wee willy who included the name Mike Flynn in square brackets. It was also the lyar wee willy who equated Mike Flynn to Swwenson. If Swwenson has been banned then wee willy should be banned and I may have to ban myself since I fully support Swwenson.
Let’s face it, wee willy is the outlier here. He is an utter scumbag who has gone out of his way to stalk posters and harass them.
> That could not have been Mike Flynn
Yes that could, and it was.
Mr. Asshat has no business here.
Do you not think it might be time for you to move on to some other website, Little Willy?
Graham D. Warner has made more than 200 comments on this page on an issue that he would not be able to discuss on the website of his guru Joe Postma.
Why?
Why not?
One possible answer:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
Not what I was asking, Little Willy.
Which part of “Not the place here” does Graham D. Warner not get?
I was asking why exactly can I not post over two hundred comments on this blog about the moon issue. Not why can I not post about the issue on Climate of Sophistry.
Graham D. Warner never really asks anything.
He is mostly having a little fun.
If you say so, Little Willy.
There is not any artificial warming trend of AGW.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… except that from man made addition of IR active trace gases in Earth’s atm. as experimentally demonstrated in the lab and in the wild.
5000 years ago it was much colder. The sea level was lower, the Aigean Civilization fluorished then.
Now, it is warmer, the sea level is higher, many ancient (sites) cities are under the water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In Christos’ 5,000 years during which the pyramids were built next to a long lost river, evidence shows the globe near surface atm. warmed about 4-7C while in the past century evidence shows a rate of warming order of ~10x that rate experimentally consistent with lab and in the wild measured monotonic increase from artificially added ppm of IR active trace gas & others.
Attributions to increase in global median T from changes in each of those IR active trace gases, sunlight, aerosols, water vapor (humidity) et. al. is now known from satellite measurements over the last few decades with good enough confidence nature’s actual amount of global median warming is within the 5%-95% published confidence intervals.
It is spelled “Aegean”.
Vournas again invents as he needs, quite as does Robertson.
From ‘Weather in History 11,000 to 4000BC’
https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-11000-to-4000bc/
5000 BC
Although it is probably dangerous to put a particular year to an event this far back in history, many researchers regard the period around 5000 BC as the warmest in post-glacial times: the discussion revolves around whether our current spell of warmth is comparable & I’m not yet sure there is any sort of definitive answer. Lamb (reference 6) puts the mean temperature for this era at around 2degC above the second-half of the 20th century values; remember that in the current ‘Global Warming’ debate, we’re usually talking about differences much less than this.
*
From Wiki (a web site always discredited by pseudo-skeptic people, unless it exceptionally fits their narrative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
*
No doubt: 5000 years ago it was much warmer than today, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, and even more in the Arctic.
*
Past sea levels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
5000 years ago, sea levels were about 1 meter below nowadays:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Thank you, Bindidon.
“From Wiki (a web site always discredited by pseudo-skeptic people, unless it exceptionally fits their narrative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
*
No doubt: 5000 years ago it was much warmer than today, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, and even more in the Arctic.”
From Wiki:
“Milankovitch Cycles
The climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.[citation needed]
The effect would have had the maximum heating of the Northern Hemisphere 9,000 years ago, when the axial tilt was 24 and the nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during the Northern Hemisphere’s summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 0.2% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, which tended to cause more heating.”
(emphasis added)
Milankovitch wrongly assumed the not reflected portion of solar flux is totally absorbed. Whereas what solar energy does is to interact with surface’s matter.
Also, Milankovitch neglected the very much stronger influence from the Southern oceanic waters accumulating properties.
Milankovitch ignored the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Milankovitch accented on the axial tilt variation, which produce a comparably small difference.
But it is the precession of the equinoxes that is the major climate changer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… except recent measured climate change (see top post black line changes) due to our addition of IR active trace gases in Earth’s atm. as experimentally observed in the lab and in the wild.
Also it is necessary to point out, that currently Earth is still in the millenials long the orbitally forced warming pattern.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Milankovitch wrongly assumed the not reflected portion of solar flux is totally absorbed. Whereas what solar energy does is to interact with surfaces matter.”
