Home/BlogI’ve researched different options regarding commenting with the main intent of reducing bad behavior in the comments section. As many of you know, over the years I’ve banning certain words (which can be circumvented anyway, and inadvertently can lead to acceptable words being banned.)
I’ve also banned certain persons by their IP address, e-mail address, and screen name.
Again, these blocks can all be gotten around, which is why any new commenter must have their first comment be approved by me. This system works pretty well, especially for the few people who cannot hide their identity (think D-C) since their message is always the same.
The biggest problem I’m currently having is that some people who comment here repeatedly belittle others. This does not foster a healthy exchange of ideas, and no one wants to wade through an endless stream of insulting comments.
So, what I am leaning toward is banning of certain individuals who make a habit of insulting others. I will be the sole arbiter of who has crossed the threshold of bad behavior, what constitutes an insult (for a couple of you, it’s a subtle art form), and they will no longer be allowed to post using the same user name, email address, or IP address. This also means that others will not be able to mention them by user name after they are gone, but you all know how to get around that, anyway.
Of course, I cannot prevent those I’ve banned from reappearing with a new user name, email address, and IP address if they are clever enough. But if they resume their bad behavior, they will just be banned all over again. But if they turn over a new leaf… welcome back.
I will not give out warnings regarding bad behavior. Certain people will just disappear from the comments section. Think of me as Big Brother from 1984. Don’t bother protesting, because for each person who is banned I will have a list of quotes from their comments in reserve as evidence.
I will try to remember to post some brief commenting rules at the end of each of my new blog posts so that everyone is forewarned.
Almost everyone who posts here has reason to be worried, myself included.
But it was hilarious on the other recent thread to see the worst offender here, clearly anticipating that he would be the first target, declaring himself to be the number one victim of attacks. Does he have any clue how transparent he is?
“Almost everyone who posts here has reason to be worried, myself included.”
I’m not worried at all. Okay, being on dynamic IP does help allay my fears… but the main reason I’m not worried is that I don’t make a habit of insulting others.
It will be interesting to see who does end up getting banned.
Gordon is the number one victim of attacks. He gets more abuse than anyone I’ve ever seen, on any blog, ever.
Graham D. Warner is free to believe any falsity he pleases.
At least in this case it helps him cope with the loss of another fellow.
I was just stating a fact.
Telling a poster he has the science wrong is neither an attack nor troxxing.
Like that’s all he gets. You really have no idea, bob.
DREMT,
I was talking about your behavior.
You are nowhere near as polite as you think you are.
Bob,
I don’t see how anyone can tell anyone they have the science wrong when it comes to GHE. There’s so much nebulousness and questions in the theory that no one can be axiomatic about it.
Which was my main point here.
Many of us need to pull our head in, myself included. But some have convinced themselves they are not a problem.
It’s hard to tell whether they have a perception problem, or whether they really have no idea what appropriate behaviour is.
One thing I find very distasteful is this continual addressing of people in the third person. If it is designed specifically to irk people then it is wrong, whether or not it comes across as a direct attack. (That applies also to posting the same comment ad infinitum.)
Until certain people acknowledge they have an issue which needs addressing, there is no hope that they will fix it. A rule of thumb: if you find yourself (in a science debate, not a conversation like this about behaviour) talking about the person instead of the science, you need to pull your head in.
Perhaps people should be striving for the moral high ground instead of satisfying themselves that “they did it first”. Because no one knows who “did it first”.
Stephen,
“I dont see how anyone can tell anyone they have the science wrong when it comes to GHE. Theres so much nebulousness and questions in the theory that no one can be axiomatic about it.”
The core description of the GHE is fairly simple science.
If one is claiming it doesn’t exist, then they do have the science wrong.
And yes, there are a lot of misconceptions out there.
Like the claim it violates the second law of thermodynamics.
> Which was my main point here.
That point has not been identified. What follows has nothing to do with the exchange. Hogging the mic hinders communication as well as anything else.
And worse is that you vent about speaking about the third person without even addressing me, AQ. This is not your class, and nobody is your high school student here.
Bob,
And yet the core description seems like something is missing. When you don’t include conduction and convection in your description, and ignore 99.5% of the atmosphere, there needs to be an explanation why it is trivial. You get a guy like VC who uses the same emissivity, and the same albedo, but also another correction based on planet spin, and he comes up with a model that seems reasonable and doesn’t include GHE. I do want to play Devil’s Advocate with him. He talks about 0.4% of the thin atmosphere but most of the water vapor is low altitude and the same with CO2 so it is concentrated down near the surface. So, most of the GHE is occurring within the first three miles of the surface, probably the first mile of the surface. So, GH gas is not effectively 0.4%, it is a higher value. I think that throws a little of a monkey wrench into Vournas’ premise.
Willard
My point was clearly identified.
And why would I address you when I wasn’t specifically talking to you? Do you expect me to address the same post to the half dozen or more people that applies to?
It is speaking IN the third person, not “about”. The fact that you don’t know the difference suggests you don’t know what I was referring to. It seems you believe it refers to talking ABOUT someone you are not addressing.
Stephen,
Conduction and convection are part of the model of the atmosphere that includes the GHE.
The whole atmosphere is what determines the amount of the GHE.
Have you gotten around to reading Manabe and Strickler?
I haven’t but I have read other sources and have done spectral analysis and know how to recognize a Carbon Oxygen double.
In college when I listened to a lot of vinyl, I wondered what the deal was with discwasher fluid, why it was so expensive and why it was labeled as a hazardous substance. Put some in the IR spectral analyzer and found out it was deionized water just like it looked like.
VC is working backwards, that’s not how to apply the scientific method, reverse engineering maybe, and conjuring up constants to fit the curve.
> why would I address you when I wasnt specifically talking to you?
Because I’m the one who does exactly what you complain about right above your comment, dammit! Graham D. Warner lost his privilege to be addressed directly a long time ago. Whether how I refer to him displeases you or not is the lesser of my concerns.
When you say “which was my main point here,” to which remarkes is it connected? Nothing clearly identifiable in the sub-thread in which you start your comment. Just imagine if you read my comment without knowing I’m responding to your “why would I address you” etc.
Quoting to what you respond would help. Readers can more easily what prompts your comment, even if your comment gets lost in the threading. It would also help with the following point:
This is a thread about Roy’s policies. Roy is basically asking us to play the ball, not the man. I get that the “no insult” policy worries you: it’s really hard to tackle a ball without its carrier to feel something. But if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.
Now, if only Little Willy could follow his own advice…instead of obsessively stalking and relentlessly attacking a small, select group of people that he’s deliberately targeted.
> could follow his own advice
Graham D. Warner shows a perfect example of the ambiguity I was talking about.
What advice?
That ambiguity allows him to “attack” by rehearsing his own grievance in another exchange in which it is of little relevance.
We wish him luck finding an insult I made on this page. To help him out, an insult looks like this:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] you’re just trying to kiss up to Dr Spencer in the hopes of not getting banned.
Willard
I just said you are one of AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN who do that.
Try not to make it all about yourself.
Your entire complaint is predicated on the false belief that I was talking directly and solely to you.
However in retrospect in is interesting to see someone who has made more than 1300 comments in a month referring to “hogging the MIC” based on a mere handful of comments.
Your final paragraph was clearly a soliloquy to yourself, so there is no need to touch that.
It is clear that your promise to Mr Spencer was no more than lip service, and made only under the threat of action, not out of a sense of what is right.
> Your entire complaint is predicated on the false belief that I was talking directly and solely to you.
That’s incorrect, AQ. It’s predicated on the fact that your rant was made after a comment I made, that it targeted me, and that in it you were not ADDRESSING me.
Not unlike what you were complaining about. Very much so not unlike that it’d be interesting to know why it wouldn’t irk you if I ranted right next to you about unnamed “commentators” who still act as if this thread was meant for them to air out their petty grievances.
I’d rather tell you directly that this isn’t a thread about what irks you. It is about Roy’s policy.
Is that clearer this time?
Willard
My comment had NOTHING to do with yours. It was a direct reply to bobdroege’s comment, and someone else managed to slip in a comment before I hit reply.
You continue to believe the world revolves around you.
My comment was about you, Clint, Gordon, RLH, and everyone else who addresses people in the third person.
That’s right … this is a thread about his policy, and that is what I am talking about.
> My comment had NOTHING to do with yours.
It had SOMETHING to do with me, along “AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN” other commenters. And how you talked about me without addressing me does NOT cohere with the grievance being expressed in that comment. A grievance that has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER regarding Roy’s policy.
Speaking of which, if you could refrain from probing my mind, that’d be great.
This advice:
“if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.”
That is what I was referring to. You don’t do that yourself, you see. In fact, you have directly targeted certain individuals from the very start of your commenting here, and you have hounded them with attacks on their character, relentlessly. You labelled them as part of a dark triad, associating them with negative personality traits, and have belittled them every step of the way.
“You labelled them as part of a dark triad, associating them with negative personality traits, and have belittled them every step of the way.”
Swen*son, Clint R, and Gordon: would you really believe using them as examples actually helps your argument? These individuals certainly do not demonstrate good blog etiquette themselves.
Nothing justifies his behaviour, John.
Are you a personal friend of his, by any chance? You seem awfully invested in defending him.
No, I’m not necessarily defending that. AQ’s points are valid. Its rarely just one or two people at fault; it’s usually many individuals involved.
Willard
“And how you talked about me without addressing me does NOT cohere with the grievance being expressed in that comment.”
You continue to show that you have no clue as to what it means to address someone IN the third person.
AQ continues to fail to show how his concern is related to the no-insult policy established by Roy. And Graham D. Warner fails once again to make his tu quoque valid, if only because he keeps butchering how time works.
“…if only because he keeps butchering how time works“
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> supposed to mean?
“You don’t do that yourself” is in the present tense.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner can point in this thread where I fail my own advice, recall that it was made to appease someone worried about his own behavior, and tell readers how literally he interprets “as much as possible”?
Actually, I consider your use of my real name an insult. Regardless, are you trying to suggest that because you believe you have refrained from insults for one article we’re all supposed to be impressed and forget what you were like for the last three years!? You are certainly in no position to dish out advice.
Graham D. Warner’s actual nickname *is* insulting. It shows disrespect not just toward Roy, but toward every single commenter here. And coupled with the constant PSTering using a banned word, it reinforces a pattern of abuse.
If you say so, Little Willy. Others may have a sense of humour. Or, be able to understand the points I’ve been making.
Willard
Because as you did just then, you and others do it with the sole purpose of pissing people off.
> with the sole purpose
AQ just can’t resist probing mind again.
Whatever reason he does that, I’d say it’s not very polite.
Not even Wisconsin polite, in fact.
Again you do it for the sole purpose of pissing someone off. There is no other reason for doing it, because you ONLY do it with people you are having a disagreement with.
At least you appear to have finally figured out what referring to someone in the third person means. It took you a while.
“if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.”
And let’s be very clear. PSTing as it has been practiced, is responding not to what people say at all, but to the commenter.
It’s intent is only to irritate opponents.
AQ finally admits that his special pleading was not that subtle after all.
You are certainly running through your entire bag of tr0ll1ng tricks. Why don’t you admit you have no intention of living up to your “promise” to Mr Spencer.
AQ uses once again a word that has been moderated in response to a comment that mirrors his, except perhaps for the fact that mine is valid (he was indeed special pleading), whereas his is unsound (I knew all along what he was talking about).
Perhaps it’s too hard for him to adapt to Roy’s new policies. Or perhaps it’s just the sign of old age. So many theories.
What a revolting individual you are. You are even worse than Clint and Flynn. What are you doing on this side of the climate debate. Go and make friends with Postma.
AQ might be revolted by a non-insult, at least according to his own characterization. Could be a lack of education in the humanities. Or perhaps because he believes he’s paid to talk down to kids every day. Who knows?
Yep, you really are our Postma. I’ll let you have the last revolting word that you so desperately crave. A craving that led to 1300 posts in a month (and that was only on the monthly climate report thread). How anyone could have the time or inclination to spend all day every day here is beyond me, while also finding time to “research” everyone’s personal details. My students don’t need talking down to. Not one goes remotely close to stooping to your level. It is easy to infer your personal school experience from that comment.
AQ could recognize that to probe minds like he did was uncool, and contrary to Roy’s new policy. He does that a lot. Since he believes he’s a Good Guy, he should be fine. Godspeed on that.
AQ could also own the fact that to talk about me without addressing me or even mentioning me was not very cool either. It also runs against his own do-not-irk-me policy. Since this post isn’t about AQ’s policies by Roy’s, we can let it slide.
AQ could also acknowledge that his analysis of what is or isn’t an insult was rather self-serving. There are too many examples of phrases that can both act as compliments or insults to bother refuting it. Questions of a guy-who-shan’t-be-named simply do not carry the same connotations as his worries about his own mother.
Truthfulness has nothing to do with true politeness anyway.
But at the very least AQ should stop acting like we’re on speaking terms.
I’d be grateful for that.
Just completed a small round of PSTing in the comments under this article:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/
I’ve started quoting the offending words or sentences to explain the PST, and think I can defend each PST as being justified. So, unless Dr Spencer voices his express desire for a cessation of PSTing, I will continue to do so using these stricter rules.
Thank you, and good day.
Astute might forget the original reason Graham D. Warner offered for his PSTering:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1592467
That reason coheres with what he calls the “irony” behind his actual nickname and his earlier “just joking” defense.
Click on Little Willy’s link, and scroll down to the comment with this timestamp:
January 12, 2024 at 11:10 AM
No need to repeat myself, it’s all explained there.
> Astute might forget
Astute readers, that is.
This comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1592526
OK Mr Spencer – I’ve been trying to work out who “D-C” is, but I am clueless. It this that guy you banned years ago where you had to shut down commenting until he went away? What was his name?
I’ll let others clue you in. I’ve posted on his behavior, as has Anthony Watts.
Insulting the author of an article on the internet is an American internet tradition.
Vicious arguments within the comment thread must be allowed to continue until one person compares the other person to H i t l e r. Only then should the Moderator step in. That is Al Gore’s Internet Rule 3b. He invented the internet.
Moderation is a tough job. The Moderator must earn respect to prevent nasty comments in the first place. One way is to arbitrarily redirect every 20th comment to the internet on the planet Uranus. Show the commenters who is boss.
There should also be one day a month called Climate Theory Day where anyone can state their personal climate change theory with no reply comments allowed.
Freedom of the Pres Day..
On that day I might present my Blubber Theory: It’s not getting much warmer, but adults are getting fatter, so it feels a lot warmer to them than when they were young and slim.
D o u g
C o t t o n
D-C is Douglas Cotton who is a long running “there is no greenhouse effect” pest who wears out his time in many blogs he crashes to push the same “there is no greenhouse effect” message no matter what the topic is and tries to circumvent his much banning’s with variations of his name and IP’s he uses.
Because he has a massive ego and a burning Narcissism complex, he is easy to spot IF he was able to get through the first post moderation approval barrier as he speaks the same way no matter what his screen name and IP’s he is using he simply can’t hide his identity when he writes in the distinct manner that screams, I am Douglas Cotton.
He is still around in some places, but blog owners are finally realizing that his being stopped at the first post approval requirement by denying him to get in through the door is the best way to shut him down.
I figured out who D-C was. I see he hasn’t made a climate-related post on any of his four Facebook accounts for 6 years. What is worrying is that he has Australian politicians from the Left in his friends list. I suspect they haven’t investigated what he is all about.
Anyway, based on his stated university history, he would be about 80-81 years old. So perhaps he has entered the world of dementia.
It is also clear that he is no expert in the field, following the 1000frolly (Robert Holmes) path to self-expertise (and then to oblivion).
> he would be about 80-81 years old. So perhaps he has entered the world of dementia.
See, AQ?
*That* is an insult.
Which person on this thread have I insulted?
You DO understand it is all about keeping communication cordial between people ON THIS SITE, right?
And no it wasn’t an insult anyway. There was no judgement there, any more than if I’d said perhaps he is dead. Just surmisal about his fate.
AQ does not always speculate about dementia, but when he does he can’t be insulting anyone for he’s not judging anyone and the demented person isn’t here anyway.
Two forms of special pleading for the price of one!
My mother is having memory issues. I fear she may be getting dementia.
Did I just insult her?
.
.
.
Salvatore has disappeared from here and has not posted on Facebook for a few years. I fear he may have passed on.
Did I just insult him?
.
.
.
Joe Blow has no idea about climate. It is probably caused by dementia.
THAT is an insult.
.
.
.
Suggesting that someone might have a disease over which they have no control is not an insult. Using it to falsely explain their behaviour is. Pretty simple really.
Has AQ ever talked about his mother publicly? Has she done something that irks AQ and got her banned from most Climateball blogs? Do people say of her things like that she “has a massive ego and a burning Narcissism complex”?
Is AQ worried that his mother have Left Aussie politicians in her FB friends’ list? Is D* related to AQ in any way? Is AQ a doctor or a psychologist? Would AQ explain his mother’s weird beliefs by “she is dead”?
AQ’s suspicion that D* has dementia might be more loaded than he presumes. As far as I can tell, his Very Neutral stance only differs from Puffman’s constant appeal to reality from an aesthetic standpoint. In both cases we have two Climateball players who refuse to own what they do with their words by hiding behind implausible deniability.
Could I have the English version please Willard.
We can safely predict that AQ will soon pretend he’s not being insulting right now.
Speech acts are not mere strings of words.
"We can safely predict that AQ will soon pretend he’s not being insulting right now"
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
This will be a difficult task but I, for one, welcome it. I’ve stopped reading comments due to the vigor of insults. Thanks Dr. Spencer.
Thank you.
Best comment so far. Thanks Roy for trying to make this more like Rank Exploits and less like Tony Heller’s.
It’d be great to have a list of the words that are banned.
Figuring out which word is banned is a problem, particularly as the word list isn’t simply the profane. Editing a comment in the hope of finding what is preventing it from posting is frustrating.
I think he expects people to cope by simply not pushing the boundaries. The only reason for wanting to know what you can’t say is so that you know how bad you can get without transgressing.
“I think he expects people to cope by simply not pushing the boundaries.”
“The word list isnt simply the profane.”
Its r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n and other words that should be innocuous.
How can you have a discussion about CO2 without using absorp.tion?
Not having to relitigate well-established properties was perhaps the point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Note the date.
Here are the main two reasons GHE theory is still around:
1. Nobody has come up with a better theory. I think it is due to the complexity of the planet’s thermodynamic processes. Maybe the theory is correct but like Dr. Spencer says climate sensitivity might be much lower than those IPCC guys calculate. Maybe it is even much lower than Dr. Spencer thinks. If climate sensitivity is less than 1, let’s move on to another problem. If it is 2.2 like Happer estimates, let’s move on.
2. The left is using it as a way to control the economy and be the utopian masterminds that they think they are. Many of the posters here fit that category.
Point 1 alone is correct.
Point 2 is not a statement where correctness applies, in the two senses of the term.
If you avoid insults there are only a few words left that are unfortunately banned because of the names of previous commenters now banned, and a small number of others that are mystifying.
Any word or letter string with a C after a D will prevent the post going through. This can catch people out with weblinks.
absorp.tion
is another.
Variants of r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n can prevent posts
There are a couple of others, and sometimes you just can’t tell what it is.
Avoid insults and the above and the vast majority of your posts should go through.
refrigeration
itself certainly isn’t the problem.
All words containing the letter sequence ‘r p t’ for example are a problem, exactly as are those containing ‘d c’, what is especially disturbing when posting links containing such sequences.
A response page telling us why a post is not permitted would be just as good, and could be quite simple. Just highlighting the blocked word would do it.
“Ive researched different options regarding commenting with the main intent of reducing bad behavior in the comments section.”
Does this mean the daily commenting limit of 10 is gone?
Never noticed such a limit. If it’s real, it must be new.
barry
Yo just need to look at the previous thread:
” UPDATE: Im going to start limiting comments to 10 per person per day. “
I can’t implement a daily comment limit without requiring registration from everyone, which is non-trivial.
FWIW, I will try to abide by it.
It’s worthless, because you’re the worst t-word on the blog, and you’re just trying to kiss up to Dr Spencer in the hopes of not getting banned.
Graham D. Warner is not insulting at all, and he is merely defending himself here.
“I cant implement a daily comment limit without requiring registration” – true, but you can implement a daily comment limit for an assumed identity. Computationally intensive, should be only run once an hour or a day. The culprit would be banned for the next hour/day.
Simpler still, a 3-hour comment limit for everyone.
"Graham D. Warner is not insulting at all, and he is merely defending himself here."
No, I was attacking you – and rightly so.
Yeah, right.