Light impacting a surface does one of three things. It is reflected, transmitted, or abso.rbed.
You are suggesting there is a fourth option: ‘interact with’ which is rather vague.
Please show us a legitimate source that supports and explains this fourth option.
Thank you, Nate.
“Light impacting a surface does one of three things. It is reflected, transmitted, or abso.rbed.”
There is not a fourth option: “interact with”.
What part of light is not reflected, it is interacting with matter.
Absor.tion is included in nteraction.
When solar light gets reflected, it is also a result of interaction, but let’s consider it separately, because the reflected light doesn’t count in the planet radiative energy balance.
When the not reflected light interacts with matter
it gets partly transformed into IR outgoing EM energy
and partly transformed into heat, which heat is abso.rbed.
–
Now,
How light is transmitted ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“it gets partly transformed into IR outgoing EM energy
and partly transformed into heat, which heat is abso.rbed.”
False. Light that is not reflected from the Earth is abso.rbed. That means its energy is deposited in the material.
Only if the surface warms as a result does it get emitted as IR.
Thank you, Nate.
“Light that is not reflected from the Earth is abso.rbed. That means its energy is deposited in the material.
Only if the surface warms as a result does it get emitted as IR.”
–
Do you mean that when energy is deposited in surface, the surface gets warmed first, then surface, as a result, emits that energy as IR ?
How much should the surface get warmed before it starts emitting ?
Doesn’t surface emit all the time ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That could not have been Mike Flynn since he had not been around for several years before July 2024.
It was the lyar wee willy who included the name Mike Flynn in square brackets. It was also the lyar wee willy who equated Mike Flynn to Swwenson. If Swwenson has been banned then wee willy should be banned and I may have to ban myself since I fully support Swwenson.
Let’s face it, wee willy is the outlier here. He is an utter scumbag who has gone out of his way to stalk posters and harass them.
> That could not have been Mike Flynn
Indeed that could, and indeed it was. Here he is, resurfacing at Tony’s:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/31/the-effect-of-a-colder-solids-thermal-radiation-on-a-warmer-solid-exposed-to-sunlight/#comment-3948952
Even Mr. Asshat can’t deny that this is a voice we all know and love.
Or can he?
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
The “Spinners” just keep throwing crap against the wall. They can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, so they just keep slinging crap.
A couple days ago, bob decided he had “proof” that Moon has two kinds of angular momentum.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680840
I told him Moon had neither spin angular momentum, nor orbital angular momentum. But, he found a source on the Internet that supported his beliefs, that became his “proof”!
bob is not the only one that doesn’t understand angular momentum. It’s more than likely his entire cult doesn’t understand it. Folkerts doesn’t understand it, and the rest tend to swallow whatever Folkerts spews, so the Norman/Nate/Willard/Bindidon/RLH types would also believe Moon has both types of angular momentum.
That’s why this is a good time to explain.
Orbital angular momentum is “mvr”. That is, mass times speed times radius. And angular momentum is conserved. So, let’s look at the simple physics, if Moon actually had orbital angular momentum:
Moon’s bogus AM = mvr
But NASA claims Moon is moving away from Earth, based on measurements from laser reflectors left on moon. In fact, they claim Moon is moving away from Earth at about 4 centimeters/year, or about 2 meters over the last 50 years.
So, let’s compare orbital angular momentum from 50 years ago to today —
(mvr)old = (mvr)now, as angular momentum is conserved.
Since Moon mass is the same, we can eliminate “m”. Then, (vr)old must equal (vr)now. To be equal, with r” (Earth/Moon distance) increasing, “v” must be decreasing. Something like this —
Old = New
(vr) = (v/x)(rx)
Example: Radius is increased by 1%:
New = (v/1.01)(r*1.01) = vr = Old
So, Moon’s orbital speed would be decreasing. But, if Moon’s orbital speed were decreasing, it would move TOWARD Earth due to gravity, not AWAY from Earth as NASA is claiming.
“Spinners” can either disagree with NASA, or admit that Moon has no orbital angular momentum.
Poor bob is WRONG again.
Agreed!