Endless attempts to throw people’s words back in their face when it doesn’t even apply could be considered as “negative noise with no useful input”.
“Endless attempts to throw peoples words back in their face when it doesnt even apply could be considered as ‘negative noise with no useful input’ ”
Thanks for pointing out the issue with Clint’s commenting strategy. He even throws other people’s words in your face and asserts they must be yours too because you both accept climate change. And he does it ALL THE TIME.
Yeah, that’s not Clint R’s commenting strategy at all.
Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for trying to improve the website. If the response above is is any indication, the sophomoric silliness will continue. How is it that such well-educated people behave like spoiled, entitled children when online? Why can’t we have civil discussions?
T
What is this “response above”? There is nothing remotely uncivil in this thread.
Roy Spencer
The problem is not only that some posters use to discredit and even insult others, what results in the insulted persons (my self included of course) beginning to counter-insult.
The problem is also that some posters (always the same guys) insult also scientists and science in general, e.g. by insulting great, historical astronomers as ‘astrologers’ or, even worse, as ‘cheating S O B’ and the like.
This is simply disgusting, and IMHO shouldn’t happen on a science site.
Yep, well I’ve been the victim of a sustained and utterly relentless character assassination attempt over months (years, in fact) by multiple commenters, and have even been stalked to the extent of people posting my real name on here and looking up roughly where I live from my IP address when posting on a different blog. I’ve even had someone suggesting I should kill myself.
All because I have different views than these people on a few trivial subjects, and can express them clearly.
The Moon is important- the constant interest, proves it.
It is well known that the people who complain loudest about being bullied are often bullies themselves.
…but, not in this case.
studentb,
DREMT is clearly *so* bothered by the stalking that he goes ahead and shares his YouTube, social media, real name, and face with a bunch of internet strangersthen sticks around for years to keep posting.
The “voucher” returns to blame me for his new buddy’s actions. I just linked to a YouTube video, John. I didn’t ask for anything that happened after. You know, eventually you will have to accept that your friend is at fault. Especially given that prior to the posting of any YouTube video, he was already finding out roughly where I lived from my IP address at the other blog, and posting that on here. You say, “oh well, that’s not identifying information”, as if that somehow makes it OK!
> All because
…not in this case.
Why, then?
21 comments so far by Graham D. Warner in this thread.
In two days.
All of them are playing the ref.
When under attack, I defend myself.
Speaking of Moon, if looking for meteor showers, it shouldn’t in the way after midnight and it’s first quarter. Also sun is active and could see northern lights.
Do northern lights interfere with seeing falling stars- I don’t know.
But I think I will take a look, tonite.
The northern lights are actually farther away than the meteors in a typical meteor shower.
I have seen both at the same time.
–The northern lights are actually farther away than the meteors in a typical meteor shower.
I have seen both at the same time.–
Oh, noticed:
“PERSEIDS AND AURORAS: A new model from NOAA shows three CMEs washing over Earth during the next 24-48 hours. This could cause episodes of G1 to G2-class geomagnetic storms on Aug. 11th and 12th. The timing is perfect for northern photographers, who may be able to catch both meteors and auroras in their night sky exposures”
https://spaceweather.com/
The thing about Auroras they seems brighter with camera exposure time {as would the meteors}.
Hear, hear.
The only ones here who have been consistently exceeding the 10 a day limit (averaged over the month) are Swens0n, Willard and DREMT (less consistently).
In the April report thread, Swens0n and Willard accounted for almost half of the 5700 comments, more than 40 per day each.
Clint used to be up there too, but he appears to have got himself a job this year.
(I wonder how Dr Spencer feels about someone imitating him, yet posting hundreds of the same comment)
If you’re referring to me, I’m certainly not imitating Dr Spencer. I’ve politely requested people stop t-word-ing for years, and that’s about it. That’s the worst thing I’ve done. And, as I said before, if Dr Spencer wants me to stop writing “please stop t-word-ing”, he only has to say, and I will of course stop.
I personally think it would be better if the people I asked to stop t-word-ing would just stop t-word-ing, but there you go.
He has banned the t-word, solely because of you and Flynn. And Flynn got the idea off you. How much more of a hint do you need.
There is nothing polite about spamming every thread with hundreds of the same comment.
“He has banned the t-word, solely because of you and Flynn.”
You assume. Dr Spencer banned a whole bunch of “insult” words, at the same time. Personally, I assume it was to try to stop people insulting each other, generally.
“There is nothing polite about spamming every thread with hundreds of the same comment.”
There is nothing polite about people t-word-ing.
I assume nothing. I am the one who suggested he ban those words, and he agreed.
And thanks for restating my comment about spamming in your own words.
Antonin, please stop t-word-ing.
“I am the one who suggested he ban those words, and he agreed.”
It’s great to see that AQ is also looking out for the well-being of the blog. Kudos to him.
Antonin just wants his enemies banned, as we saw recently with Swens0n. Both Antonin and Little Willy were openly campaigning for him to go.
I don’t have “enemies”, only people who should be dealt with because they can’t behave. Interesting that you think in those terms.
Yeah, right.
Mr Spencer
Would you please do something about this type of comment which amounts to “negative noise with no useful input”.
What type of comment? The one you just made, at 1:08 AM? Or the one you made at 12:40 AM? Or, the one you made at 9:59 PM? Or, the one you made at 6:40 PM? They’re all great examples of “negative noise with no useful input”.
Now you’re going to pretend as a point-scoring exercise that comments don’t randomly appear down here instead of where they were supposed to go. You know EXACTLY what I was referring to, and feigning ignorance shows again who is the real t-word.
More “negative noise with no useful input”, from Antonin.
‘Do not feed the troll.’
-An old Usenet adage.
OK, we’ll try not to feed you.
The dog yelps that stick hits.
I’m not the problem at this blog.
So you don’t troll, or feed trolls, just comment everything that moves? *plonk*
More accurately, there’s just a lot of people keen to respond to me, so I get caught up in a lot of long back and forths with various commenters. However, it’s day 15 since this article has been open for comments, and this will be my 147th comment under it. So, although I’m commenting more than I’d like, I’m still under the 10 comments a day limit.
How ironic.
Dr Spencer posts a code of conduct for commenters and the comments quickly descend into insults.
No insults from me (as usual).
“Little Willy”
As usual.
An affectionate nickname, earned through his repeated failure to use my screen name correctly.
Funny how you can self-justify anything.
Heads up – Dr Spencer’s actions are not just about dealing with possible effects on the recipient of the attack. They are about improving the general sense of decorum here.
He knows I will call him “Willard” again when he starts calling me “DREMT”.
Speaking of decorum…what does he call Gordon, again?
You seem to believe I support his name-calling. The problem is BOTH of you.
In what sense is “DREMT” offensive? You DO realise it’s an abbreviation, right? Should I get offended when people call me AQ? What do you expect him to call you? That ridiculous long “name” of yours?
There is no name-calling from me besides “Little Willy”, and I have explained why I call him that.
“DREMT” is not at all offensive. That’s why I want him to start calling me that, instead of all the other names he has called me, and continues to call me.
“Explaining” it does not make it appropriate. What a world we would live in if insults were OK provided they could be “explained” to the satisfaction of the insulter. Let’s call it Trumptopia.
I think it’s appropriate that the guy who has a pet name for every commenter he dislikes should have his own pet name:
He uses what he thinks is my real name for me (which is totally unacceptable).
He calls Clint R “Puffman”.
He calls Gordon Robertson “Mr Asshat”.
He calls Stephen P. Anderson “Troglodyte”.
He calls Bill Hunter “Gill”.
He calls Ken “Kennui”
…and on and on. If the best you have against me is that I call Willard “Little Willy” and I regularly request that people stop t-word-ing, then you’re going to find it a struggle to get me banned, which is what you ultimately want. Fact is, I’m an extraordinarily patient commenter who puts up with an incredible amount of abuse and condescension with only the occasional insult in return (under extreme provocation).
Swens0n gave as good as he got, Clint R dishes out a small fraction of what he’s received, and poor Gordon is just a nice guy that is relentlessly attacked because of the views he holds.
Mate, you’re the one who linked to your YouTube channel complete with your name. You can’t complain about someone using your name if you’ve chosen to share it.
Interesting that your only means of claiming not to be bad is to say “hey look, I’ve found someone worse”.
Using the “he did it first” excuse is pretty damn juvenile.
I linked to a YouTube video. To get to my name you have to choose to go to my channel and then click on another link to a Facebook page. At the time, I had no idea that my FB page displayed my name like that. I haven’t bothered to change it since, because the damage is already done. Posting my name is his choice, though, ultimately.
Are you the sort that says rape victims ought not to have dressed so provocatively!? Same principle. Obviously the offence is nothing like as bad as rape, but it’s the same principle.
It is nothing like the same principle. He is ONLY using your name. Are you embarrassed by your name?
And why did you say “what he THINKS is my real name”.
How could ANYONE not know their Facebook page displays their name. Your pleas are just not believable. And my memory is that you were using your Facebook to promote your channel.
Well, your memory is wrong.
The FB page is a music/artist page, not a personal profile. So no, I didn’t know. When I clicked on my artist page, it did not show me my name.
Tired of people accusing me of lying!
Tired of people lying.
Like “no insults from me” … dead off the bat.
And like your claim that you are merely making a polite request, when your aim is clearly to stomp all over discussions and shut down commentary that you had never even bothered to get involved in.
Am I on trial here!? Gee whizz.
You clearly expect to be able to do as you wish without question.
Should we call you DRUMPF?
Countless times you have stomped on discussions about science with your PST-ing comment. You choose to DEFINE science that you disagree with as T-ing. Or should I say, science that you disagree with where you are too far out of your depth to enter into the discussion. Why do you have such a need to impose yourself on discussions that have nothing to do with you.
And I forgot one: Feigning ignorance. That is lying.
Dr. Spencer: Your daily limit of 10 appears not to be working.
I’m responsible for what I’m responsible for. Very little, of note.
Should we discuss the time you told me to kill myself?
Sure. Please link to it as a reference.
> There is no name-calling from me besides “Little Willy”
Patently false.
Blob thinks you are wrong.
Just sayin
If you fancy searching for hours through the wayback machine, be my guest, Antonin.
DREMT,
I traced back to when your real name first started appearing here. While I agree that it’s inappropriate for your real name to be used regularly, I also find this quite interesting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1576817
Care to comment?
Yes – it was funny.
You leaked his real name, or what you believed it to be, yet now you’re portraying yourself as the victim.
Huh? Tim Folkerts posts under his real name.
21 comments so far by Graham D. Warner today.
Not the first time he conflates nicknaming with namecalling.
Speaking of real names…I’ve mentioned this many times before so doing it again here is nothing new, but mine is Brian Gideon. bdgwx is my initials plus wx which is the ITU-R M.1172 shorthand for weather. It is a handle I’ve used for 20+ years so I try to stick to it when possible.
"Not the first time he conflates nicknaming with namecalling."
Ah, that’s OK then. I was under the impression that I was being charged with the heinous crime of name-calling Willard "Little Willy", but the man himself has confirmed it’s just innocent nicknaming – exactly like I said:
"An affectionate nickname, earned through his repeated failure to use my screen name correctly."
bdgwx turns up to act like posting your real name ain’t a thang. Sure, bdgwx…but have you ever had someone post where you live on a blog after finding out that information from tracking your IP address on another blog? Nah, of course you haven’t.
No matter what level of abuse I’m subjected to…it’s all fine, according to "Team Science" (TM).
I’m not saying anonymity is a bad thing or that doxing is a good thing. My post should not be seen as a generalization of those positions. It is only my own preference that I post without implied anonymity. I’m always more than happy to provide people with my name when asked. I just figured this subthread was a good time to remind some people that I’m not an anonymous poster. And to answer your question…people talk about where I live all of the time. It’s not a secret that I live in St. Louis. Again, that’s not an endorsement of doxing. I’m just saying I don’t have any specific interest in hiding either my identity or location.
“…people talk about where I live all of the time”
That’s nice, but not what I asked. Don’t worry, it was pretty much a rhetorical question, anyway.
I’m glad you thought this was a good moment to share that you’re not really an anonymous commenter.
Now, my trial can continue…
I think if you read the fine print Dr. Spencer said it is OK to insult nitwits from Wales.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-10.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-10.gif
When Blindsley H00d posts a temperature chart or two, he surely wants to show us something about global cooling, so it’s no wonder that, as if by magic and coincidence, he chooses the sources that show it best.
Tell me what GFS says and why. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1682793
I don’t tell you anything, Blindsley H00d.
YOU tell us here why you persist since years to exclusively talk about a global cooling that doesn’t exist.
I have to say the comments in here today are great! LOL
Is this something to do with the moon?
I am glad there is a determined effort to cut down the abusive attacks and needless screaming that has been going on here.
I Administrate a small science blog where I had to ban Douglas Cotton and LOLClimateKatastrophekook and helped in another large science blog block out D. Cotton and also helped Watts Up With That? permanently shut down D. Cotton when I was moderator there.
There is a way to block them out permanently but that requires diligence otherwise they will skate through the first post moderation barrier they get approved on and once again undue all the work banning the pest.
Instead of always banning people you can put some of them on permanent Moderation instead to shut them down without talking away the IP they are using.
There are other ways to stop problem people too…………
Is this your subtle way of asking Roy to make you the blog moderator?
It would be a blessing to get rid of the 90+% rubbish in the comments.
Comments today are useless. They should be valuable additions.
My suggestion is you limit posts per person per thread to five.
If someone posts more than five, you ban them.
If someone – in your sovereign opinion – writes rubbish, you ban them.
If a subject is extraordinary interesting, demanding more than five answers, make a follow up post the next day.
Most commenters has valuable things to say. This way they can choose to do so.
Thank you for blogging!
Being on topic is the primary requirement. Talking about other ommenters is usually not on topic.
5 comments is a good limit, if can be implemented.
Sounds good to me. I’m prone to give back what I get where insults are concerned, but as you can tell from my creating a plug-in for that purpose I’d sooner not see that kind of traffic at all. I’ll take my chances on Dr. Roy being a fair moderator if it means the blog is dominated by reasoned commentary.
When I first started commenting here, D-C was still on the blog. I could see he wanted to be a Skeptic, but he had his science wrong. He had invented the term “maximum entropy”, in an attempt to discredit the GHE. When I tried to correct him, he became belligerent. Soon after, he was banned.
I have noticed this same behavior with others that want to be Skeptics. They believe false beliefs can cancel opposing false beliefs, so they avoid learning any science. It’s one cult fighting another cult. Or one false religion fighting another false religion.
Then there are the hard-core cultists that attack, falsely accuse, stalk, and are filled with hate.
Which raises an interesting question — Skeptics have been banned here, but have any Alarmists been banned?
> Skeptic […] false religion […] hard-core cultists […] filled with hate […] Alarmists
Five insults right there.
Most contrarians disagree with one another, so at the very least most of them are wrong. Notwithstanding those who are not even wrong, it should go without saying.
To be a skeptic one has to apply skepticism. Labeling oneself “skeptic” isn’t enough. In fact one might argue that this is as insulting as the D-word.
Yes Willard, you consider reality an insult.
That’s my point….
(And I won’t be responding to your next stalking effort. As someone one said “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.”
Yes but it can be fun, you get dirty, just don’t pick a pig with big sharp tusks.
Clint hits the nail on the head! “I could see he wanted to be a Skeptic, but he had his science wrong.”
This pretty much sums up most ‘skepticism’ here. Each skeptic is sure that their position is correct, and that all those who disagree — skeptics as well as actual scientists — are somehow missing out on some critical, important idea.
Surely 1,000s of scientists working for decades (or centuries) never considered *my* point! If only scientists knew …
* the moon doesn’t rotate.
* Stefan-Boltzmann only applies from 500C – 1500C.
* the CO2 band is saturated so more CO2 won’t cause more warming.
* CO2 actually cools the earth, it doesn’t warm the earth.
* photons from cooler regions are simply rejected by warmer surfaces.
* the earth has been cooling for 4 billion years.
* how to add fluxes.
* how the 2LoT works.
There are plenty of things to be legitimately skeptical about. Like how MUCH warming will occur, or how MUCH to spend trying to mitigate warming. Or whether any specific heat wave or flood can be attributed to climate change.
I think you raised an important issue whether you intended it or not. The use of stereotypes and strawman claims does not lead to a useful or civil discussion of genuine issues. Claiming that someone is one of “those” people is an insult in my opinion.
As a genuine skeptic who is also skeptical of skeptics, I seem to get push back from both “sides”. I have even received comments to the effect of which side or you on?
If I make a mistake and can be proven wrong, I will accept that. On the other hand, when I make a legitimate criticism and someone replies with “you’re one of those people”, I am done with that person at that point, except maybe to point out that I am not interested in defending claims I didn’t make.
Testing the one hour rule here, on the subject of “things to be legitimately skeptical about”, my biggest concerns are news media who do not understand that “new” studies are speculative, and just about anyone who thinks variability in seasonal weather is “evidence of climate change”.
Folkerts, I count 8 things on your list (starred). Some are correct, some are not. Can you identify which is which?
I find 6 to be wrong and the last two are essay questions.
I am sure Clint R will disagree, but then he sold all his physics textbooks.
“Stefan-Boltzmann only applies from 500C 1500C.”
That is the temperature range there is evidence for. The rest is interpolation. Does not explain how chrome hot water radiators show so much difference in the heat transferred which cannot be by radiation (as bright chrome has a very low emission spectrum because it is reflective). Convection can be shown to fill in the ‘gap’.
My main point is Clint’s main point. This is “one cult fighting another cult” in the bowels of a blog. This is people who present their own opinions and “avoid learning any science”. Different people may have their own opinions about which are right and wrong.
When non-scientists disagree with scientists about basic science, pretty much always the scientists are right. They have considered all the arguments for decades or for centuries. Scientists have an intricate, interconnected set of rules that have been tested by decades of experiments.
You can’t just say “classical mechanics is right, EXCEPT for the rotation of the moon”. You can’t just say “S-B works perfectly from arbitrary limits of 500C – 1500C, BUT suddenly fails at 499C or 1501 C.”
Richard Feynman said “Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.” You can’t pull one thread loose without pulling loose a hundred other pieces of the puzzle.
“That is the temperature range there is evidence for. “
Absolutely not! That might have been the temperature range for which there was evidence 150 years ago, but there is direct evidence over a MUCH broader range now.
Convection is a SEPARATE issue. Chrome radiators do not contradict S-B.
Folkerts, can you say which of your 8 items are right, and which are wrong?
You threw this nonsense at the wall. Are you unable to support it?
RLH
YOU: “Does not explain how chrome hot water radiators show so much difference in the heat transferred which cannot be by radiation (as bright chrome has a very low emission spectrum because it is reflective). Convection can be shown to fill in the gap.”
You have brought up this point before. I actually did explain it to you with equations on heat transfer.
In your example (of Chrome radiators) it is done via convection. In this case convection is the dominant heat transfer mechanism.
You could test your ideas if you had a vacuum chamber with zero convection. You could have a chrome radiator filled with hot water and a black painted one with high emissivity and measure the rate the temperature drops.
Gordon Robertson also brings this up when he posts with a Pirani Gauge. I suggest you just merely consider our Moon. You can look at measured values of temperature drop when the Sun no longer shines on the surface. If you do some calculations with the Moon temperature and heat content of the surface you will find the S&B Law is satisfied.
Scientists have done many experiments with the S&B Law over many temperatures with many materials. It is considered a Law in science because it works on all experiments tested so far. Like the Law of Gravitation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is a Law when it applies to all known situations and does not show deviation in any of the areas studied.
I soon hope you do research on the topic on your own and quit bringing up an incorrect scientific point.
It seems Dr. Spencer wants this to be a more scientific blog. That would require some work on your part. Research things more and then bring up issues you can find.
There is a distinction between theoretical science and applied science. Climate models are not assumed to be accurate or even useful in some cases (Russian Science Federation) just because they are based on sound scientific principles and accurate data. Gavin Schmidt can make all the claims he wants about the accuracy of his favorite models. The fact remains that there is a wide range of results and all of them rely on calibration with measured data that varies depending on the source and type.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/are-climate-models-predicting-too
Okay, we can add Andrew Dessler to the list of Climate Change Advocates (polite word) who disagree with me. I could go find a list of very well qualified people who agree with my position. To heck with the science, Let’s vote on it!
“Convection is a SEPARATE issue. Chrome radiators do not contradict S-B.”
So S-B is wrong when low (normal water) temperatures are considered. It only considers RADIATION. It does not consider CONVECTION.
“S-B works perfectly from arbitrary limits of 500C 1500C, BUT suddenly fails at 499C or 1501 C.”
No-one said that but you.
“So S-B is wrong when low (normal water) temperatures are considered. It only considers RADIATION. It does not consider CONVECTION.”
You seem quite confused. S-B is a law about radiation. So by definition, it does not include convection. That does not make it ‘wrong’ about low temperatures.
“So by definition, it does not include convection.”
Which, as chrome water radiators show, is important at low (normal) water temperatures.
RHL, of COURSE convection is important in many circumstances for heat flow. No one says it is not!
But your objection is like saying “Capacitors are important in AC circuits, so Ohm’s Law for resistors is wrong.”
Stephen-Boltzmann works at all temperatures, see here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Stephen did the experimental work.
Boltzmann die the theoretical work.
"Which raises an interesting question — Skeptics have been banned here, but have any Alarmists been banned?"
Yes, that is a very interesting question. The only "alarmist" I can think of that has ever been banned is David App.ell. And that was because he continuously attacked Dr Spencer, personally. The fact is, this site is absolutely swamped by "alarmist" commenters. That side of the debate, anyway, whatever you want to call them. I can’t foresee any of them ever getting banned, being as how some of them have already transgressed the rules of reasonable and fair debating to such an extent that it’s comical, and they’re all still here!
My prediction is that any and all further bans will be of GHE skeptics. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong on that one, though.
Graham, can you quit stirring the pot?
You don’t have the right to call me by that name.
As this is being done by someone on your side of the climate fence, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your idea of the level of transgression of different people is somewhat skewed.
My feeling is that of those remaining, 1 denier and 1 non-denier should be banned immediately, with many others put on watch.
What does “swamped” mean? In the July thread I counted 10 apiece amongst those who weren’t posting one-off. And Gordon WILL return.
> My feeling
AQ once again tries to establish himself as the tone police.
DREMT, It is very interesting how you frame this as being about “alarmists”.
“The only “alarmist” I can think of that has ever been banned … “
Being banned is not about ‘skeptics’ or ‘alarmist’. It is about being rude / aggressive / angry.
“this site is absolutely swamped by “alarmist” commenters.”
I see almost no “alarmist” commenters. Former Senator Inhofe described alarmists this way: “Global warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocations, droughts, crop failures, mosquitoborne diseases, and harsh weather all caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions.” There are precious few comments that discuss any such ‘alarmist’ topics.
What this site *is* swamped by is ‘sammich requests’ and ‘you’re a t___ / no you’re a t_____’ and ‘the moon does not rotate’ and such things. Topics that have nothing to do with climate, let alone ‘alarmism’.
“That side of the debate, anyway, whatever you want to call them.”
Which ‘debate’ do you mean? Dr Spencer has clearly stated that the follow are not up for debate.
* Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is like a Real Greenhouse
* No, the Saturation Effect of Increasing CO2 on Global Temperatures is Not Being Ignored in Global Warming Projections
* Yes, the Cold Atmosphere can Keep the Surface Warmer than if the GHE Did Not Exist
Most of the ‘debates’ are propelled along by people who say we need to learn science, but that science is a hoax and a cult and incorrect. And most have nothing to do with “alarmists”.
Tim, I’m not trying to “frame” it as anything. I was responding to Clint R, who used the “alarmist” term. I just take that as meaning those that are on a certain side of the debate. The side that calls the other side “contrarian/denier/crank”.
Graham D. Warner refers to those who acknowledge the greenhouse effect by the A-word all the time. Alarmism has an orthogonal meaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmism
The “overemphasized and unwarranted” part is seldom justified scientifically.
In Climateball, the A-word is almost always used as a non-neutral label, including by those who dislike the D-word.
Folkerts sees “almost no Alarmist commenters” here!
Notice how he twists things. That’s what he always does. He has to….
Folkerts is the one that has tried to promote the concept that ice cubes can boil water. But, the then denies that ice cubes can boil water!
“The side that calls the other side contrarian/denier/crank.”
Several regulars here, who deny mainstream well-established science, are in this category.
The genuine skeptics, such as Roy Spencer don’t deny mainstream well-established science.
Most proponents of AGW and the GHE who visit here do not appear to be ‘alarmists’, but are labeled as such anyway just to insult them.
Yes, Clint R, they sure like to twist anything you say into the most negative light possible. I even put scare quotes around “alarmist” to show I don’t really agree with the use of the term and tried to make sure it was clear I was just referring to one particular, well-known “side” of the climate debate.
As usual, somehow I’m the villain.
You’ve got several things wrong, Nate.
First, what are you calling “mainstream well-established science”? Remember, beliefs ain’t science and if something violates the Laws of Physics, it ain’t science either.
Second, Roy is not a “genuine” Skeptic. By his own words he’s a “Lukewarmer”.
My definitions:
(Beliefs ain’t science, but to be fair and balanced, I’m using the word “believes” for each category.)
Alarmist — Believes CO2 is warming the planet dangerously. Unless something is done quickly, Earth will be like Venus.
Warmist — Believes CO2 is warming the planet, but we have time to do something.
Lukewarmer — Believes CO2 is warming the planet, but it is so insignificant we don’t have to take any immediate or unreasonable action.
Skeptic — Believes the CO2 nonsense violates the Law of Physics. Consequently any observed warming is due to something else.
Those are my definitions, YMMV.
> YMMV
If “Y” refers to common Climateball usage, then we have this dictionary:
An alarmist believes in excessive or exaggerated alarm of a real or imagined threat, e.g. Net Zero will get us all killed, slaves, or worse.
A doomer believes that the IPCC is too conservative, but that doesn’t matter because we’re all cooked anyway.
A lukewarmer bets that climate sensitivity is under 3C but that we still need something about AGW.
A luckwarmer bets that climate sensitivity is under the limits of justified disingenuousness (ca 2C, so under the IPCC range), therefore there’s nothing to worry about even if a low sensitivity will get us beyond 5C eventually anyway.
A denier keeps denying the greenhouse effect, that the greenhouse effect is anthropogenic, or that there eventually will be dire consequences for AGW.
A crank is an annoying denier who clings to eccentric and very minotarian views about the Moon, basic radiative properties or else.
A contrarian takes a contrary position or attitude regarding the established view, for instance Warren Buffett or Jim Hansen.
The only label that has yet to find currency refers to someone who supports the established viewpoint, i.e. the IPCC, while acknowledging that science moves one funeral at a time. For that class I propose Team Science. Literate would also be fine.
Oh, and skeptic refers to TS, the truest spirit of an inquisitive mind to whom we should all bow, if only because he’s the only one here with a sense of humor.
I can work without using any of these labels except “contrarian.” And to prove so from now on I will refrain from using them.
“Alarmist Believes CO2 is warming the planet dangerously. Unless something is done quickly, Earth will be like Venus.”
No one posting here thinks Earth will ever be like Venus, AFAIK.
Then none qualify as alarmists.
“Skeptic Believes the CO2 nonsense violates the Law of Physics. Consequently any observed warming is due to something else.”
Roy pointed out in his previous article this week that such beliefs are unsupported by any science.
Then holding such beliefs certainly qualifies one as a science denier.
Nate says:
“August 13, 2024 at 3:14 PM
Alarmist Believes CO2 is warming the planet dangerously. Unless something is done quickly, Earth will be like Venus.
No one posting here thinks Earth will ever be like Venus, AFAIK.
Then none qualify as alarmists.”
I tend to think of alarmists as news reporters.
If bleeds it leads, or, they have always been alarmists.
And tend to not say anything, if it’s seriously important.
I can’t point to an alarmist who blogs, here.
Though when I say the obvious, like we in an Ice Age, some could consider that as something an alarmist would say.\
I don’t think it’s a problem that we are in an Ice Age.
And it certainly is not a problem any government should want to “solve”.
We have alarmists which frighten children- and that should be stopped.
Most adults only “sort of kind of take it”, slightly seriously. And/or just find the stupidity slightly amusing.
And everyone laughs, when you say, CNN is objective.
–Nate says:
August 13, 2024 at 3:19 PM
Skeptic Believes the CO2 nonsense violates the Law of Physics. Consequently any observed warming is due to something else.
Roy pointed out in his previous article this week that such beliefs are unsupported by any science.
Then holding such beliefs certainly qualifies one as a science denier.–
Science denier is a silly term.
Denying the Holocaust, could count as being evil, but one should tend, to assume, at first, it’s just the dime a dozen stupidity.
Most people aren’t even interested in history- unless the most people have recently lived in it. Such as those in eastern Europe. Or East Germany. Not to mention Iran or North Korea, and, etc, etc.
We are living in the best of time, despite the etc and etc.
There are a couple who post here who often come across as alarmists. I won’t name any names. I’m not a GHE denier but I’m not a believer in AGW. I find 60F of warming due to radiative imbalance because of a very slight percent of the atmosphere difficult to fathom. I agree with Berry’s model that most of the CO2 rise has been natural. I believe most of GHE is due to water vapor and that CO2 is pretty inconsequential. I think climate sensitivity is pretty low. But, I don’t think even if we do initiate all these tougher emission standards it won’t matter because China, India, and the third world are going to try to catch up and they will burn fossil fuels doing it.
OK, so I’ll include “warmist” with “alarmist” from Clint R’s list of terms and say, that’s the general “side” of the climate debate I was referring to. Those two groups.
Clint, it’s good to see you finally define everyone here out of being an “alarmist”. Because I’m not aware of anyone here who claims that the earth will become anything like Venus. Now you can cease using the term. Or will you redefine it to suit?
If you don’t think the Earth will become like Venus, then you need to study the Main Sequence and what happens to stars like the Sun when they consume all the hydrogen fuel they have.
It is well understood that when that happens the Sun will swell in size until it envelops the Earth.
The Sun will brighten and put out more energy as it burns up the hydrogen fuel.
It’s not about if the Sun gets bright enough to turn the Earth Venus like, it’s about when.
We want to stay away from the knee in the water vapor pressure curve at about 40C.
Things are already getting crappy.
OK, bob.
DREMT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
Lol, yes bob. Utterly irrelevant to what anyone was actually talking about.
DREMT,
The topic was will the Earth ever be like Venus.
The answer is yes, and the cite of mine supports that.
You shouldn’t comment on anything Astronomical, ever.
“The topic was will the Earth ever be like Venus…”
…due to AGW, bob. The topic was will the Earth ever be like Venus due to AGW. Hence your point was utterly irrelevant.
DREMT,
And all the rest.
Whether or not AGW will make the Earth like Venus remains to be seen.
The water vapor feedback accelerates with increasing temperature.
Guess we will put you down as “alarmist”, then.
DREMT,
One is either an alarmist or has their head in the sand or some other dark location when it comes to CO2 levels in our atmosphere.
We do have enough coal and oil to turn our atmosphere into something like Venus if we burn it all.
I also want to use the least expensive source of electricity, and right now it’s not coal and oil.
We’ve got you down as an "alarmist", bob. No need to continue.
DREMT,
“Weve got you down as an “alarmist”, bob. No need to continue.”
It’s the morally and scientifically correct position.
No need to continue.
I will continue until your morals and science are correct.
You have a bit of work to do to get this sorted.
#2
No need to continue.
I disagree, we have to continue util your morals and science improve.
That’s just more abuse, bob.
You know, I don’t have to leave. It’s a choice I’ve made, but I can always change my mind.
Calling out your lack of morals and scientific insight is not abuse.
More abuse.
If you don’t want me to leave, keep responding.
Gee is DREMT really that powerless to control his own behavior…?
Don’t leave, just learn some science from those of us willing to teach.
And we’ll pray for your morals.
“Being banned is not about ‘skeptics’ or ‘alarmist’. It is about being rude / aggressive / angry.“
…but that was kind of my point, Tim. That is indeed what we’re told it should be about. Whilst I don’t agree with banning anybody, if you’re going to ban people, it seems unfair if they’re always people who just happen to be GHE skeptics. I mean, if you want an example of an “alarmist/warmist” commenter being rude, just look up from this comment. All I’m saying is, “alarmist/warmist” commenters seem to have been getting away with it for quite some time. I’ll believe one will be banned when I see it.
Gee, when I posted a whole day later, DREMT moaned that I was “drifting in after the commenters have moved on”
But here HE is commenting on a 10 days old post, with the poster long gone from the thread.
Obviously, Tim might not even see that response, as it was some time ago that he last commented. However, my aim was simply to get the sub-thread back on topic to my original post, and I had to go back quite far to do so.
Let’s face it, rarely will some people ever acknowledge their hypocrisy.
So, is the sub-thread finally back on-topic? Or are people still playing the man and not the ball?
“Or are people still playing the man not the ball”
Surprising, given that this thread was started with “being as how some of them have already transgressed the rules of reasonable and fair debating to such an extent that its comical, and theyre all still here!”
Looks like Nate wants to talk to me, again. Since I’m leaving, anyway, he can have another chance.
Does Nate dispute that there are some “alarmist/warmist” commenters here who have “transgressed the rules of reasonable and fair debating to such an extent that it’s comical“?
You really don’t see why some would find this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684713
to be comical, when the vast majority of your posts in these comments are about other poster’s alleged bad behavior.
Very often you focus on the ‘playing the man not the ball’.
“…the vast majority of your posts in these comments are about other poster’s alleged bad behavior.”
False. The vast majority of my posts in these comments are me defending myself. Looks like this is going to be yet another of those threads.
What you call “me defending myself”, I call “complaining about other poster’s alleged behavior”.
Neither is about the science.
I’ve written a handful of comments complaining about the way I’ve been treated. That’s what you would call "complaining about other poster’s alleged behavior". However, that’s a handful of the comments under this article. The majority of my comments are spent defending myself from attack by others. Read through the comments, Nate, and try being a bit less overly critical. Try not to just make stuff up.
This article is not about science. It’s about Dr Spencer’s new comment policy, which involves banning regularly insulting commenters. So, expect the comments to be about the behaviour of commenters.
Everyone has moved on to other topics and the science.
Many, including you, have gone on to discuss politics and other subjects further down-thread, yes…but you’re also here, in an on-topic thread, complaining at me for being on-topic. “You couldn’t make it up”.
The only point I wanted to make was that bad behavior is not exclusive to your opponents.
As exemplified here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684562
Then came the excuses.
Is that your way of conceding your behaviour is bad?
More blaming others, on and on it goes…
So you don’t “drift” into discussions after everyone has moved on, to sneak a last word in?
“So you dont drift into discussions after everyone has moved on, to sneak a last word in?”
No. I was busy until the next day, when I saw Clint’s comment, which was a response to me, and so I responded to it.
Not unusual for many at this blog.
While your response to Tim 10 days later is just fine?
I guess you are hyper tuned-in to tactics that you have practiced.
Come now, Nate. No need to fib, is there? You “drift” all the time. It is pretty much your M.O. Here’s one, thirteen days later:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684925
That one was simply me reading the wrong date.
But this is still you thinking your opponents simply must have nefarious intentions.
“Then came the excuses”…
How about this one, Nate?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684204
I rarely read his posts. I happened to read that one and responded when I did. He is free to respond in kind.
If you think that it is reprehensible to respond a day or more later, explain why.
Then explain why it is ok for YOU to do it.
I didn’t “drift”, Nate. The thread was still active. You and bob were still responding at the time. The idea was to get the thread back on-topic, so for you or bob to reply to what I had said to Tim. You’re the “drifter”.
“I didnt drift, Nate. ”
Again, you complained about my posting a day late, which you called ‘drift’, based on what?
It is ‘bad behavior’ why?
And you don’t address the content of my post, which was science.
So good example of ‘playing the man not the ball’, again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683181
And my thread was still active.
Plainly this is a double standard.
Clint R had finished here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683543
That was obvious. So you decided to “drift” in, hoping for that last word, knowing Clint R would be long gone.
That’s why you seem to despise me so much. I don’t let you get the last word.
So what? If Clint doesn’t want to continue, that is HIS choice. Obviously others did.
This is getting to be rather ridiculous.
As you are aware, I like to argue. So my posts contain arguments intended to be read by my opponents.
Nothing whatsoever to do with being some sort of last place-holder.
That is your special hobby, not mine.
How bout move on to a real topic?
Nate…you always want the last word. I always get the last word. The reason for that is, I got fed up of people making ridiculous comments like, “you fled the scene”, or, “obviously you had no rebuttal” whenever I just got fed up of people not listening, and decided to stop commenting on a thread. So, I made a conscious decision to always see an argument through to the bitter end.
Don’t try to pretend you’re not extremely persistent and keen to get the last word yourself, though. And, I’m not the only one to have commented on the habit of people “drifting” to get the last word. You’re not the only person who does it, either.
If you want to change topics, that’s fine…but you were the one who brought it up on this thread, in the first place. Maybe we could get back on-topic to this sub-thread, as I intended in the first place…or, if you don’t want to discuss that, maybe you could just stop responding?
Maybe you could explain why, after I made it clear I had no interest in discussing things with you any more, you followed me around from thread to thread for years, constantly leaving snide personal remarks? That was back when I was reading, but not responding to you. I doubt very much it changed when I stopped reading your comments.
If the new topic is DREMT’s old grievances, I am really not interested.
I also suggested getting back on-topic to the sub-thread, as I originally intended, but there’s little hope in getting Nate to remain on-topic.
This is all good. My only concern is disappearing people without explanation.
I’ve been banned from other blogs, eg Postma’s, and Berry’s, simply for disagreeing with the owner of the blog on the science, and backing it up with evidence.
One would like to be sure that can’t happen here.
Speaking of Postma…I saw one report that Postma was editing posts to make it look like posters were saying something they didn’t actually say. Did you see any evidence of that?
Yes, he did that to my post.
Oh wow. I hadn’t realized that happen to you. It was because I had heard he was editing peoples posts that I decided to avoid commenting on his blog.
He did that to me as well. And he accused me of being someone I had never heard of. He is just about the most revolting individual I have encountered, beating everyone here, even Flynn.
He claims to be an astrophysicist, when all he is is the manager of the research laboratories at Calgary U, which happens to include the astrophysics laboratory.
Similar to 1000frolly (Robert Holmes), who claims to have a degree in climate science, when all he has is a PhD on the control of methane emissions in mines.
I thought you got banned on Berry’s blog for being insulting if I remember correctly. But, I think you could post there. I’m pretty sure you could. You kept bringing up the Revelle Factor but not showing how it fits into the conservation of mass. His whole model is based on the conservation of mass.
> I thought you got banned on Berrys blog for being insulting if I remember correctly
That should be easy to support. Here is the thread:
https://edberry.com/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/#comment-98068
I wonder who that commenter was.
Stephen,
“You kept bringing up the Revelle Factor but not showing how it fits into the conservation of mass. His whole model is based on the conservation of mass.”
The Revelle Factor has been understood for 60 y to play a central role in the sink rate for carbon into the ocean.
Berry simply does not consider the Revelle Factor in his carbon cycle model. He simply asserts, without a science rationale, that it does not matter.
And therefore his model cannot explain the rise in atmospheric CO2 that has been observed.
The first paper to correctly incorporate Revell Factor was Bolin and Erickson 1958. They predicted that Anthro CO2 emissions would accumulate in the atmosphere, and produce an accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 over the next de3cades.
Their projections come very close to the actual rise that indeed happened over the next 64 years.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
Well, he does because it is implied in the solution to the first order linear differential equation. It is a component of eTime from atmosphere to surface ocean. If Revelle is a factor then eTime for human and natural CO2 should change. No one is saying it is changing. They just say human carbon eTime is different and long which is physically impossible. That’s Berry’s point. It would violate the Equivalence Principle.
Try to understand the paper I posted which accounts the rise of CO2 that has been observed, which Berry’s model cannot.
If you cannot understand this paper, then I don’t know why you feel confident to reject it.
Another interesting fact:
“The airborne fraction (AF) of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to the annual emissions from human sources. It represents the percentage of human-emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. The AF has remained relatively stable at around 45% over the past six decades”
Just another observation that Berry’s model embarrassingly fails to explain.
After a while one has to wonder what good is a model that cannot account for any of the observations.
“If Revelle is a factor then eTime for human and natural CO2 should change.”
The Revelle Factor is expected to change very slowly over decades as pH changes. Its effect on e-time will not be yet detectable.
Yeah, I agree with just about everything you just said and I don’t see much in the paper that would conflict with Berry’s model and if anything would support it. The only thing I see is the author presumes that all the atmospheric carbon increase is due to human fossil fuel.
“I dont see much in the paper that would conflict with Berrys model and if anything would support it. ”
Because of its inclusion of the Revelle Factor, it showed for the first time, that anthro emissions would NOT rapidly be removed into the ocean (as Berry argues), and thus would accumulate in the atmosphere, as it has done.
” The science of the people who want to be FREE ”
FREE from what? From any doubt that the blog owner over there could ever be wrong?