Clint claims: “But, if Moons orbital speed were decreasing, it would move TOWARD Earth due to gravity, not AWAY from Earth as NASA is claiming.”
Someone doesn’t know much about orbital mechanics. Satellites CLOSER to the earth orbit both with SHORTER period and HIGHER speeds.
For circular orbits, the speed can be easily derived to be
v = (GM/r)^(1/2)
(assuming the mass of the central object, M, is significantly larger than the satellite’s mass).
Low earth orbital speed is about 7.9 km/s
Geostationary orbital speed is about 3.1 km/s
Moon orbital speed is about 1.0 km/s
Both theoretically and experimentally, moving AWAY means decreasing speed.
Once again Folkerts, you show us you don’t understand any of this. You want to use satellites? Okay, what happens to a satellite when it loses speed?
Keep proving me right. I can take it….
Clint, there are so many ways to show you are wrong.
1) I gave the data. Larger circular orbits are measured to move at slower speeds.
2) Centripetal force is caused by gravity for orbits.
mv^2/r = GMm/r^2
Solve for v
3) this one is trickier and will probably go over clint’s head. If a satellite is in a circular orbit and fires rockets forward, then …
* it will gain speed
* it will change to an elliptical orbit with a large semimajor axis
* at the far point in the orbit it will actually be moving SLOWER than it started.
*give another push forward to go into a circular at the new larger radius. And a slower speed than it started.
For those curious to know more, read up on Hohmann Transfers.
Well Fraudkerts, if there are “so many ways” to show me wrong, let’s see just one.
You’re not even on topic. That’s how confused and incompetent you are. A stable orbit links the radius to the speed. The radius provides the gravitational acceleration to match the speed. That’s why the orbit is stable.
Now, what happens to a satellite in stable orbit if its speed is increased too much?
If only Graham D. Warner could come here and correct Puffman
“lets see just one.”
Well, I just gave you three.
“A stable orbit links the radius to the speed. ”
Specifically a stable circular orbit links the radius to speed, by that equation I just gave you.
v = (GM/r)^(1/2)
“Now, what happens to a satellite in stable orbit if its speed is increased … ”
You really do read well do you? I just explained that one to you too, for stable circular orbits.
For those who care to learn, here is a simple concrete example with the actual moon. Lets start with simple concrete data.
Perigee: 363,000 km, 1.082 km/s
Mean: … 384,000 km, 1.022 km/s
Apogee: . 405,000 km, 0.970 km/s
Suppose the moon was given an extra push at apogee (farthest from earth moving slowest) so that it was boosted from 0.970 km/s to 0.994 km/s.
Now the moon happens to have the right speed to move in a circular orbit at 405,000 km from earth. We gave a BOOST to the speed, it is in a LARGER orbit, but the AVERAGE speed in lower than before.
Again, all this is well known. All this is covered in the Hohmann Transfer link.
And once again, Clint won’t be able to spot any specific errors or flaws, but he will STILL be sure he is right and the people who actually put satellites into orbit are incompetent.
Folkerts, we know you can produce endless blah-blah to pervert reality. But, can you answer the simple question — What happens to a satellite in stable orbit if its speed is increased too much?
Clint, we all know you can’t understand anything beyond about a high school level, and that you get confused by numbers and equations. We can simplify it back to a high school level for you.
Adding “too much” speed depends on what you mean by “too much”, which you never defined.
Add some speed to an orbiting satellite and the orbit gets bigger (and the average speed actually goes DOWN).
At some point, the added speed will reach the escape velocity and the satellite will leave the earth at a slow speed.
Even more added speed will let the satellite leave at a higher speed.
[All of this of course ignores interactions with other planets and the sun, which become important as a satellite gets farther and farther from the earth.]
Just more of his distracting blah-blah, now with false accusations.
Folkerts still didn’t answer the simple question — What happens to a satellite in stable orbit if its speed is increased too much?
(He’s wanting each word of the question to be defined — “happens”, “a”, “in”, etc. That’s a ruse to cover up his ignorance of the issue.)
CLINT: “Folkerts still didnt answer the simple question”
I answered it three times! I answered it with specific numbers.