I’d like a system where we can vote some of the worst offenders ‘off the island’.
Some, like Robertson and Clint R, could easily vote you out if they had their way.
Bindidong creep would be first to go
Says the constantly abusive dachshund (which is why I gave him this name, as his behavior in this blog reminds me of that type of dog).
I guess it would be a double edged sword.
Does not work. But a red-team blue-team system with widely agreed bans could wotk for moderation. Wikipedia does not.
Parker Solar probe is going spend couple days out at Venus distance, going about 12.7 km/sec, then it drop into the sun, and get the closest to Sun on Sept 30 2024, and will be going about 176 km/sec.
And then in about month, will be back out at Venus distance, again.
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
How active the sun will be, near end of September.
Steve + aurora
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2024/12aug24/steve_strip.jpg
Wonderful!
“STEVE (Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement) is the pink ribbon of light in Griffin’s photo. It looks like an aurora, but it is not. The pink glow is caused by hot (3000C) ribbons of gas flowing through Earth’s magnetosphere faster than 13,000 mph. Strong geomagnetic storms do a good job of setting these ribbons in motion.”
Good policy. More people should read this “manual”: https://www.brookings.edu/books/the-constitution-of-knowledge/
It really comes down to personal beliefs. Reality is reality, but too many people want to make up their own “reality”. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum, but it is more prevalent on the Left. Just right here on this blog, you see people claiming that passenger jets fly backward. That’s an attempt to pervert reality to protect false beliefs. The false accusations, that are so common here, are just more efforts to pervert reality.
Clint R,
Who is claiming that passenger jets fly backwards?
A passenger jet flying west at 500 mph cannot keep up with the Earth rotating east at 1500 mph at the equator, so from high above the passenger jet is moving east at 1000 mph, which is the direction the tail is pointing.
It’s moving backwards but flying eastward.
This illustrates what is meant by the “passenger jets flying backwards” thing:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
It never had anything to do with frames of reference.
That is a perspective from an inertial reference frame.
Which airplane is rotating?
It’s a simple question.
I wasn’t talking to you, bob.
But, the one on the left is "orbiting" and "spinning" (in the opposite direction to the "orbit", once per "orbit")…and the one on the right is just "orbiting".
DREMT,
Where is that definition of spinning, so you can correct yourself?
Because the one on the left is not spinning, and the one on the right is spinning.
It’s in the dictionary bob, where it’s always been.
DREMT,
If you use the one in the dictionary, then the Moon is rotating on its axis. Because every point of the Moon is making circles around an axis going through the Moon.
But that’s not the definition that you are using.
You simply can’t get it through your head that it’s the other motion that’s important.
The other motion being "orbit without spin".
DREMT,
“You simply cant get it through your head that its the other motion thats important.”
Is that an insult?
No such thing as orbit without spin.
According to the definition of spin, the Moon is spinning.
Don’t confuse the orbiting with the spinning.
“Is that an insult?”
No, but the rest of your response to me is. It’s an insult to the understanding I have spent years trying to build up. How can you still be so confused?
DREMT,
” I have spent years trying to build up.”
I think you have wasted your time trying to understand that the Moon doesn’t spin.
Because it does spin.
Good day, bob.
“Its in the dictionary bob, where its always been.”
Elsewhere you made the same claim. But could not back it up with any dictionary.
So this is becoming a pattern.
Nate felt obliged to comment, again.
Yes, your misrepresentation that your ‘definition of spin’ is found in the dictionary, and then unable to show that definition, has become a pattern.
That is worth pointing out.
"Where is that definition of spinning, so you can correct yourself?"
"Spin" – to rotate about an axis that is internal to the body in question.
That’s how it’s used in our discussions. Always has been, always will be.
All the definitions in dictionaries are variations on
“the act of turning around and around : an act of spinning
a rapid turning motion given to a ball by someone who throws or hits it”
Saying nothing in support of your notion that BOS has no spin.
The ‘illustration’ is showing passenger airplanes in ‘orbit’, which is an unreality and therefore proves nothing.
In the real universe, space shuttles have orbited as shown on the left.
Nate obviously still wants to talk to me. Let’s give him one last chance, then.
Does the ball on a string have one axis of rotation, or two?
DREMT,
“”Where is that definition of spinning, so you can correct yourself?”
“Spin” to rotate about an axis that is internal to the body in question.
Thats how its used in our discussions. Always has been, always will be.”
Using that definition, the Moon is spinning on an internal axis. That is an observation, not a theory or hypothesis.
If you say so, bob.
DREMT,
“Does the ball on a string have one axis of rotation, or two?”
If you call a revolution a rotation, it has at least 4.
But then a tail is not a leg.
Hilariously wrong, bob. Thank you.
Good boy!
Do you want a Mother Hubbard’s?
Oh you do, here you go.
Now go lie down.
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted. Thank you.
That’s a good boy.
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted.
Nobody has noticed all your barking.
Now have a good lie down.
"Nobody has noticed all your barking."
We’ll see.
Sit, lie down, roll over
More insults.
Those are not insults.
Treating me like I’m a dog is of course an insult, bob. Why do I need to explain that to someone?
OK, DREMT.
Yes.
Bill,
It’s really simple.
Some orbits are elliptical, and none are circular.
External rotations are circular.
Therefore no orbits are external rotations.
I don’t need to find a paper that says that.
Poor old bob. Struggles to post in the right place.
DREMT,
“What was your point again, exactly?”
Simple, a statement that a rotation around an external axis is an orbit, does not mean that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis.
Struggling to post in the right place, still, and struggling to come up with anything worthwhile to say…
If you say so, Nate. Will that be eternally all?
When Graham D. Warner believes that people are wrong, nothing will ever change his mind. His false impression will never be caused by his recurrent misreadings. It will never be caused by the cognitive rigidity that is his trademark.
Over the years, countless professional physicists tried to reason with him. Yet every time he has to plug in an equation he shies away. He just knows that he alone is right, everybody else is wrong, and that nobody understands him.
Graham D. Warner, forever the victim, including at times when he should be logged off.
His current predicament can be explain in a few words: it is IMPOSSIBLE for a pure external rotation not to equal a pure internal rotation with a translation with both rotations in the same direction. One implies the other, but implication does not addition, like he always tries to pretend with his silly 1 + 1 trick.
Besides, astute readers ought to ask themselves – how can we account for an object that moves at 1 RPM in one frame of reference and 0 RPM in another in terms of absolute rotation?
You made a simple mistake, Little Willy. Number of spins per orbit is not the same thing as number of axes of rotation. You live and learn. You can learn, right?
Graham D. Warner is proven wrong, again.
Perhaps he should focus on a simple task:
How can absolute rotation describe an object that moves at 0 RPM and in one frame of reference and 1 RPM in another?
It’s not “absolute rotation” that I’m arguing for, Little Willy. It’s “absolute motion in an enclosed loop”. Different theory. I can explain it to you, if you like. Once you admit you were wrong.
And now Graham D. Warner once again continues to split the exchange in two different places.
An axis in one frame of reference plus the corresponding axis in the other frame of reference equals two axes.
A different mistake than when Graham D. Warner rejects that there is only one axis of rotation in the equivalence between an external rotation and an internal rotation with a translation!
Astute readers might wonder how the two mistakes are related.
I’ve made no mistakes that you have been able to point out, Little Willy. You can waffle on all you like about “the concept of equivalence” and frames of reference, but the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes, wrt an inertial reference frame. You, bob and Ball4 have been wrong about that for years. It’s great to go out on a high, so thanks for this. It’s effortless to defend a position that has been mathematically proven to be correct.
“Ive made no mistakes that you have been able to point out”
False.
“the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes”
Irrelevant.
“You, bob and Ball4 have been wrong about that for years”
False.
“Its effortless to defend a position that has been mathematically proven to be correct.”
False.
Is Little Willy now backing away from what he, bob, and Ball4 have claimed for years? How funny. What a great final argument it’s been.
Is Graham D. Warner still believing that his silly 1 + 1 trick is some kind of mathematical proof?
The CSA Truther himself refuted it!
Ftop_t supplied the mathematical proof with his rotation matrix comment. It’s never been refuted, and never will.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again.
Flop asserted without proof that an external rotation was equivalent to a translation with an internal rotation, oblivious to the fact that both rotations need to be in the same direction, something that the CSA Truther at least admitted.
Nate proved the correct equivalence constructively, a construction that Flop failed to recognize for a while. But when he saw it he took his leave.
Yet Graham D. Warner still insists that this silly equivalence somehow supports his position. Not only that, but he still fails to see how Bob uses it to argue his point. And of course he still has no idea why Tim suggests that to speak of axes implies that we have a frame of reference!
Little Willy has some truly inventive false narratives in his head. I have no idea where he gets it from, or if he even really believes it. It’s quite something, though.
Ftop_t conclusively demonstrated that wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.
“some truly inventive false narratives in his head”
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
No.
Don’t let a denial specialist like Clint R fool you.
Instead, feel free to compare one of his typical manipulations:
” Just right here on this blog, you see people claiming that passenger jets fly backward. ”
which is an intentional misrepresentation of what somebody wrote on the blog
with
Clint R’s claim that the Moon does not spin about any internal axis, and that all astronomers having computed the lunar spin’s period in the last centuries are ‘astrologers’.
The only guys who spend their time in false accusations on this blog are Clint R and a few tr0lls who thinks like him.
Bindi, are you going to start your nonsense again?
Cassini was an astrologer, sorry. He got his “laws” wrong, sorry. His “laws” are easily debunked, as you have seen. You’re a cultist with no interest In reality, sorry.
And Ent definitely sticks with his belief that passenger jets fly backward, unless he has retracted and I missed it. (If he’s retracted, please provide a link to his comment.)
Since you’ve got no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you’re just throwing crap against the wall, as usual.
Clint R,
” His laws are easily debunked, as you have seen.”
Let’s have the debunking please.
DREMT,
Yes, there is such a thing as an axis of translation.
It is the line perpendicular to the path of the curvilinear translation in a circle. It exists, and I just described it
.
Ftops mathematical transformation does what the ball on a string does, it rotates on its axis as it revolves around the origin.
“Cassini was an astrologer, sorry. He got his laws wrong, sorry. His laws are easily debunked”
As usual you declare established science wrong, without offering any evidence whatsoever.
What is the point?
Oh well,
I forgot the obligatory response to an “Oh Well”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Bill,
Its really simple.
Some orbits are elliptical, and none are circular.
External rotations are circular.
Therefore no orbits are external rotations.
I dont need to find a paper that says that.
Astronomy 101.
Figures Nate and Bob would double down on what their daddy told them. Obviously they don’t know enough of the science behind what they believe their daddy told them to actually address a single point I made.
Bill attacks his opponents, because lacking sound arguments or evidence, what else can he do?
Nate everybody repeats what their daddy told them. If one wanted to understand everything they would have to live forever.
If you insist on using your daddy’s definitions as your argument one has to ask . . .is that the only way it could be defined?
Since thats your only argument you are merely believing what you think your daddy told you. We know that’s NOT science. What if somebody’s daddy believed the world was flat? Would you accept that as science?
How bout a real argument?
These threads get so long because DREMT has nothing truthful to say.
And still thinks the Moon rotates on an external axis.
Orbits are not rotations.
That is something useful to point out.
The threads get so long because you people simply cannot stop responding to me.
On the one hand, Flop presumably showed that that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
On the other hand, Flop’s trick broke isometry as it was an elliptical pattern.
So Flop showed that if rotations break isometry they can rotate on a non-circular ellipse.
You can’t make this up.
***
Graham D. Warner’s latest gimmick reminds me of this:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi
Little Willy, you are making it up. Isometry is broken with rotation in an elliptical pattern because the rotation is not in a circle, so the distance from the origin is changing. Obviously.
Your sophistry comes in when you introduce a concept (isometry) which adds nothing new to the discussion. It had already been argued that rotations had to be circular, by definition. Someone had already made that point before you introduced your isometry argument. So, what new point were you adding!? Absolutely none! Saying "isometry cannot be broken with rotations" is literally the same point as saying that "rotations must be circular". All it adds is a layer of obfuscation, which allowed you to falsely accuse Ftop_t of trying some kind of "trick", or attempt to deceive, when he’s a perfectly honest, straight-up kind of commenter.
If rotation occurs in an elliptical pattern, then obviously isometry is broken. It’s no more meaningful for you to say that than it is to say, "rotation occurring in an elliptical pattern is not allowed because rotations must be in a circle". Yet you act like there’s some kind of deception going on, like Ftop_t was somehow secretly breaking this "isometry" rule whilst making it appear as if he wasn’t!
There was never any deception. Ftop_t simply showed that Desmos allowed rotations to occur in an elliptical pattern. You can whinge and cry all you like that "rotations must occur in a circular pattern"…not according to Desmos.
Graham D. Warner asserts that Flop showed how rotation can occur in a non-circular elliptical pattern.
Graham D. Warner accepts that rotations can’t occur in a non-circular elliptical pattern, for that’d break isometry.
Something‘s got
togive.“There was never any deception. Ftop_t simply showed that Desmos allowed rotations to occur in an elliptical pattern.”
False. He simply declared this motion was a ‘rotation’.
And why should he be believed?
Little Willy…I don’t ultimately care, either way, as the “Non-Spinner” argument does not depend on “orbits are rotations”, in any case. For what it’s worth, it seems the Desmos programmers disagree with the idea that “rotations must be circular”/“rotations must not break isometry”. Else they would not allow you to program a rotation in an elliptical pattern.
Nate…not false. We both saw him do it. He programmed Desmos to rotate an object in an elliptical pattern. You could even adjust the elliptical shape. That’s just what happened. There seems little point in you denying it.
“Natenot false. We both saw him do it. He programmed Desmos to rotate an object in an elliptical pattern. ”
False. How did he know it was a rotation?
All he did was program DESMOS to move a point along a trajectory that resembled an ellipse.
He called that motion a ‘rotation’. But this is inconsistent to the universally understood definition of ‘rotation’, which he himself regularly used!
Again, a program cannot disprove a definition!
When are you going to figure this out?
"All he did was program DESMOS to move a point along a trajectory that resembled an ellipse."
No, he moved a shape (not a point) in an ellipse such that the same side of the shape always faced the inside of the orbit.
"He called that motion a ‘rotation’. But this is inconsistent to the universally understood definition of ‘rotation’, which he himself regularly used!"
So call it something else. Who cares? Call it "orbit without spin". It just doesn’t matter, Nate.
"Again, a program cannot disprove a definition! When are you going to figure this out?"
I never said that it "disproves a definition". I’m saying that maybe not everyone takes every word of the definition as some completely inflexible holy scripture. Specifically, maybe they see that there’s some flexibility over "circular".
Exactly, Nate.
Imagine if Graham D. Warner had the flexibility to concede that an orbit isn’t defined as a pure rotation and does not imply anything about spin…
That’s right, Little Willy, an orbit does not imply anything about spin. I’m glad you agree. I can’t comment on “pure rotation”, I’m afraid, as I don’t know what you mean by it.
Did Graham D. Warner forget about his pet GIF? How can he forget about his Holy Madhavi? Or his (actually Flop’s) transmographer? Perhaps the CSA Truther’s contraption? How about the hundreds of times I said “pure rotation”?
Chances are that he’s just feigning ignorance.
Pure rotation is a motion that only involves a rotation. Rotation in general does not. Thus it’s possible to say that a thrower throws a hammer by rotating. It’s not pure rotation, but there’s obviously rotation involved. Same for orbits: they often imply some kind of rotation, but they can’t be pure rotations. Confer to all the times Bob said why, which now Graham accepts.
Progress!
Still none the wiser. Just Little Willy being his usual unintelligible self, whilst trying to pretend bob hasn’t been wrong for half a decade. He’s just t-word-ing.
And so Graham D. Warner is obviously playing dumb. According to Holy Madhavi, there are three types of motion. Which are they?
While he finds back his copy, astute readers may wonder if he has the flexibility to understand what he agreed upon when he said he agreed with the fact that an orbit doesn’t imply anything regarding an object’s spin –
An object’s orbit does not imply that it spins. It doesn’t imply that it does not spin either. Describing an orbit has NOTHING to do with the fact whether it spins or not.
Two reasons why Graham D. Warner’s quiz over his pet GIF means so little.
Rotation, translation, and general plane motion. So what? Just get to the point, if you have one.
“An object’s orbit does not imply that it spins. It doesn’t imply that it does not spin either. Describing an orbit has NOTHING to do with the fact whether it spins or not”
Sure. And, ultimately, everyone has an idea of what an orbit, without spin, looks like. To a “Spinner”, it’s the MOTR, and to a “Non-Spinner”, it’s the MOTL.
> Rotation, translation, and general plane motion. So what? Just get to the point, if you have one.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner isn’t flexible enough to understand how rotation and translation are opposed to general plane motion.
As suspected – Little Willy has no point.
“So call it something else. Who cares? Call it “orbit without spin”. It just doesnt matter, Nate.”
Well you cared enough to push the argument for a week in this latest instance.
Hopefully we will never again hear you declaring that an elliptical orbit IS a rotation.
Actually, I pushed nothing. You guys brought it up. I barely even wanted to discuss it, but you wouldn’t let it lie.
Actually, I pushed nothing. You guys brought it up. I barely even wanted to”
Again with weird notion that others forced you to participate!
Its like you don’t have any free will..
If you say so, Nate. Will that be eternally all?
As suspected, Graham D. Warner will ignore why the very idea of general plane motion DESTROYS the dilemma he offers with his pet GIF.
It doesn’t. You’re confused, as usual.
Graham D. Warner once again ignores that he offers only two solutions to his pet riddle: a pure rotation, and a pure translation.
What if we could describe his pet GIF using general plane motion, and how many possible solutions would there be?
The solutions to the GIF are:
MOTL
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
MOTR
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Can Little Willy tell me which one of those descriptions is in the general plane motion category?
Astute readers will note that when Graham D. Warner speaks of rotations “about an external axis” or “about an internal axis,” he’s referring to pure rotation, just like here, after the 5th minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBBVGRpQLw
His insistence on pure rotation led him to an impasse recently with Flop’s trick, after which he suggested that we relax our definition of rotation. That was the bailey moment of his usual motte-and-bailey. And now he’s back into his motte, with a more “rigid” definition.
At no point does he consider that we could describe his pet GIF in terms of general motion. As Graham D. Warner completely forgot what the CSA Truther tried to show.
The answer to my question was MOTL b). Shows Little Willy is clueless, but we knew that already.
Graham D. Warner admitted many times that both descriptions were equivalent (i.e. he offers a false dilemma), and he also recently admitted that orbit and spin were independent (i.e. the motion of the Moon around the Earth isn’t what makes it change direction), but it’s not like consistency was his strongest suit.
And we haven’t touched infinitesimals yet, where rotation and translation are both commutative, which means that that both concepts are ultimately interchangeable.
If Little Willy has any alternative to the a) and b) descriptions, let him name it. Time for him to put up, or shut up.
Graham D. Warner still couldn’t find the CSA Truther’s demonstration himself?
Bummer.
Let’s do simple: (1) for half a circle, and (2) for the other half.
What do I win?
You don’t win anything until you write something coherent. What is 1) and 2)?
Graham D. Warner can’t even admit that he’s created another death thread using a misplaced comment.
A comment about translation, actually, in which he denied that translation required an axis and kept showing why he’s the undergraduate here (with honors!) while Bob actually taught.
It’d be fun to see how Graham represents a translation without any coordinate system or even direction! It’s not impossible, mind you, astute reader. Just harder to do physics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1687530
Little Willy was unable to put up, but still has not shut up.
Re a coordinate system, the reference frame is inertial, with the origin passing through the hand of the person swinging the ball on a string. Really astute readers would have noted that I mentioned a reference frame many times. Nobody else bothered.
Ah well.
Looks like Graham D. Warner can’t even recognize that (1) refers to his “a)” and (2) to his “b).” I mean, he offered the two choices (with bad notation!) for years now. It’s really hard for him to keep track of what’s being discussed.
So, one solution is to describe the first half of the path using his first description, and the other half using his second description.
Another solution would be to describe the first and the third quarters of the path using his first description, and the second and the fourth quarters using the second description.
Astute readers might already notice that there are many other solutions. An infinity, in fact.
Equivalence is a strong concept.
So your suggestion is to describe the MOTL as spinning for half of its orbit, and not the other half. Then you wonder why people refuse to take you seriously.
> So your suggestion is to describe
Watch Graham D. Warner move the goalpost in slow motion. Pun intended.
He said there was only two descriptions possible. I showed him that one could find an infinity of them. Will he finally accept that he posits a false dilemma?
Perhaps he’ll have to wait until we tell him that, even if there was only two descriptions possible, one does not simply impose a dilemma using two equivalent statements. Who knows?
It is a dilemma, assuming you want to actually get to the bottom of whether the moon spins or not. Of course, if you do not want to do so, that is fine. We can just accept that the moon both spins and does not spin.
Look.
Graham D. Warner has to choose:
(a) 4 = 1 + 3
or
(b) 4 = 3 + 1
He HAS to choose.
This is so silly.
If you say so, Little Willy. Others seem keen to get to the bottom of whether or not the moon spins.
Perhaps one day Graham D. Warner will realize that the scientific establishment believes that the Moon spins not because of how they understand rotation and translation but because it coheres with the laws of physics. It’s not the descriptions that matter here, but the counterfactual that goes with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
This counterfactual isn’t resolved by geometry alone.
His pet GIF is the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
So yeah – Graham D. Warner is using a GIF showing why the Moon spins to argue that it does not spin!
Enough for now. Let him digest the part about an infinity of alternative descriptions. It might be useful for future reference.
I already explained, elsewhere, that the issue is not resolved by kinematic descriptions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685849
Little Willy is miles behind, as usual.
Graham D. Warner still doesn’t get the very first comment I made years ago: at best he could say that they’re equivalent models. All he does is to state an equivalence. What else does he expect?
There are two problems that would face him were he as serious as he pretends to be. The first would be to produce a model. The second would be to revise physics so that his “ball on string” model or orbits works for our actual laws of physics. He dodges the first problem by various ways to run the clock. He dodges the first problem by trying to make it all about rotation and translation.
There’s nothing else behind Graham D. Warner’s masquerade.
You have never been able to understand, and never will…and that’s OK with me.
And so Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting.
The most beautiful irony is that my online character is the guy who came up with the thought experiment in the first place to establish what is called the inscrutability of reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscrutability_of_reference
At best Graham D. Warner will one day produce a model of the Moon-Earth system in which the Moon does not spin.
As for his other silly point, he still does not get that equivalence implies that the two versions are OK and that if there’s one axis in one version and another axis in the other version, then we really really really really have two axes. Besides the fact that the spin axis of the Moon is not even the polar axis, it goes without saying.
There has never been any dilemma. The only reason why we prefer to consider that the Moon spins is, because physics.
If you say so, Little Willy. Will that be eternally all?
Actually, I will just refute this “argument”.
By your logic, since in one description the MOTL is not rotating about an internal axis, and in the other description the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis, then we can say the MOTL has zero axes of rotation!
Little Willy never thinks thing through.
> since in one description the MOTL is not rotating about an internal axis, and in the other description the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis, then we can say the MOTL has zero axes of rotation!
Graham D. Warner always comes back with this kind of silliness.
Why should we substract one model from another equivalent one? In fact, what algebraic law should we use to do that?
It is your logic that is silly, as I just showed. Sorry you were not able to follow it. Par for the course, I guess.
Let’s apply Graham D. Warner algebra’s rule:
(M) 1 + 3 = 2 + 2
Let’s replace:
(M1) 2 + 2 = 2 + 2
See, no more 1’s and 3’s!
Graham D. Warner is a genius.
“Why should we substract one model from another equivalent one?”
I didn’t. I added zero from one of the descriptions, and zero from the other description, to get zero overall.
By adding two zeros, Graham D. Warner can subtract.
Pure genius.
Let’s apply his “logic” – he can’t believe that an external rotation equals an internal rotation plus a translation (both rotations in the same direction), for if he did the rotations would disappear!
No, Little Willy. I’m not subtracting. I’m adding two zeroes, to get zero.
Each description contains one instance of "rotation around an axis" and one instance of "no rotation around an axis", e.g. description a) has rotation around an external axis but no rotation around an internal axis.
You are adding together the instances of "rotation" and claiming that it should mean the MOTL has two axes of rotation. I am copying your logic exactly, only I’m adding together the instances of "no rotation" to claim it should mean the MOTL has no axes of rotation. Thus showing how absurd your logic is.
I didn’t even need to do that, though – self-evidently your argument was ridiculous – but I found my refutation quite entertaining, so thought I’d post anyway…
…and to think, this is what you’ve meant all those times you’ve been banging on about equivalency. You actually believe it makes sense to claim there are two axes of rotation for the MOTL, or to say that the MOTL is spinning for half an orbit, but not for the other half (your alternative to the a) and b) descriptions, equally funny). These are the arguments you’ve been keeping to yourself, until now.
I can see why.
> Im adding two zeroes, to get zero.
Wow.
Does Graham D. Warner really believe that he can destroy an equivalence by adding zeroes?
Let’s try it.
2 + 2 = 1 + 3
(2 + 2) x 0 = (1 + 3) x 0
0 = 0
Damn. Failed again.
So if we believe that 2 plus 2 equals 1 plus 3, we must believe that everything equals zero!
Pure genius.
***
> You are adding together the instances of “rotation”
Graham D. Warner says the darnedest things.
The equivalence between A and B does not mean I have A x B, A + B, A – C, or whatever. It just means I can replace one with the other. Not add them!
And astute readers ought to note: I replace them as a whole. Not just some part of it.
Graham D. Warner pulled the same kind of stunts with the green plates, with the energy balance model. He also did the same with his silly Objectively Real Model or whatever in another part of the Moon rigmarole.
This is getting sillier and sillier.
“Does Graham D. Warner really believe that he can destroy an equivalence by adding zeroes?”
Straw man. I’m not trying to “destroy an equivalence”. The a) and b) descriptions are equivalent. What I am destroying is your argument that because the a) and b) descriptions are equivalent, you can take an axis from one, and an axis from the other, and claim that there are two axes of rotation for the MOTL!
Your argument is refuted…so, typically, this is where you go absolutely berserk…
> What I am destroying is your argument that because the a) and b) descriptions are equivalent, you can take an axis from one, and an axis from the other, and claim that there are two axes of rotation for the MOTL
Talk about strawmen.
Graham D. Warner is a genius.
You said:
“As for his other silly point, he still does not get that equivalence implies that the two versions are OK and that if there’s one axis in one version and another axis in the other version, then we really really really really have two axes.”
Seems like you were arguing exactly what I said. If not, try to express yourself a bit more clearly, next time. I’m done with you for the day, I have one more response I can make today and I’m saving that for Nate, if he responds. You are such a waste of my time.
> Seems like
Seems like after all these years Graham D. Warner still struggles over the notion of equivalence!
Take A and B. Let A == B. Whenever you have A, you can replace it with B. And vice versa. If A contains one rotation, and B contains a different rotation, how many rotations do we have in total?
It’s really not that complex.
No wonder Graham D. Warner keeps being schooled by Bob!
Typical Little Willy. Falsely accuse me of misrepresenting him, then repeats the refuted argument.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. bob has been wrong about that for years, and so is not in a position to teach anyone. No amount of dribbling on about “the concept of equivalence” will ever change that.
Get over it. Your hero was wrong.
Typical Graham D. Warner. Gets caught misrepresenting me. Waves his arms to offer another bogus “argument.” Doubles down.
While we let him recount how many “rotation” there is in “an external rotation equals an internal rotation and a translation in the same direction” (how many clues does he need), astute readers might wonder where GR’s solution fits in his false dilemma. A solution that rests on a pure motion, to boot!
Or the CSA Truther’s, for that matter.
Pure genius.
“Two axes of rotation.”
I said orbital axis. YOU have consistently said an orbit is a rotation!
Synchronous rotation is a misnomer”
Again you declare Astronomy’s terminology wrong. Between you and Astronomy there is no uncertainty about which one knows what they are talking about!
They mean that the rotation is synchronous with the orbit. Makes perfect sense!
You are a liar and a troll.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.
Get over it. Your hero was wrong.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Spent years on a false dilemma. Couldn’t even see that his own CSA Truther refuted it. Never realized that GR himself refuted it, let alone why.
Still can’t admit that he presumes pure transformations. Still can’t admit that he misinterpreted the notion of equivalence. Still can’t admit that he has the kinematics of twirling a ball on string completely wrong.
What will it be when he’ll have to admit that the hammer throw completely DESTROYS his silly idea that there’s only one axis of rotation? Heck, what will it be when he’ll have to admit that dynamic systems are not captured by pure transformations at all?
Lie and bait away, Little Willy.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.
Get over it. Your hero was wrong.
Graham D. Warner is tilting.
He and his fellowship spent years goading and baiting Binny. He has no business here. He still can’t keep another of his promises to leave the blog.
Astute readers might wonder: how many axes under GR’s and the CSA Truther’s interpretations?
I’m cool as a cucumber, Little Willy.
Gordon would have it that there are zero axes of rotation, the CSAItruth guys would no doubt go for one axis. Nobody is silly enough to think there are two axes except Little Willy, bob and Ball4. Even Nate knows that’s wrong, he’s just too shy to say so. Doesn’t want to throw you guys under the bus.
You three have been wrong for years. Oh well. Not my problem.
And I have kept every word of what I said. I said I would leave when you all stop responding to me/mentioning me. Unbelievably, I’m still here because you’re all just unable to let me go! It’s quite touching, in a way.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting. Still, one out of two is not that bad. If GR has *zero* axis, then why does Graham keep saying there is one axis?
Perhaps there is no such answer to his silly false dilemma.
And astute readers ought to ask – why does he always forget about the two axes solution?
The a) and b) descriptions are simply the valid kinematic descriptions for the MOTL and MOTR. That’s why you’ll have seen that recently Tim agreed, listing the options for the MOTL, wrt an inertial reference frame, as being what I’ve said they’ve been for years. He basically repeated the a) and b) descriptions, in his own words. Funnily enough, you didn’t give Tim the grief that you’re giving me.
Gordon’s description doesn’t adhere to standard kinematics. He calls the movement of the MOTL translation in a circle without rotation about an internal axis, but that is not how it’s defined in the textbooks.
Clint R would say that kinematics doesn’t apply to orbits, in any case. I think that it has its uses in getting across some important points.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. That’s just a mathematical, geometrical fact. If you say it’s rotating about an external axis, then it isn’t rotating about an internal axis. If you say it’s rotating about an internal axis, then it’s translating in a circle, and not rotating about an external axis. It’s not rotating about an external axis and an internal axis. I’m sorry that you find that so hard to understand.
The MOTR, on the other hand, could have either zero axes of rotation, or two axes of rotation.
> are simply the valid kinematic descriptions
And now Graham D. Warner uses another concept he does not master. There’s nothing invalid in GR’s solution. There’s nothing invalid in the CSA Truther’s refutation too.
Validity, like motion, isn’t absolute. It depends upon the underlying choices we make. Graham D. Warner does not even realize that his silly dilemma makes arbitrary choices.
Still, a genius.
It’s all insinuation with Little Willy. He never really makes clear what his point is. I think that’s so he can make it look like he has something to say when he doesn’t, really. As long as it reads like it’s some kind of criticism for something or other, he’s happy. His “astute readers” must be very confused, though, always waiting for him to clarify what he’s actually on about.
It’s all empty assertions with Graham D. Warner.
Kinematics does not forbid anyone to consider GR’s solution as valid. All one needs is to make the presuppositions explicit. In this case, it’s a circular space. As for the CSA Truther, he clearly showed how to use two rotations to mimick the Moon. So once again Graham D. Warner failed to get the hint.
Both models are interesting in their own right. Even the idea that an orbit is a rotation can be fruitful. It compels us to ask ourselves: how is gravity supposed to turn the Moon around herself?
This is the point Graham D. Warner keeps evading with his pet GIF and his balls on strings. He can’t win on physics. Has to win something. Poor him. Trying to drag things down again instead of washing his hands and going away.
Astute readers might ask themselves – as he yet figured out that in a dynamic system there are no fixed point, which means that the usual notions of pure transformations don’t really hold?
“As for the CSA Truther, he clearly showed how to use two rotations to mimick the Moon.”
No, he did not (and that’s the only thing worth dignifying with a response).
> No, he did not
Graham D. Warner has a knack to goad and deny and bait and play dumb and gaslight and whine just make people do all the work for him:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=pfkMvbJ75kD1nCSo&t=162
Meanwhile, astute readers might wonder how many barycenters there are in the solar system that are relevant to the Earth.
He did not show how to mimic the motion of the moon with two rotations. It’s unclear why you even think he did.
Graham D. Warner obviously hasn’t clicked on the link.
Why bother?
Yes, I clicked on the link. I’ve watched that part of the video many times before.
There’s absolutely nothing in the video that would lead any rational human being to conclude that the motion of the moon can be mimicked by two rotations – i.e. rotation about both an external and an internal axis. After all, the entire purpose of the video is to attempt to show that the moon is not rotating about an internal axis.
He takes the model moon off the device and translates it in a circle whilst rotating it about an internal axis with his fingers, and notes that the moon "appears" (his word) to be rotating (about an internal axis) whilst moving like our moon. Obviously, he’s separated it from the device, so it’s no longer rotating about an external axis.
The device rotates the model moon about an external axis as its "base motion". So, in the first experiment, it’s rotating the model moon about an internal axis once for every rotation about an external axis, in the same direction as the external axis rotation. In the second experiment, it’s only rotating about an external axis. No rotation about an internal axis. In the third experiment, it’s rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction to the rotation about an external axis, once per external axis rotation.
His lifting it off the device in the second experiment is pretty straightforward overall confirmation of the point that there is only one axis of rotation for motion like our moon. It’s either translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (when it’s off the device and he’s moving it with his fingers) or it’s rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis when on the device.
> Theres absolutely nothing in the video that would lead any rational human being to conclude that the motion of the moon can be mimicked by two rotations
Pure denial on top of pure denial.
Graham D. Warner obviously forgets the bit where the CSA Truther unplugs the Moon from its gimmick and rotates it around the Earth. And he also forgets that the Earth would need to rotate too.
One rotation plus one rotation equals two rotations.
The CSA Truther reveals his gimmick when he says:
Not only this is false (it has not) but that’s where the CSA Truther confuses, as Graham D. Warner does, orbit and rotation!
Astute readers might wonder if Graham D. Warner really believes that the Moon always hover the same side of the Earth, like the CSA Truther demonstrated.
"Graham D. Warner obviously forgets the bit where the CSA Truther unplugs the Moon from its gimmick and rotates it around the Earth. And he also forgets that the Earth would need to rotate too."
You obviously didn’t read my comment, where I mention that he unplugs the moon from the device. Why bother?
Also…the Earth rotates on its own axis, Little Willy. That doesn’t count as a rotation of the moon, about either an external or an internal axis. The Earth is a separate body to the moon. Its rotation is not counted as part of the moon’s rotation, about either an external or internal axis. You’re hopelessly confused, as usual.
> That doesnt count as a rotation of the moon
Graham D. Warner cranks up his denial to 11.
In the Moon-Earth system, the Earth doesn’t count, now. The CSA Truther makes the rotation of the Moon depend on the motion of Earth, but the Earth doesn’t count.
Which then means that the person moving Graham’s balls on his silly strings doesn’t matter. The hammer thrower doesn’t count, only the hammer counts.
I think I had enough of Graham D. Warner’s gaslighting for one day.
That’s right, Little Willy, the hammer thrower doesn’t count as an axis of rotation for the hammer. Both the hammer and the thrower are instead rotating about one single, shared axis, located at the barycentre between them. This is unlike the Earth and moon scenario in that the Earth is also spinning, as well as rotating about that one single, shared axis, located at the barycentre between the Earth and the moon.
Re the CSAItruth demo…the Earth spins along with the arm that turns the moon. So, with the "moon spin" motor not engaged, but the arm turning the moon, the Earth will spin at the same rate as the moon rotates around the external axis. But, that doesn’t mean that there are two axes of rotation for the moon! There is only one axis of rotation for the model moon, external to it…located at the model Earth.
Then, when the "moon spin" motor is engaged, you get your two axes of rotation (in experiment one and three).
And so according to Graham D. Warner, the thrower does not matter. Who cares what the thrower does? No wonder he always talks about balls and strings and stops there!
Astute readers might wonder then why he spent a few weeks if not months on the ultimate objectivity or the objective materiality of the CSA Truther’s contraption. (Paraphrasing, of course: he kept using another silly acronym no one cares about.) Recall that the contraption had two motors, the important motor being underneath the Earth. It’s the one that implemented the “normal orbital motion [sic.]” of the Moon.
And then return to the important theorem:
[GDWT] [H]e’s separated it from the device, so it’s no longer rotating about an external axis.
So the Earth does not matter, but the clock arm does. The thrower does not matter, but the metal chain does. The ball twirler does not matter, but the string does.
Words of wisdom. Words of wisdom.
Now, what about Graham D. Warner’s pet GIF – what attaches the objects of the GIF together, again?
Astute readers who are interested in what I actually said and meant, can just read my comments. Said readers should already know not to trust Little Willy when he writes his own version of what I said and meant.
Astute readers already know that to falsely claim “help! I’m being misrepresented!” is part of Graham D. Warner’s elaborated defense mechanism.
Here’s a syllogism:
(P1) Graham D. Warner said that, once the CSA Truther disconnected the Moon from his contraption, it was no longer rotating about an external axis.
(P2) GIFs don’t materially connect the objects they represent.
(C) The GIF can’t represent an external rotation.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner should correct his first premise. Astute readers already know it’s unsound.
The GIF could be either a) or b), precisely because we do not and cannot know what the mechanism is. It’s just an animation. It could be that there’s some kind of physical connection between the two objects, like a string, or an arm, or a chain, or gravity…or it could be that there’s just some invisible hand moving the one object around the other.
> The GIF could be either a) or b), precisely because we do not and cannot know what the mechanism is.
If we cannot know what the mechanism is, then we can’t exclude other possibilities than his “a)” and “b).” And we already saw an infinity of them.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner should have sticked to stipulating that a pure external rotation equals an internal rotation plus a translation, both rotations being in the same direction.
Besides, does he really know by which mechanism the CSA Truther moved the Moon around? Considering how he analyzes the hammer throw, astute readers might dispute that knowledge. Any physiotherapist would tell you that the CSA Truther rotated both his arm and his hand.
“He takes the model moon off the device and translates it in a circle whilst rotating it about an internal axis with his fingers, and notes that the moon “appears” (his word) to be rotating (about an internal axis) whilst moving like our moon. Obviously, hes separated it from the device, so its no longer rotating about an external axis.”
When he takes it off the arm, and moves it exactly as it had been moving, he declares it rotating!
But back on the arm, doing the same motion, it ceases to “be rotating a single degree”!
This is the part of the video where the dude proves he’s insane. And yet DREMT thinks it is great!
DREMT declares “The device rotates the model moon about an external axis as its “base motion”.”
No! Not according to the dude. He says it is “not rotating a single degree” when on the arm! It is only orbiting.
He never equates orbiting with rotating, thus his entire point is to claim that the Moon is not rotating!
I think it best to just ignore Little Willy’s response. I just refuted another one of his arguments only for him not to accept it, and instead recycle some other points that have already been discussed. This will just continue repeating indefinitely if I let it.
Nate explodes passionately and breathlessly onto the scene, completely out of nowhere, with:
"No! Not according to the dude. He says it is “not rotating a single degree” when on the arm!"
He means "about an internal axis", Nate. The device has "rotation about an external axis" as its "base motion". He simply calls that "normal orbital motion". It’s probably less confusing that way…but no matter what we do to try and make things clearer, someone will arrive to obfuscate…
“He means “about an internal axis”, Nate. The device has “rotation about an external axis” as its “base motion”. He simply calls that “normal orbital motion””
Nope! He never states that.
He is absolutely clear that the Moon is not rotating. Period. Except when the guy rotates by hand.
Since I understand what he means by what he says when he takes the model moon off the device, and Nate doesn’t, you’d think Nate would listen to me. When somebody is using the terms "orbital motion" and "rotate", by the latter they obviously mean "rotate about an internal axis", or "spin". That should go without saying. What else would he mean!?
As to whether he means "normal orbital motion" is "rotation about an external axis", it doesn’t even really matter. The "base motion" for his device is "rotation about an external axis", whether he thinks of it that way, or not.
By the way, down-thread Nate is avoiding these questions:
1) Do you think our moon has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
2) Do you think a ball on a string has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
His refusal to answer makes it clear that his response would be "no" to both. If he honestly thought "yes", he would be quick to let me know, since he’d be backing up his fellow team members. Nate is honest enough not to lie and answer "yes" when he knows the correct answer is "no", but not quite honest enough to just actually answer "no", definitively. Astute readers will take any continued refusal to answer as a "no" to both.
It’s always best for Graham D. Warner to ignore what is being said. First, because he can’t really counter anything that is being said. Second, ignorance is truly what he knows best.