“Hes wanting each word of the question to be defined”
Nope! Just wanting a clarification about an opinion — “too much”. “Too much” is not a technical term and has no meaning without clarification about context.
“Just more of his distracting blah-blah, now with false accusations.”
That’s Clint in a nutshell!
Folkerts claims he answered the simple question “three times”, but then claims it has “no meaning without clarification”!
Can someone get Folkerts a glass of reality. He’s choking on his own blah-blah.
Start with the wrong equation, get wrong results.
Astute physics students should have an easy time telling why this equation from Clint for angular momentum is wrong.
“That is, mass times speed times radius.”
Responsible adults understand it, bob.
See if you can find one to help you.
Don’t expect Graham D. Warner to correct Puffman on this, Bob.
Try getting a bicycle wheel filled with steel shot and a turntable that will support your weight.
A common prop used in high school physics classes.
Which is obvious you have never even experienced.
Or better yet, get on a motorcycle, drive down a straight road fairly fast but withing any speed limit, and pull back on the right grip of the handlebar, and see which way the bike turns.
“So, Moons orbital speed would be decreasing. But, if Moons orbital speed were decreasing, it would move TOWARD Earth due to gravity, not AWAY from Earth as NASA is claiming.”
Did not think Clint could possibly get more physics wrong, but he surprises us again!
Satellites that are further away indeed move slower.
But to go from a lower to a higher orbit satellites need to first speed up! Ie they need to gain energy.
But they end up converting kinetic energy to potential energy, moving slower in a higher orbit.
This is obviously beyond Clints ability.
Cult child Nate makes the same mistake as his guru, Folkerts. I guess that’s to be expected….
This issue is NOT about different orbital radii. It’s about changing speed for ONE radius. Too slow a speed for a stable orbit will cause the satellite to fall. Too high a speed for a stable orbit will cause the satellite to move farther away.
The cult children have no responsible adults to explain things to them.
Don’t expect Graham D. Warner to correct Puffman on this, Nate.
” Too high a speed for a stable orbit will cause the satellite to move farther away.”
Which is what I said. Nothing to do with your earlier erroneous claim.
I did NOT make an “earlier erroneous claim”, child Nate.
The fact that you cult kids cannot deal with reality should tell you something.
Clint R,
Yes you did, this equation for angular momentum is incorrect.
“That is, mass times speed times radius.”
Can you ask a high school AP physics student for the correct formula?
Don’t hurry, I got all day, week, year, and life.
Wrong again, bob. As usual, this is WAY over your head.
To try to understand, start by memorizing my words:
Orbital angular momentum is “mvr”. That is, mass times speed times radius. And angular momentum is conserved. So, let’s look at the simple physics, if Moon actually had orbital angular momentum:
Moons bogus AM = mvr.
Angular momentum is L = mvr sin(theta)
where theta is the angle between the vectors v & r.
The equation mvr is correct for a circular orbit, since v & r are perpendicular. It is also correct at perigee or apogee. But not at other places in the orbit.
Except in the case of Moon, which has NO angular momentum.
AM is “mvr”. Moon has no “r”, since there is no physical attachment. “r” equals zero, so “mvr” equals zero.
Learn some physics, Folkerts. Then you won’t have to go around faking it.
It is amusing that pretty much universally when Clint says “learn some physics”, he actually wants people to *MIS*learn some physics. Today’s example is angular momentum.
Angular momentum in physics is L = mvr sin(theta). There is no requirement for a ‘physical connection’. Read ANY university physics text. Ask ANY prof. Check any website. Angular momentum would not be conserved with Clint’s definition, since angular momentum would suddenly change in the universe any time a spinning object broke and pieces flew off.
Clint won’t be able to find a source that says angular momentum requires an attachment. So he will bluster. He will say the ‘cult’ is misleading us. He will say all those physics texts have physics wrong, and he alone has it right.
Folkerts is so desperate because he’s been exposed. He can’t support any of his nonsense, so he’s clogging the blog with false accusations and misrepresentations.
He’s regressing to Norman’s level!