When interpreting his contraption, the CSA Truther presumes that an internal rotation happens when a motor is active. Motor off equals no internal rotation.
Astute readers might wonder how two rotations can cancel out.
Little Willy baits me to counter his last comment. OK then:
"If we cannot know what the mechanism is, then we can’t exclude other possibilities than his “a)” and “b).” And we already saw an infinity of them."
We saw an infinity of very silly possibilities in which the MOTL was spinning for a portion of its orbit, and not spinning for another portion of its orbit. Since nobody rational would take those possibilities seriously in this discussion, we can once again put Little Willy’s ludicrous argument to bed.
"Besides, does he really know by which mechanism the CSA Truther moved the Moon around? Considering how he analyzes the hammer throw, astute readers might dispute that knowledge. Any physiotherapist would tell you that the CSA Truther rotated both his arm and his hand."
We’re going to start trying to analyse the motion of individual bones in the hand and arm next, are we!? Deary me. When he takes the moon off the device, and moves it like the MOTL, he’s translating it in a circle whilst rotating it about an internal axis. He’s not rotating it about an external axis, because his arm isn’t very small and attached to the model Earth like the model Earth was his shoulder!
[I’m just having a laugh at your expense. Please try not to over-analyse my every word]
Graham D. Warner pretends that he responds to comments, but in the end he never really does. As if waving his arms could hypnotize astute readers or something. Repeating his incredulity regarding infinite counterexamples to his false dilemma does not counter anything. Neither does urning his lack of analysis of the CSA Truther’s trickery into a silly slippery slope.
The fact of the matter is that Graham D. Warner is just being a little hypocritical when he accepts that his pet GIF is “just an animation” whereas the CSA Truther’s contraption’s materiality matters a lot to him. All this because he thinks someone, somewhere disputes that an external rotation equals an internal rotation with a translation, both rotations in the same direction. In fact, everything he holds rests on that rudimentary fact. How he can conclude anything regarding the motion of the Moon in the Moon-Earth system is left as an exercise of psychology to astute readers.
“Since I understand what he means”
Because you can read minds.
Whereas I simply take his statements for what he meant to say.
Sorry that he doesn’t see things the way you do.
If you or Nate should ever finally, officially acknowledge that a ball on a string is not rotating about two different axes, then within a few additional questions and comments I can get you to understanding why the moon does not spin (as long as you cooperate and actually attempt to comprehend).
I’m away on holiday next week, so will probably only be responding once per day. Try not to get withdrawal symptoms. I know how desperately you both crave interacting with me.
If Graham D. Warner could accept that the equivalence between an external rotation and an internal rotation with a translation (both rotations in the same direction) involves at least two axes of rotation, that’d be great.
If he could acknowledge that he already accepts that general plane notion can model any motion, including pure translation and pure rotation, that’d be greater still.
But if he could also recognize that this equivalence has little to do with modeling the motion of actual Moon-Earth system, which requires general plane motion, now that’d be very sweet.
Astute readers might be willing to wait a bit until he admits that the CSA Truther indeed turns the Earth to make the Moon orbits and spins, a motion he confusedly calls the “normal orbital motion.”
Little Willy demonstrates his confusion with all four paragraphs, and that he hasn’t (and will never) learn a thing. That doesn’t bother or surprise me.
I’m afraid I’m going to need him, or Nate, to concede that wrt an inertial reference frame, a ball on a string is not rotating about two different axes, in order to continue.
I’ll wait and see if they are capable of humility.
Graham D. Warner is so cute when he’s gaslighting.
Astute readers might wonder why the Man on the Moon does not appear in that lovely GIF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Animation_of_Moon_orbit_around_Earth_-_Polar_view.gif
Could it because spin and orbit were independent?
Little Willy agrees with my point 4). Excellent. We need agreement on the two axes thing to proceed, though. Now off on holiday, so down to one (maybe two) responses per day from now on.
Graham D. Warner finally agrees with everybody else that the CSA Truther’s “normal orbital motion” was ridiculous. Orbit has nothing to do with spin.
Progress.
Astute readers might wonder why he still disputes that the thrower doesn’t matter:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.853536/full
A complex orbit produced by a series of rotations and translations.
Fancy that.
“Normal orbital motion” is, of course, fine. No problem with “orbit” and “spin” being independent. That’s my point 4), after all.
The thrower rotates about the barycentre, and the barycentre translates, so that all checks out.
No problems.
Just patiently waiting for Little Willy or Nate to concede the point about two axes.
“and comments I can get you to understanding why the moon does not spin (as long as you cooperate and actually attempt to comprehend).”
Nah. Never going to happen. The BOS is always an excuse to endlessly evade the lunar spin.
There is no sound fact-based argument to account for the plainly observable tilted axis of the Moon’s spin.
And DREMT knows it.
Answer the questions, Nate. I already know your answer is “no”, to both, meaning you agree that bob, Ball4 and Little Willy have been wrong for years, but you could at least have the courtesy to confirm that.
There’s an obvious problem with the CSA Truther’s “Normal orbital motion,” of course, fine. For he obviously has to rotate his arm and wrist to make the Moon spin as she orbits the Earth.
Which makes it hard to believe that orbit and spin are independent in the “Absolutely Fantastic Reality” of the contraption once the trick is revealed. Graham D. Warner can still believe that his hand and wrist are disconnected, of course. Of course.
It’s “normal orbital motion” when the model moon is on the device, and it swings around like the MOTL in one single, smooth motion.
“Normal orbital motion” is one single motion, and it’s like the MOTL according to “Non-Spinners”, and like the MOTR according to “Spinners”. “Spin” is motion around the object’s own internal axis, and is separate and independent of the “normal orbital motion”.
No need to obfuscate, it’s as simple as that.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again.
The “normal orbital motion” of the Moon is when it orbits the Earth the way it does normally. It should have nothing to do with how the CSA Truther decides to implement that motion. But then he wants to show that the Moon turns on herself without need to spin…
Since he has no physical basis to support his claim that the Moon does not spin, the CSA Truther tries to argue that it cannot spin. How can he succeed if orbit and spin are truly independent?
The plot thickens. Astute readers should grab popcorn.
I’m not gaslighting. It really is as simple as I explained. I have said, over the course of this discussion, absolutely everything that you need to know to fully understand the CSAItruth video. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
One piece of advice I would give you is to stop over-thinking things. Your mind tends to wander off in strange directions, you don’t explain yourself very well, so it becomes nigh on impossible to keep track of what sort of tangent you’ve gone off on. I’ve really tried to help you over the last few years, not that you deserve it, but it seems we’re never going to get anywhere. Time is running out…
…maybe just concede the two axes thing, and we’ll take it from there.
“Its normal orbital motion when the model moon is on the device, and it swings around like the MOTL in one single, smooth motion.”
Which has nothing to do with our Moon, that plainly, observably, has an orbit, and independently, a rotation, that are two different motions that happen in DIFFERENT PLANES.
So no, these devices don’t help account for our moon’s motion. That is a fantasy.
And furthermore the narrator is absolutely sure tha his moon and our Moon have no rotation, and thus he is absolutely nuts!
So naturally DREMT finds him compelling.
“It should have nothing to do with how the CSA Truther decides to implement that motion.”
Exactly!
But the ‘truther’ insists that moving the Moon by hand results in it obtaining rotation that it did not have with identical motion on the arm.
As I said, he is nuts.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1687960
And so Graham D. Warner breaks his promise on his very first vacation day.
Second day, and it’s no big deal. Got a couple of hours I can waste.
Astute readers might wonder –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4HwEHF__js
How many axes of rotation?
Little Willy throws more crap against the wall.
All because he can’t accept bob has been wrong for half a decade, and that he’s been wrong himself for three years. The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. If you can’t even agree with that, you’ll never get anywhere on this issue.
Graham D. Warner can’t log out.
All this because he can’t accept that his beloved CSA Truther’s “normal orbital motion” condemns the Moon to the same spot over the Earth for ever and ever.
I don’t need to “log out”. Your comments are harmless enough…if you choose to keep embarrassing yourself by saying silly things which demonstrate a total lack of understanding, that’s up to you. You can keep those comments coming indefinitely. I’ve made it clear that I’ll leave when you guys stop responding/mentioning me.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Astute readers may wonder – how can the CSA Truther prove that the Moon cannot spin if an external rotation is equal to an internal rotation with a translation (in the same direction)?
Oh, the video doesn’t settle the issue. It’s not even a very good video, although it has its uses. To get to what settles the issue, you know what you have to concede.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
It’s obvious that once we accept the equivalence between the two rotations involves two axes. It’s also obvious that it directly refutes the CSA Truther’s “proof” that the Moon can’t spin.
And the video is rather cool.
Sorry, Little Willy, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. It doesn’t matter how much you want to torture “the concept of equivalence”, it is not rotating about two different axes.
Concede that, to proceed.
It’s still a little sad that Graham D. Warner can’t enjoy vacations away from Roy’s.
However he spins his position (pun intended) he should be able to understand that one of his own points refutes the CSA Truther’s alleged “proof.”
Strange then that he sometimes asserts that the Moon cannot spin.
Througout the Csa truther video, when he states the Moon is not rotating, it is rotating wrt the inertial frame. And whenever he states it is rotating it is rotating wrt the rotating arm, and not wrt the inertial frame.
Thus he is consistent throughout that for him, lunar rotation means ‘rotation wrt a rotating frame of reference.’ A frame that is rotating with the arm, which is the radial line connecting Earth and Moon.
Using such a rotaing frame makes some sort of sense if one adopts the Earth centric pOV, because it explains how Earth bound observers see the Moon ‘not’ rotating.
But of course they are wrong.
Wrong, Nate. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. From there, you should be able to understand that it depends on whether the “base motion” is “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in a circle”. That is what decides if movement like the MOTL involves “not spinning”, or “spinning”. Not a choice of reference frame. With the CSAItruth equipment, the “base motion” is chosen for you. It’s “rotation about an external axis”.
> Thus [CSA Truther] is consistent throughout
That’s one thing the CSA Truther has over Graham D. Warner, whom has already forgotten his theorem:
[GDWT] [H]e’s separated it from the device, so it’s no longer rotating about an external axis.
Unless an object is attached to a device, it cannot rotate around it!
At least according to this theorem.
I’ve been entirely consistent throughout. For the “base motion” to be “rotation about an external axis” there needs to be a physical connection between the external axis and the object. Be that a string, a chain, an arm, or gravity. Otherwise, the “base motion” will be “translation in a circle”.
> For the “base motion” to be “rotation about an external axis” there needs to be a physical connection between the external axis and the object.
Right after Graham D. Warner spent five years on a silly GIF, no less.
So here’s what can’t be a rotation anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhfZUZiwSE
Unless Graham D. Warner knows the “base motion” of the chalk is connected to the center of the circle, of course.
There is no problem with the GIF, as I already explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1688044
It has its place in all of this.
“Wrong, Nate. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.”
Off topic. Not addressing my post at all!
Oh well!
“Not a choice of reference frame. With the CSAItruth equipment, the base motion is chosen for you. Its rotation about an external axis.”
Except the narrator NEVER states this!
He simply states that the moon is ‘not rotating’., when it clearly IS rotating wrt the inertial frame.
From this one can deduce that he means ‘not rotating wrt the rotating frame’!
Oh well!
It does directly address your comment, Nate. You’re aware I wrote other sentences? It starts with accepting that wrt an inertial reference frame there are not two axes of rotation for the MOTL. Once you’ve accepted that, you can hopefully understand that there are two options for describing the movement of the MOTL:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
They both apply wrt an inertial reference frame. So, actually, the choice of “base motion” is what decides whether something that moves like the MOTL is spinning or not. Not a choice of reference frame.
“From this one can deduce that he means ‘not rotating wrt the rotating frame’!”
That wouldn’t explain why he says the model moon is rotating (about an internal axis) when he detaches it from the device and moves it by hand like the MOTL.
What I am saying to you does explain it, however.
Not that it matters if the CSAItruth guy agrees with my way of looking at it, anyway. My way’s my way…you can either argue against what I’m saying or keep looking for excuses to avoid discussing it. Up to you.
Graham D. Warner still fails to amend his false dilemma. At the very least he ought to add:
[GSSG] Rotation about an external axis with a physical connection between the external axis and the object.
GSSG stands for Graham’s Silly Semantic Game.
Oh yes, sorry…I forgot to add:
c) an infinity of very silly options where the MOTL is considered to be spinning for part of its orbit but not the rest of it.
I think we can leave out c) from the adult discussion, though.
> an infinity of very silly options
Wait. The physical connection between the external axis and the object is not an option?
Graham D. Warner just can’t shoot straight.
Perhaps he ought to focus on his vacation time.
It goes so fast.
The presence or absence of the physical connection is what decides between a) and b). How do you get yourself so confused?
Just read through all the comments again, until you understand.
If the “presence or absence” of the physical connection is what decides Graham D. Warner’s false dilemma, then astute readers may ask themselves the following questions.
Q1. Why did Graham insist on Holy Madhavi for so long whence she does not define rotation and translation in terms of physical connection?
Q2. How can he accept the CSA Truther’s proof that the Moon cannot spin, which is based on geometry alone?
Q3. Why did he fall for Flop’s trick, which relies no physical connection?
Q4. Why doesn’t he clarify the physical connections involved and present instead his false dilemma in purely geometric terms?
Q5. How can an absence of a physical connection forbid a geometric description?
Q6. How does gravity “rotate” the Moon from afar?
Q7. Hasn’t Graham D. Warner noticed the hundreds of times I kept saying that his pet GIF can’t be solved by geometry alone?
So many questions. So little vacation time.
1. Madhavi was used to try to get across to extraordinarily reluctant people that movement like the MOTL could be comprised of only one single motion.
2. I have told you numerous times that the CSAItruth video does not resolve the moon issue.
3. Ftop_t is an honest, straight-shooting commenter. There were absolutely no “tricks”. So you will have to be more specific.
4. Your question is confusingly written, so I’m not really sure what you’re asking me.
5. How can an object both “spin” and not “spin”? It can’t. Geometry only gets you so far. You need something else to resolve the true dilemma, and I have proposed what I’ve proposed. This “absolute motion in an enclosed loop” theory is a new one. My own invention. It just takes “absolute rotation” and gives it a few necessary tweaks.
6. Gravity doesn’t create an orbit all by itself. It’s the combination of the object’s linear momentum, acting at right angles to the force of gravity, that creates the orbit. Just like a ball on a string. This animation shows it quite clearly:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
7. Yes, I also kept telling you that I never said the issue was resolved by geometry alone.
Graham D. Warner surely has a nice time vacationing. None of his “points” answers the questions I asked. Unless he answer them, I’m afraid astute readers are stuck.
Meanwhile, they’re still glad that he finally agrees that his dilemma was a false one, and we acknowledge his regret to have expressed it in mere geometrical terms, even if that means he needs to throw under the bus our CSA Truther and Flop with his trick.
Oh, and quick question – how can a theory relying on absolute rotation extend beyond geometry, again?
"None of his “points” answers the questions I asked."
False.
"Meanwhile, they’re still glad that he finally agrees that his dilemma was a false one"
No such event occurred.
"and we acknowledge his regret to have expressed it in mere geometrical terms"
Nobody understands what you mean by that.
"even if that means he needs to throw under the bus our CSA Truther and Flop with his trick."
No such event occurred. I’ve never said the CSAItruth video resolved the moon issue, I’ve always been very clear that it doesn’t. Ftop_t is under no bus, his work remains vital to understanding my argument (you obviously still don’t).
"Oh, and quick question – how can a theory relying on absolute rotation extend beyond geometry, again?"
It doesn’t rely on absolute rotation. It corrects that notion. And how it extends beyond geometry has been thoroughly explained at great length. Scroll back, re-read, learn, improve yourself.
“False.”
False.
“No such event occurred.”
False.
“Nobody understands what you mean by that.”
Gaslighting.
“No such event occurred.”
False.
“I’ve never said the [CSA Truther] resolved the moon issue”
Again with the red herring.
“[Flop and his trick] is under no bus”
False.
“It doesnt rely on absolute rotation.”
*It* is doing lots of work here.
“And how it extends beyond geometry has been thoroughly explained”
No such event occurred.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“Gaslighting.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“Again with the red herring.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“*It* is doing lots of work here.”
False.
“No such event occurred.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
While Graham D. Warner tries to save himself with another silly quote-fest, astute readers might appreciate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1180187
Time flies, even faster on vacation.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
“False.”
False.
The a) and b) descriptions are the only options for the GIF worth discussing. That you could describe it as spinning for part of its orbit and not spinning for another part is not something that adds any value to the discussion. It’s of no use to man nor beast, and just smacks of desperation to try to score some kind of point, any kind of point, regardless of getting to the truth. I’m not sure that you keeping exactly what you meant a secret for years, until now (possibly because your point was so absurd) is something to be proud of.
I answered all your questions to the best of my ability, and you have no meaningful response. So, I guess you lose yet another argument.
> I answered all your questions
False.
Another blast from the same past thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1184416
Ah, the good ol’ days where Graham D. Warner was gaslighting me more openly!
Little Willy quote mines…but what I actually said was:
"I answered all your questions to the best of my ability"
Obviously there were a couple of answers where I needed more clarification from you on the question. Of course, you didn’t respond with any, because you have no interest in getting to the truth. You have no desire to cooperate at all.
Let’s ask you some questions:
Q1) What is your problem with me, exactly?
Q2) Why do you care so much about the moon issue…or is it just desperation to try and prove me wrong about something?
Q3) Why do you keep falsely accusing me of "gaslighting"?
Q4) Are all the years of hostility from you towards me really just to do with that one time I embarrassed you at ATTP?
Q5) Why do you always bring up random quotes and links when the discussion has run its course?
Q6) Why did you look up roughly where I lived from my IP address when I posted at ATTP and then post that information on this blog?
Q7) Why have you deliberately targeted certain individuals on this blog from the very beginning, then constantly attacked their character rather than their arguments?
> to the best of my ability
Either false or giving away the whole scam.
Graham D. Warner fails to notice how many axes Flop counted. He fails to address the “rotational translation.” He also fails to remember why I showed him lots of commenters who counted more than one axis of rotation.
Perhaps he forgot how he started this whole charade. He was holding that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon to both orbit and spin:
(Impossible) It’s impossible for the actual Moon to spin because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides.
Then he goes on to push his silly 1 + 1 argument. Which means that his demonstration is not based on physics, but on geometry. Which means that his actual “duh, my pet GIF is physics-based” is a total cope.
His 1 + 1 argument has been refuted both by Flop and by the CSA Truther. It’s far from being impossible to simulate the actual motion of the Moon using two rotations!
Astute readers might suspect that Graham D. Warner has been hypnotized by his own dilemma.
Little Willy will never answer a single one of my questions, but is still playing his silly “you didn’t answer mine” game, even though I did answer them as best I could.
He linked to Ftop_t saying something about three rotations (not three axes of rotation) and obviously didn’t read through the whole discussion. That was the discussion where Ftop_t introduced the transmographer. Just a couple of comments further down is this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190112013709/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329311
“If you use the site below and rotate the object around a center point and then rotate it around its axis, the result is not consistent with a locked horse on a carousel. The horse would be facing backwards from its direction. This is applying the geometry of transformations. An object like a horse on a carousel is transforming around a center point. It is not transforming around its center axis.
If you use this site and only apply the transformation rule for rotating around a center point and then claim that the transformation around its axis is imputed in that movement, you are taking credit for a geometric transformation (around its axis) that has not been applied within the model.
It doesn’t matter if you stand on the center point, on the object, or outside of the area of movement; perception may be different, but the geometric transformation rules to model the movement are the same.”
Where he demonstrates that a wooden horse on a carousel has only one axis of rotation, at the centre point. Nate then follows up by using the transmographer to translate the object and rotate it about an internal axis to achieve the same movement. Still only one axis of rotation, then.
Movement like the MOTL only involves one axis of rotation.
I may well have said that it’s impossible for the moon to both “orbit” and “spin” and move like it does, so long as it’s understood that by “orbit” I meant motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Geometry alone can get you as far as having the a) and b) descriptions for the GIF.
To decide whether a real object that moves like the MOTL is spinning or not, you need to go beyond geometry and into physics land.
“will never answer a single one of my questions”
False.
“Movement like the MOTL only involves one axis of rotation.”
False. General plane motion can model any movement, with any number of axes of rotation.
“the geometric transformation rules to model the movement”
Flop confused the rules themselves with their application in a model. One can use the same rules to emulate general plane motion.
“Nate then follows up by using the transmographer to translate the object and rotate it about an internal axis to achieve the same movement.”
Something that Flop didn’t even acknowledge. Something that, according to Graham D. Warner, turned me and Nate into non-spinners! Something that would actually turn **everybody** into non-spinners, as no one ever denied that an external rotation was equivalent to an internal rotation with a translation, when both rotation are in the same direction.
“so long as its understood that by “orbit” I meant motion like the MOTL”
It’s as if Graham D. Warner does not recall his many tentatives to redefine the notion of orbit, over the years. He did it many times over the year. The same idea is behind the CSA Truther’s “normal orbital motion.”
In fact, most Moon Dragon cranks associate an external rotation as an orbit without a spin, including him!
So many things wrong in one post. Let’s just sort one thing at a time.
"False. General plane motion can model any movement, with any number of axes of rotation."
That’s wrong, Little Willy. The only two options worth discussing for movement like the MOTL are:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Option b) is an example of general plane motion. There is still only one axis of rotation in option b). If you think there is some other combination of translation and rotation which involves more than one axis of rotation and which models movement like the MOTL, then let’s hear it. Again – put up or shut up.
“So many things wrong in one post.”
False.
“Let’s just sort one thing at a time.”
False. Graham D. Warner simply evades the points being made.
“The only two options worth discussing”
False, and irrelevant to what I said.
“Option b) is an example of general plane motion.”
Irrelevant, and this doesn’t contradict what I said.
Little Willy, you made the following claim:
"General plane motion can model any movement, with any number of axes of rotation."
If that were the case, you would have no problem coming up with some combination of translation and rotation which involves more than one axis of rotation and which models movement like the MOTL. Again – put up or shut up. You’ve already evaded this once.
Once you’ve accepted that you’re wrong on this point, we can move onto your next error.
“You’ve already evaded this once.”
False. Astute readers can see my previous comments.
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner has yet to rubberstamp Flop’s “rotational translation.”
Now you have evaded it a second time. You cannot support your claim, because it was false, just like I said. Your previous attempts at an alternative to the a) and b) options had a) for a part of the orbit and b) for another part of the orbit. Note that this is not general plane motion, and does not involve two axes of rotation at the same time.
I predict you will not be able to admit you were wrong.
By the way, “rotational translation” is nonsense. I have no idea what Ftop_t meant. Perhaps he meant to say “rotational transformation”? I can’t help you with other people’s mistakes, obviously. You would need to ask him.
He and Nate were talking about the number of rotations, though, like the number of times an objects rotates, about a certain axis, in a row. Not the number of axes of rotation. This would have been apparent if you had read and understood their discussion.
Also, when I called you a “Non-Spinner”, it was not because you accept that translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis is one way of describing movement like the MOTL. That’s another thing from your previous comment that you got wrong. I called you a “Non-Spinner” because you said that “orbit without spin” involved translation and rotation, rather than just translation.
“Not the number of axes of rotation.”
False, if only rotations come with axes.
Back in the days, Graham D. Warner couldn’t even imagine that an object could orbit and spin:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190112013709/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329853
Astute readers might wonder: what is the “entire object” in the GIF?
There might lie the source of his mistaken concept.
Or is it a plan of concept?
Little Willy…saying something is rotating three times per orbit is not the same thing as saying it has three axes of rotation! Do you not even understand that!?
Once again Graham D. Warner denies the existence of 3D objects. Just like he denies that any plane motion can be modeled with general plane motion. His gaslighting never ends.
Perhaps we should make sure to add “plane” in front of the only kind of motion that he thinks applies to our Moon. So when the CSA Truther talks about “normal orbital motion” he’s actually talking about normal orbital plane motion.
Oh, and another thing Graham D. Warner is confused about: when Flop talks about “rotational translation” he was trying to adapt Nate’s point about relative speed to his 2D framework. Physicists have noticed a while ago that the motion of an object changes according to the frame of reference, and with it the axes of rotation under consideration. At least if we want to measure RPMs!
Little Willy…it’s really simple. Ftop_t and Nate were discussing the number of times an object was rotating, per orbit. That’s why Ftop_t referred to three rotations. He meant three spins, per orbit. He was not referring to the number of axes of rotation. You were wrong. About something so unbelievably straightforward that you cannot be taken seriously trying to talk about anything more complicated.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] “rotational translation” is nonsense.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] it’s really simple
Nate produced an object that in one frame of reference had 1 RPM, whereas in another it had 0 RPM. That should refute his silly notion that an object either rotates or it does not. Sometimes, it’s both.
How objects appears to move matters if we want to measure them. Something that Graham D. Warner never does. Heck, he never solves Bob’s or Tim’s equations!
He’s just here to play word games and gaslight.
You just can’t admit when you get something wrong, can you? You just go absolutely ape, instead, throwing as much crap up against the wall as you can in a flurry of comments.
Wrong place:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1689117
Little Willy proves me right, again.
Graham D. Warner has zero reading skills:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190112013709/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329059
One axis for the kid. One axis for the passengers. One axis for the mom.
Now, he could say that they’re the same axis. But are they, when they’re not in the same frame of reference? He could deny that an object that does not rotate at the moment has no axis of rotation. But does it?
If only he could bait himself into thinking as well as he is baiting others!
Now Little Willy cannot even understand that Nate’s example he just quoted had to do with linear motion, not rotation!
And now Graham D. Warner does not even understand why Nate used that example:
Op. Cit.
The same that Nate said about linear motion can be said of rotational motion. The proof being that one can be transposed into the other, by choosing a different space in the frame of reference.
I understood his point fine, Little Willy. Did you understand Ftop_t’s counter to that point?
Reference frames are beside the point we were discussing, though.
When Ftop_t mentioned three rotations, he was referring to the number of rotations (spins) per orbit, and not the number of axes of rotation.
You were wrong.
That is my ten comments for the day.
Graham D. Warner does not seem to realize where his 1 + 1 argument comes from. In fairness, he simply glossed over what Nate said when he called Flop on it. So no wonder he can’t see the importance of reference frames!
Enough gaslighting by Graham D. Warner for a day.
Meanwhile, astute readers may compare and contrast the situation of a carousel that does not rotate with BG’s pedal thought experiment.
When Ftop_t mentioned three rotations, he was referring to the number of rotations (spins) per orbit, and not the number of axes of rotation. Just read the whole comment, and the preceding ones!
https://web.archive.org/web/20190112013709/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329059
You were wrong.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
When I quoted Flop’s mutterings, it was to recall the time when Graham D. Warner was arguing that the belief in two axes made one a non-spinner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1184168
For some reason Graham D. Warner has suddenly changed his tuned. Being a non-spinner is now related to something else.
Funny how that goes.
Sorry, Little Willy. You are simply too dishonest to argue with.
And so Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
My favorite bit from that exchange:
[RICHARD] Graham is unable to distinguish between 2 axes, one axis at the barycenter of 2 (or more) bodies and one axis at the center of each body separately.
[ME] Worse than that, Richard:
[GRAHAM] by arguing that the moon has an orbital axis, he commits himself to being a “Non-Spinner”. Strictly speaking!
[ME] According to his logic, as soon as we interpret the orbit of a moon as having an external axis of rotation, it can’t spin! That makes Mercury quite sad.
[GRAHAM] Yes, but what sort of axis? An orbital axis, or a rotational axis?
Yes, but what sort of axis!
That one was memorable.
Anyone reading through the whole unedited discussion at your link will understand where I was coming from.
Anyone reading this current discussion will see that you are just trying to switch focus from the mistake you made.
Those astute enough to read that exchange can see when Graham D. Warner is talking about orbital rotation, just as they can see where Flop is coming from when he’s talking about rotational translation.
It’s really not like reading Chaucer in the original text.
Yet Graham D. Warner still maintains that it’s impossible for the Moon to spin because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides, oblivious to what a 1:1 spin-orbit lock truly implies. And when pinned down, he’ll backtrack to what he portrays as a mathematical demonstration. A demonstration that nobody disputes.
Jumping ahead, we get here:
[BG] Imagine that the pedals of your bicycle were not free to spin on their own axis, independently of the crank. I would advise you not actually experiment what would happen to your feet were this not the case.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1185925
That bit was also very good. It leads us to a very relative concept of rotation: relative to its own axis, to the crank’s axis, to the rider, to the ground, to the “fixed stars,” and perhaps etc.
If you do not dispute Ftop_t’s mathematical demonstration, then you accept that wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. Great. What are we even arguing about, then?
Other than just trying to divert from your mistake, of course.
Don’t bother misrepresenting old discussions, either. I’m happy with what I actually said, at the time. You linking to them just gives any readers more understanding of my position, so that’s a good thing. I’m not going to waste time going over old ground, though.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
The equivalence he’s talking about (which has not been proved by Flop but by Nate) is a geometric one. As Tim said elsewhere in that thread, a rotation is simply a change in orientation (but not a change in distance) relative to an axis. Flop kinda missed the “change in distance” bit in his trick – he failed isometry.
Astute readers should recall that in physics, rotation implies a change of velocity. Then they ought to ask themselves – if Graham’s pet GIF is truly about physics like he said earlier, why does he almost always fail to mention velocity?
One possible reason: he always gets crushed by Mighty Tim. So he’d rather ignore Nate and stalk Bob instead.
Ftop_t conclusively demonstrated that the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. But, you’re not listening any more, anyway. You will follow up with another lengthy diversion, no doubt.
I think that’s my ten comments for the day.
“If you believe there is such a thing as an orbital axis,”
Yes I do, as I have posted.
“That means you are a Non-Spinner.”
Nope, as you know very well.
“An axis means rotational motion is involved”
That is YOUR view, as I stated earlier.
Now you seem to want to disavow it.
Turns out I had only written nine comments. So, this will be my last one for today.
What comment is Nate quoting from!? This discussion is getting weird…
OK, Nate. You don’t think an orbital axis is an axis of rotation.
So, you think the moon only has one axis of rotation.
Does this mean you are finally going to confirm that you agree wrt an inertial reference frame, the moon is not rotating about two different axes? And the same for the ball on a string? If so, maybe we can finally get somewhere.
“Does this mean you are finally going to confirm that you agree wrt an inertial reference frame, the moon is not rotating about two different axes?”
Our Moon has an internal axis of rotation, and an Orbit, that is around a different axis.
Both motions contain angular momentum. And angular momentum is a vector which points along the axis and is perpendicular to the plane of the motion.
Any way you want to slice it, the Moon must have two separate motions, in two different planes, with two different axes.
It has been YOUR view, all this time, that the orbital motion must be considered a rotation.
Now it seems you want to run away from that. Who knows why.
And the same for the ball on a string? If so, maybe we can finally get somewhere.
Instead of trying to pretend I have changed my position, why don’t you finally just give a straight answer to these questions?
1) Do you think our moon has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
2) Do you think a ball on a string has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
Instead of pretending that the actual position he discusses here is meant to support his belief that the Moon spins, perhaps Graham D. Warner should support that belief for real.
That’d be progress.
Little Willy has multiple mistakes to admit to, before he will be taken seriously.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Perhaps he should start that by acknowledging that Flop wasn’t talking about his pet GIF, a GIF that illustrates something would be impossible if his actual argument had anything to do with the motion of the Moon.
Little Willy made another mistake, in his comment of September 24, 2024 at 9:34 AM. He arranged the following, as if my comment was in response to his:
"[ME] According to his logic, as soon as we interpret the orbit of a moon as having an external axis of rotation, it can’t spin! That makes Mercury quite sad.
[GRAHAM] Yes, but what sort of axis? An orbital axis, or a rotational axis?"
Whereas, if you go back to the original, full, unedited discussion, you can see that my "yes, but what sort of axis?" was in response to a different comment. You can see that quite clearly, because I’ve quoted what I’m responding to. Then, my actual response to Little Willy’s "according to his logic" comment follows on February 22, 2022 at 5:10 PM. But, Little Willy didn’t include that one in his little false summary of the discussion.
He makes so many mistakes, that I just don’t have time to correct them all. They just pile up on top of each other, whilst he flies off at another tangent with every comment.
He’s not to be taken seriously, until he acknowledges all his mistakes.
> in response to a different comment.
For some reason Graham D. Warner does not quote that comment. Astute readers might wonder – is it because he’s trying to gaslight again?
Of course he is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1184574
Another logical concept that Graham D. Warner fails to get.
His “an “orbital axis” implies that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotational motion” was quite wonderful too!
So, Little Willy, instead of just admitting he made a mistake, falsely accuses me of “gaslighting” and links to another of his own comments, trying to lead the discussion off on another tangent. This is why, most of the time, I don’t even bother trying to correct him.
Another mistake, from a couple of days back:
“[GRAHAM D. WARNER] “rotational translation” is nonsense.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] it’s really simple”
He puts these quotes together as if I was back-tracking on “rotational translation”. I wasn’t. “Rotational translation” is just nonsense, presumably just a mistake…as I said, perhaps he meant to say “transformation”. When I said “it’s really simple” I was not still talking about “rotational translation”. The phrase was not even in my mind at all. I was explaining that Ftop_t was talking about the number of rotations (spins) per orbit, and not the number of axes of rotation. Which is yet another mistake Little Willy made, which he still hasn’t admitted.
As you can see, these mistakes happen all the time.
And no, Ftop_t didn’t mention the GIF, specifically. Which doesn’t matter, because he explains in his rotation matrix proof that rotation about two different axes cannot produce movement like our moon. Which does mean movement like the MOTL. So, he proved that movement like the MOTL is not rotation about two different axes. Like I said. Little Willy nitpicks and attempts to mislead, as well as constantly making mistakes.
And so Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
There was no mistake. He simply misread once again. And if he could understand Flop when he said something that involved “rotational translation,” then his claim that rotational translation was nonsense is false. It’s just a way to refer to what Nate proved was equivalent to a pure, external rotation! To speak of general motion would have been correct, but would have failed as an identifier. To speak a rotational “transformation” would have been worse.
At this point, astute readers might wonder – “but wait, hasn’t Graham D. Warner said he wasn’t revisiting old exchanges”?
Indeed he did. But then he also said that he would not make more than one or two comments during his vacation. Graham D. Warner is so good at gaslighting that he sometimes succeeds at gaslighting himself!
My holiday finished some time ago, Little Willy. It was only a short break. I didn’t want to revisit old discussions, but I did want to point out some of your mistakes.
I point out your mistakes, and you just lie and say you made no mistakes, and worse…that somehow your mistakes are my “misreading”!
What’s the point in talking to you, then?
Astute readers who watched Games of Thrones know about this kind of “but” –
“I didn’t want to revisit old discussions, but”
While Graham D. Warner keeps displaying his misunderstanding of how dialogues works and how reference operates, perhaps he should recall how he was trying to make us believe that we could “see” our Moon rotates on its own axis:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1185583
Purest gaslighting should be hard to find, “but” then we’re talking about Graham D. Warner…
Obviously I stick by every word I said, Little Willy.
Our moon doesn’t "look like" it’s spinning if you look at it through the window, that’s not what I meant.
If you look at it (or mentally visualise its motion) from the same POV as the GIF, though…it does "look like" it’s spinning. Out of the MOTL and the MOTR, the MOTL "looks like" it’s the one that’s spinning. Obviously.
That’s the "illusion" Tesla referred to. He had no GIF, obviously, but he had his own mind to mentally visualise the motion of the moon. As can be seen from his various diagrams, which are all drawn from the same POV as the GIF.
I’ll just follow you on your various tangents, and see what you come up with. The actual discussion was concluded some time ago, when Bill said "check mate". This is just passing the time.
> Obviously I stick by every word I said
False.
Graham D. Warner is obviously unable to distinguish “look at,” which belongs to geometry, to “mentally visualise” [sic], which involves physics. The same cognitive difficulty he displays when he overinterprets Flop’s trick to make it apply to his pet GIF.
Alright. Astute readers have endured enough gaslighting from Graham D. Warner for one day.
Little Willy goes berserk for no reason. To “mentally visualise” something just means to picture it in your head. No physics required. What I explained was a really simple point about what Tesla referred to as “The Illusion of the Axial Rotation of the Moon”. If the illusion isn’t that it appears as though the moon is spinning, from that GIF POV, then what would Tesla be referring to, exactly!?
That was a rhetorical question. No need to respond.
Maybe Little Willy could admit to some of the many, many mistakes he’s made, when he inevitably returns, tomorrow. That would be something new. Something unexpected.
“goes berserk”
False.
“To “mentally visualise” something just means to picture it in your head.”
False.
“No physics required.”
False.
“What I explained”
False.
“If the illusion”
Graham D. Warner gaslights instead of owning the fact that Nikola incorrectly referred to an illusion. An illusion is something one *sees*, not something one “visualizes” mentally.
Furthermore, Nikola clearly offered a physical explanation. A weird one, but still.
So many falsities in so few words isn’t that much of a feat for our Graham D. Warner.
Everything I said was correct. If you think otherwise, tell me what you think he meant by the “illusion”. Put up or shut up (preferably the latter).
“Instead of pretending that the actual position he discusses here is meant to support his belief that the Moon spins, perhaps Graham D. Warner should support that belief for real.
Thatd be progress.”
Indeed it would. But there are always other rabbit holes to explore.
Said Nate to the guy who goes down more pointless rabbit holes than anyone else on the blog.
Just answer the questions, Nate.
Says the guy who still plays dumb about the simple fact that an illusion is *perceptual*, not *inferential*. As if he never really thought about the distinction between illusion and say *delusion*. Nikola was thus gaslighting a bit.
And now he’s trying really hard to evade the fact that even Flop needs more than one axis of rotation to *describe* the various motions, e.g.:
Op. Cit.
Astute readers should let Graham D. Warner count how many axes Flop needed to correct himself and reconcile his views with Nate’s. They can also let him simmer a bit over the puzzle he always find a way to evade – why wouldn’t reference frames matter for linear motion but not for rotational motion? They can expect him to go for his usual irrelevant denial.
Meanwhile, they should ask themselves – has Graham deluded himself into thinking that Chasles’ theorem forbade the Moon to spin?
I really don’t care if you disapprove of Tesla’s word choice with “illusion”. I understood what he meant. I communicated what he meant successfully. So, your barrage of “false” responses was misplaced.
Ftop_t and Nate were discussing the loose horse on the carousel, and yes, both would agree it has two axes of rotation. I would agree with that too…because the loose horse on the carousel was not moving as per the MOTL.
Little Willy really is incapable of following a discussion.
Both Nate and Ftop_t would agree that movement like the MOTL does not involve two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Nate is just reluctant to concede that point publicly, because he knows where it leads, and because it throws you guys under the bus as having been wrong for years.
Actually, I spoke too soon.
Ftop_t would see the loose horse on the carousel as having two axes of rotation, but Nate should see it as only having one axis of rotation…internal to the horse. That’s the “Spinner” position, after all…that “orbit without spin” is translational motion, by which they mean movement like the MOTR. Then the number of spins per orbit is counted in addition to that translational motion.
Whereas for the “Non-Spinners”, the number of spins per orbit is counted in addition to their version of “orbit without spin”…movement like the MOTL.
That accounts for the difference between their answers re the number of spins per orbit. Not reference frames.
So, that answers your point about frames of reference, as well.
> I understood what he meant.
What Nikola said is still false, and his confusion is actually relevant to dispel what Nate correctly identified as a motte-and-bailey.
Enough gaslighting by Graham D. Warner for one day.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Something for you to ponder as you rest again before another day of trolling me begins tomorrow…according to your position (which you don’t even seem to really understand)…this is the “Spinner” position…an orbiting body never has more than one axis of rotation, and that axis goes through the orbiting body itself. An orbiting body moving like the MOTR, according to “Spinners”, has zero axes of rotation. Every other type of orbiting body has only one axis of rotation, going through the orbiting body itself, according to them. According to you, I should add, since you claim to be a “Spinner” yourself.
On board with that? Or do you still see “orbit without spin” as involving translation and rotation!?
” Cassini was an astrologer, sorry. He got his ‘laws’ wrong, sorry. His ‘laws’ are easily debunked… ”
I just wanted to let people have a clear look at how Clint R and similar pseudo-science ‘specialists’ come out here.
” …, as you have seen. ”
Not one person has ever seen this on the blog. Just some poor pseudo-science written by people who wouldn’t be able to explain what Cassini discovered (and Newton understood), let alone what he did wrong.
No need to continue this ‘discussion’, as we can see.
Yes Bindi, you couldn’t “see” the clear example of a pencil in a cup. That’s because you don’t understand orbital motions and have no interest in reality.
Put a pencil in a cup. Lean the pencil to some angle from the vertical, say about 25°. Tape the pencil so it cannot move.
Now “orbit” the cup around the center of a table, always keep the cup handle facing the inside of the orbit. Notice the pencil points in different directions during the orbit. That means there is NO axial rotation. And that means Cassini’s Laws are debunked.