Perhaps Puffman lives in a spinning universe.
“Clint wont be able to find a source that says angular momentum requires an attachment. So he will bluster.”
Wow. It took less than 10 minutes to prove me right.
CLint R,
“Orbital angular momentum is mvr. That is, mass times speed times radius.”
That’s a scaler, Clint R.
Find an equation that results in a vector.
Because angular momentum is a vector, Victor.
The cult kids rush in to help Folkerts.
What a surprise….
But they still have no answer to the simple question: What happens to a satellite in stable orbit if its speed is increased too much?
The satellite simply disappears over the speed of light?
You make it too easy Clint R.
For the answer to your question, look at the tag on your undergarment.
Clint R,
Angular momentum is a vector Victor.
Don’t confuse it with a scalar Edmund.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
DREMT,
Please stop stalking me.
Please stop avoiding the auto censor.
Please stop being a useless ****.
bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.
When Roy banned Swennsonn back in July, I noted how all the alarmists jumped to Roy’s defense. Yes, Swennsonn was a thorn in the side of the alarmist with his constant request that they prove the GHE exists. Not one alarmist has managed to prove there is such an effect in the atmosphere. So, the alarmists are happy to see him gone.
A real greenhouse warms due to all heated air in the greenhouse being trapped by glass. Comparing such an action to an alleged GHE in the atmosphere cannot explain the lack of glass in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the atmosphere is rife with convection currents.
Not one person here has satisfactorily explained the meaning of the GHE. Richard Lindzen, an expert in atmospheric physics, could not explain it as written. He stated…
“…the popular depiction of the effect as resulting from an
infrared blanket is seriously misleading, and, as a result,
much of the opposition that focuses purely on the
radiation is similarly incorrect”.
Actually, Richard, it is not an infrared blanket it is a heat-trapping blanket, and the definition you have given is for AGW not the GHE. The allegation posed by AGW is that heat is trapped by GHGs. That is not possible since any heat related to the radiation disappeared the instant the IR left the surface.
Even though Lindzen claims the GHE theory is misleading he persists in using an analogy to a real greenhouse. Why??? Why can we not scrap this incorrect anachronism and develop a new theory? Climate alarmists are not only perverting science, they are offering extreme resistance to any change in their pseudo-scientific paradigm that a trace gas is causing imminent climate disaster.
Some confuse the GHE with AGW, which is a modified GHE using CO2 as a warming agent. However, the ability of CO2 to warm an atmosphere that out-weights it 99.96% to 0.04% is not even minimal but insignificant. Both the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation make it clear that CO2 at 0.04% cannot warm the atmosphere more than 0.06%. That means for every 1C warming, CO2 adds about 0.06C.
Another bit of confusion is that GHGs cause the surface to cool at a different rate. That is clearly not possible since the the rate of cooling, according to Newton’s Law of Cooling, is dependent only on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment, in this case, the entire atmosphere, which is 99.9+ percent oxygen and nitrogen.
> I noted how all the alarmists jumped to Roy’s defense.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Roy does not need any defense.
Perhaps Mr. Asshat is trying to stir a mutiny on the blog after his good buddy Mike Flynn got banned for abusing Roy’s rules.
Poor sod. How many friends does he have left here?
Not much, JW.
Graham D. Warner mainly ignores him, and Puffman started a handbag fight with Mr. Asshat a while ago which should soon resume.
There is gb, with whom he still work in tandem for some “yes, and” logorrheas. There is also Kennui, with whom he shares reactionary talking points like two brothers in arms about some silly culture war.
It’s really hard for contrarians to organize any kind of epistemic work. They have the potential to be good clowns. But as you can see they’re mostly buffoons.
John W, Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Graham D. Warner, please go away.
No apologies, John?
Graham D. Warner does not need to apologize before he goes away.
Little Willy feels the need for more attention.
Graham D. Warner writes another comment.
John?
And another.
Yes.
refrigeration
There’s those “reactionary” talking points from little willy.
Just another hammer and sickle head. A commie troll who just plays his “climate ball” game.
That’s the clown you should have banned, Roy.
A research paper on this topic is published in the journal Nature.