“Now ‘orbit’ the cup around the center of a table”
Whilst rotating about its center.
…Whilst rotating it about its center…
Clint R,
You are doing it wrong.
You have to hold the pencil so it is permanently aligned with one specific point.
If you do that you will see that the cup rotates relative to the pencil.
See, if you do experiments correctly, you get the correct results.
I repeat:
No need to continue this ‘discussion’, as we can see.
*
I have no interest in reviving for the umpteenth time the discussion on the lunar spin; I just wanted to show newbies or rare visitors the level of scientific knowledge that a little few people here have.
In my native tongue, it is not for nothing that they use to say:
” On reconnaît les crétins à leur besoin pathologique non seulement de toujours répondre de la même manière, mais surtout d'être toujours le dernier à répondre. “
Bindi likes to keep his cult beliefs alive by sneaking in jabs. Then, he “leaves the building” only to return later with another jab.
I’ve learned not to waste much time with the Spinners, as they clearly don’t have a clue about orbital motion. That’s why they can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They can’t even understand simple analogies like the ball-on-a-string, or the pencil-in-a-cup.
And, they can’t learn….
Clint R,
“That means there is NO axial rotation. And that means Cassinis Laws are debunked.”
Which one of Cassini’s three laws do you think you have debunked?
Sorry bob, but you can’t understand any of this.
Feel free to continue stalking me, however.
It makes Nate jealous….
Clint R,
You are all personal attacks with no science to back it up.
“Notice the pencil points in different directions during the orbit.”
That’s exactly what an object that is spinning does, note that it
is taped to the cup, that means the cup is rotating.
Welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
Clint R,
You are all personal attacks with no science to back it up.
“Notice the pencil points in different directions during the orbit.”
That’s exactly what an object that is spinning does, note that it
is taped to the cup, that means the cup is rotating.
Welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner!
“Tape the pencil so it cannot move.”
That is it. We have the answer. The moon is not a free body. It is actually attached to the earth by a large piece of Scotch tape.
All along, the guy is a comedian when people are accusing him of not understanding basic science. I thought my Festivus comment was at least amusing, but this one is a riot.
I thought the moon was “tidally locked”, Tim S. Or are you saying the expression should be “tidally free to move”?
An understanding of what tidally locked means would be useful.
Good job I know exactly what it means, then.
Tim S, your childish, asinine comment reveals your ignorance of science.
And don’t start whining about me insulting you. That’s NOT an insult. It’s reality. If reality insults you, that’s not my problem.
The tape has nothing to do with the demonstration. It simply holds the pencil in place as the cup is orbited. If you carefully orbit the cup, you don’t need the tape. The tape is really just to help children….
In orbital motion, if the orbiting object is also spinning, then its axis of spin always points in the same direction, at least for many, many orbits. Earth’s axis always points toward the North Star (Polaris). But,it is believed that the axis will complete one precession in about 26000 years.
The pencil-in-a-cup then demonstrates Moon has no axial rotation, as it’s impossible to orbit the cup and keep the pencil pointing in the same direction. One of Cassini’s mistakes was assigning an angle to Moon’s bogus axis of spin. That angle would precess once per orbit, proving Cassini wrong.
You won’t be able to understand any of this because you can’t think for yourself.
Prove me wrong.
An orbit is defined to be a path through space followed by an object that moves around another object.
If you ask a civilian to hold a coffee cup in their right hand and move it around their left fist, how will they do it?
Most will naturally hold the handle and keep it pointed in the same direction, and not to the middle.
This demonstrates Orbital motion is simply a translation.
And anyone trying to keep the handle pointed to the middle will find that they have to make an awkward extra effort to rotate the handle around the cup to keep it pointed toward the center.
Thus most will realize that such a motion requires Orbiting PLUS an extra motion: internal rotation.
> That’s NOT an insult. Its reality.
AQ should take note.
Nate, you remain confused by orbital motion.
When you move the cup with your hands, you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity “steers”. If the body has no spin, then it keeps one side facing the inside of the orbit, like a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
People get really serious about their moon confusion. No humor is allowed!
Now for the fun part. How do people explain the moon phases (currently a Waxing Gibbous) we see on earth? Does an observer on the moon see sun rises and sun sets? How does that happen?
Clint R
Why do you persist in being wrong?
“The pencil-in-a-cup then demonstrates Moon has no axial rotation, as its impossible to orbit the cup and keep the pencil pointing in the same direction. One of Cassinis mistakes was assigning an angle to Moons bogus axis of spin. That angle would precess once per orbit, proving Cassini wrong.”
It is not impossible, it just takes some hand eye coordination.
If the handle of the cup is facing the center of the orbit, it must change orientation to keep the handle facing the center, the only way it can do that is by rotating.
Sorry Tim S, but the “fun part” is you getting caught trying to fake a knowledge of this issue.
You got caught and now you’re trying to distract as cover for your incompetence.
Moon phases are accomplished by orbiting. This issue is about the fact that Moon does NOT spin.
The Moon has phases because the Moon is rotating.
Orbits have nothing to do with the orientation of the body orbiting.
The Sun rises and sets on the Moon because the Moon is rotating, not because the Moon is orbiting.
Fundamentally, a free body rotates about its center of mass. A car going around a corner is not free, but nonetheless center of mass affects which tires get more stress.
Any object that is free and orbiting the sun in ANY way is rotating if it experiences sunrise and sunset on its surface at a frequency greater than its orbit period. For that moon is about 13 sunrise and sunset events every orbit around the sun.
Simple!
"Orbits have nothing to do with the orientation of the body orbiting."
Your own "side" of the argument disagrees, bob. They think a body that is orbiting, and not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star. So, orientation is, of course, involved.
Tim S, Moon does NOT “orbit” Sun. Moon orbits Earth.
Your incompetence is made even funnier by your pomposity.
Can you blow your own horn also?
So you are proposing the following: The moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun, but the moon is not orbiting the sun because it is orbiting the earth instead.
Got it!
I’m not sure what you’ve “got”, Tim S. But, it’s sure not a knowledge of science.
I am trying to be polite. Look up the concept of set theory. I will help with this. If the earth is orbiting the sun, then the moon MUST also orbit the sun. The path of its orbit making loops does not matter. People try to help you, and you resist.
Sorry TimS, but being ignorant is NOT being polite.
Orbital motion is a clearly defined motion in physics. The motion is the result of both linear momentum and gravity.
It has NOTHING to do with set theory!
What will you try next?
DREMT,
“They think a body that is orbiting, and not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star. So, orientation is, of course, involved.”
You are putting them together again, wasn’t point 4 that orbits and rotations are independent?
Orientation is part of spinning not part of orbiting.
For those few who might be interested, I let Clint R trap himself with a logic problem that is not a science problem. No amount of science knowledge is needed. When people try to use detailed analysis, it becomes technical and open to argument. Fundamental scientific principles and basic logic cannot be argued.
Done!
Well TimS, if you’re admitting your trap failed, then you’ve finally stumbled into some reality.
That’s good.
"You are putting them together again, wasn’t point 4 that orbits and rotations are independent?"
"Orbit" and "spin" is independent, yes, bob. That’s why I’m not "putting them together".
DREMT,
“Your own “side” of the argument disagrees, bob. They think a body that is orbiting, and not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star. So, orientation is, of course, involved.”
You could correct that to say, “They think a body that is not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star.”
Because, as you say, orbiting and spinning are separate.
Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.
Clint R,
“When you move the cup with your hands, you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity steers. If the body has no spin, then it keeps one side facing the inside of the orbit, like a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.”
I remember you arguing that gravity can’t torque a body, and now you seem to have changed your mind, saying gravity can steer an object.
On or the other, it can’t be both.
Like I’ve told you before bob, this is WAY over your head.
You can’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string. The string (gravity) is not providing torque, it can’t. But it “steers” the ball along its orbit.
You can’t understand this, but at least you keep proving me right.
So continue stalking me. When you make enough of a goof, I’ll be glad to acknowledge your ignorance.
“Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.“
As explained, and not rebutted, your own “side” disagrees.
So I am wondering what the people who actually landed on the moon, with people who all came home, have to say about this.
Are they in a “cult”?
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/429/the-moons-orbit-and-rotation/
“An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn’t rotate. While it’s true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation.”
TimS, what you’re doing is called, in the vernacular used on this blog, “throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick”. You obviously know nothing about orbital motion. So you provide another “learning opportunity’.
Yes, it is a cult. And, as within any cult, beliefs are chosen over reality. That ain’t science. This Moon issue can be easily resolved, but people like you will not leave the cult. You’re unable to think for yourself.
If you were interested in reality and science, you would realize your cult has NOTHING. You’re relying on centuries old astrology. You don’t know anything about the subject, so you lazily swallow the cult nonsense. The viable model of “orbiting without spin” is a ball-on-a-string swung in a circle. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. That’s what Moon does.
Your cult has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. They’ve got NOTHING.
What crap will you throw against the wall next?
DREMT,
“As explained, and not rebutted, your own side disagrees.”
I have explained over and over again why you are wrong.
I don’t have a side, I present evidence.
You even agree that rotation and orbiting are independent.
So you can’t claim they are linked.
That’s why I’m not claiming they’re linked.
Clint R,
“Like Ive told you before bob, this is WAY over your head.”
Try an Astronomy textbook for starters, instead of insults.
In order to steer a car, you apply torque to the steering wheel.
Earth’s gravity applies a torque to the Moon, that’s why the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth.
Steer and torque are things you have a problem with, it don’t confront me.
I’m not insulting you, bob. I’m just bringing reality to you.
A steering wheel is a mechanical device. It has nothing to do with this issue. You’re just throwing crap at the wall, again.
Gravity can NOT supply torque to Moon. This has been explained numerous times.
And Moon receding from Earth has NOTHING to do with torque. You’ve been reading too many astronomy books which are too often based on astrology. Orbital motions are covered in the field of physics.
So continue stalking me, with your worthless crap. You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R,
“Im not insulting you, bob. Im just bringing reality to you.”
It is insulting when you have the reality wrong.
“A steering wheel is a mechanical device. It has nothing to do with this issue. Youre just throwing crap at the wall, again.”
A steering wheel is something you apply torque to, which then causes the vehicle to change directions, rotate, or turn.
“Gravity can NOT supply torque to Moon. This has been explained numerous times.”
Explained wrongly, you even said it causes the Moon to turn, in order to make something turn requires torque.
“And Moon receding from Earth has NOTHING to do with torque. Youve been reading too many astronomy books which are too often based on astrology. Orbital motions are covered in the field of physics.”
It is caused by the torque the Moon puts on the Earth and vice versa. Astronomy is older than Physics, and has no relation to Astrology. It’s the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
“So continue stalking me, with your worthless crap. Youve got NOTHING.”
You are being schooled!
Keep proving me right, bob.
I can take it.
Clint R,
I haven’t played backwards day since kindergarten.
Oh wait, I didn’t go to kindergarten.
But you are a great player.
“Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.
As explained, and not rebutted, your own side disagrees.”
One side thinks orientation must change to follow its orbital motion. The other side thinks that is fiction.
When you move the cup with your hands, you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity steers.”
Yep it steers the body to follow the orbital path, but not the orientation.
To make the coffee cup orbit the fist requires the holder to apply tiny pushes or pulls on the cup.
If these could be measured, one would find they always point to the fist.
In fact orbiting my phone around my fist I can measure the accelerations, and find acceleration in x, then y, then -x, then -y, IOW the forces are always to the center (the fist).
Looks like we have someone drifting in after the commenters have moved on…
So the ones who have moved on when the matter has not been resolved.
What did they do?
Enroll in some Science classes like Physics or Astronomy.
No Chemistry, we know that’s too tough for them.
“someone drifting in after the commenters have moved on”
Someone still unable to follow
This advice:
if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.
Sounds a lot like an insult, bob.
DREMT,
If it is, then you have insulting me on many occasions.
Not true, bob.
DREMT,
Now we are arguing about what an insult is, that’s not progress on a science blog.
“You simply cant get it through your head that its the other motion thats important.
That’s an insult.
False.
And still the Moon spins, DREMT.
And the GHE is making the Earth warmer, DREMT.
If you say so, bob.
I do, and I am correct, DREMT.
So you keep saying.
And you have failed to prove me wrong, DREMT.
Can’t quite let me go, can you, bob? You’re still declaring yourself the victor.
If you want rid of me, all you have to do is stop responding. But, you just can’t.
What part of ‘DREMT is required to have the last word’ dont you get, Bob?
Of course, with that rule, it will be impossible for him to ever depart..
See? They just cannot do it. Funny.
Nate,
He is my pet, I’ll play with him whenever I want to.
Weird…and definitely an insult.
Obviously, talking about me to others and including me in lists, etc, also counts. I’ll be keeping an eye on the threads.
Of course, if you don’t want me to go…
See, he comes when I call.
Sit, DREMT, sit.
Are you a good boy?
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted. Thank you.
The point is, DREMT is unable to not respond to you, Bob, or me, or any of us.
Bwa ha ha!
Fetch!
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted.
Based on your behavior, I am safe.
Tug o war, or fetch?
Whether or not you’re "safe" depends solely on your own behaviour, bob. It has nothing to do with me.
Right now, you’re not doing too good…
As long as I don’t tell someone to gfy, I think I am fine.
You not so much.
bob, you have to factor in the number of comments without insults, and the sort of provocation received for the insulting comments. Generally, I am one of the least regularly insulting commenters, despite receiving intense provocation. On the other hand, you have been chucking insults around, without provocation, under an article where Dr Spencer is specifically referring to insults as a bad thing that he’s trying to stop. You are one of the repeat offenders, bob.
Where and when have I insulted you on this thread or any recent thread, DREMT?
You’ve said (in the comments under this article) that I lack scientific insight, lack morals, and you’ve literally treated me as though I’m a dog. So, that’s three insulting things right there.
Up-thread, you said, "just learn some science from those of us willing to teach". What’s interesting about that is, though I’d always be happy to learn some more science, those that make themselves out to be "science teachers" at this blog are not apparently able to understand some pretty basic things, like rotation. This makes it hard for me to trust in their abilities to teach.
For example, bob flits between understanding that the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, not two (never two)…to claiming that it has "at least" four! He probably still thinks that his "stiff wire" scenario involves two axes of rotation, instead of the one that it really involves.
No matter what, I cannot get through to bob that he has it wrong. I’ve tried multiple sources, practical demonstrations (think the transmographer) and Ftop_t even tried a mathematical proof. Nothing works. Which is partly why I’m leaving. Mainly it’s to spend more time with my family, but partly it’s because it’s impossible to get through to some of the people here…and the friends of theirs that know better, do nothing to help.
So, why bother wasting my time? There are far more important things in life.
DREMT,
“Youve said (in the comments under this article) that I lack scientific insight”
The general consensus among all Astronomers is that the Moon rotates on its axis, so yes you lack scientific insight.
“Whats interesting about that is, though Id always be happy to learn some more science, those that make themselves out to be “science teachers” at this blog are not apparently able to understand some pretty basic things, like rotation.”
You have finally given a correct definition of rotation, but lack the skills to apply that definition to the rotation of the Moon.
“For example, bob flits between understanding that the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, not two (never two)to claiming that it has “at least” four!”
One axis of rotation, and at least 4 orbital axes. You keep confusing rotating and revolving. No attempt to clarify your thinking has been successful.
Write this 10000 times on the chalkboard, “Orbits are not rotations”
Because rotations are circular and orbits are ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, or chaotic, but never circular.
Even the ball on a string can’t be rotated around a point, you have to move your hand back and forth to make it revolve.
“Ive tried multiple sources, practical demonstrations (think the transmographer) and Ftop_t even tried a mathematical proof.”
The transmographer is not a formal proof, but my proof based on the different velocities of the near side and far side of the Moon does indeed prove that the Moon rotates.
“No matter what, I cannot get through to bob that he has it wrong.”
If I am shown to be wrong, I will admit my mistake, but will you ever admit that the Moon rotates on its axis?
“Revolution” doesn’t enter into it, because it’s a ball on a string, not a celestial body.
It does not have “at least 4 orbital axes”. It’s a ball on a string.
It has only one axis of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Some might argue (incorrectly, I might add) that it goes through the ball itself, and some might argue (correctly) that it goes through the hand of the person twirling it. Either way, though, there is only one axis of rotation. Not two.
It doesn’t matter that your hand moves back and forth to twirl the ball. That just means the axis of rotation moves back and forth.
If you can’t understand all the above, you’re in no position to teach anyone anything.
“Revolution doesnt enter into it, because its a ball on a string, not a celestial body.”
This is again the Motte-Bailey fallacy at work.
When challenged on the difficult to defend Bailey: that these ideas/examples serve as a good model for planetary orbits, just return to the easily defended Motte:
This is about the BOS, not celestial bodies!
DREMT.
“If you cant understand all the above, youre in no position to teach anyone anything.”
I do understand all the above, you are just wrong.
The last four jobs I have had involved teaching, people actually paid me to teach.
All the times you have PSTd me, was just you being rude.
Thanks for all the fish and don’t let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.
bob, as recently as the 1st August, you agreed the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681117
Funny how quickly you forget.
Of course, Nate agrees that there is only one axis. Not that he would ever correct you on your “4 axes” nonsense.
DREMT,
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation, and four axes of revolution or orbiting.
The ball is spinning on an internal axis of rotation.
The ball revolves around your hand, it revolves around the center of the earth, it revolves around the Sun, and it revolves around the Milky way galaxy.
Remember orbits are not rotations.
The ball itself has only one axis of rotation, located at the hand of the person twirling it. The ball on a string (as a complete unit, including the person twirling it) might be revolving around the center of the Earth, which is revolving around the Sun, which is revolving around the galaxy, but that is not relevant to the motion of the ball itself, which moves in a circle around the hand of the person twirling it, on the end of the string.
You could argue that the ball is translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis, if you wish (and I’d tell you why that’s wrong).
You can’t argue that it is has two axes of rotation, though.
DREMT,
” which moves in a circle around the hand of the person twirling it, on the end of the string.”
Not quite circular.
But the ball is rotating on an internal axis.
This has been proven.
bob…forget about where the axis of rotation is, for a minute. My point was:
“Up-thread, you said, "just learn some science from those of us willing to teach". What’s interesting about that is, though I’d always be happy to learn some more science, those that make themselves out to be "science teachers" at this blog are not apparently able to understand some pretty basic things, like rotation. This makes it hard for me to trust in their abilities to teach.
For example, bob flits between understanding that the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, not two (never two)…to claiming that it has "at least" four! He probably still thinks that his "stiff wire" scenario involves two axes of rotation, instead of the one that it really involves.“
Do you finally accept that the ball has only one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, and not two (or more!)?
Or are you going to accept it, and then start talking about multiple “axes of revolution” at a later date? I can’t seem to pin you down to any sensible statement on this issue. Which is why I cannot see you as fit to teach.
DREMT,
I can teach, but you don’t seem to be able to learn simple things about Astronomy.
Orbits are not rotations.
Yes there is only one axis of rotation for the Moon and the ball on a string, it is through the ball or the Moon.
Use the terminology of Astronomers, bodies revolve around other bodies, which is not a rotation, while they always rotate around an axis through the body.
Do you still think there is an “axis of revolution” going through the hand swinging the ball on a string in a loop?
If your answer is “yes”, then you cannot argue that there is also an axis of rotation going through the ball itself.
Since there are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. And, calling one of them an “axis of revolution” does not allow you to bypass that fact. Semantics can’t change the reality that there are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string.
Do you understand, and do you agree, or are you still not fit to teach after half a decade of getting the basics wrong on this issue?
DREMT,
“If your answer is yes, then you cannot argue that there is also an axis of rotation going through the ball itself.”
Yes I can, they are two independent motions.
The ball has been proven to have a rotational axis through the ball.
One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.
bob, you are the one saying “orbits are not rotations”. Since “revolution” means “orbit” and “axis”, in the context of “motion”, refers explicitly to “rotation”, then “axis of revolution” means you are quite literally saying that orbits are rotations. You’re contradicting yourself, as usual.
There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, and trying to call one of them an “axis of revolution” cannot bypass that fact.
DREMT,
There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, it’s through the ball.
“One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.“
Which equals two axes of rotation. Which is wrong, for the ball on a string. You have been wrong for half a decade on a very simple matter, and are thus not fit to teach.
DREMT,
“One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.”
“Which equals two axes of rotation.”
Nope, an axis of rotation is not an axis of revolution.
All rotations are circular, all revolutions in Astronomy are not.
The Moon rotates on an internal axis.
That’s my bailey.
I don’t want to argue about my moat.
bob, you recently provided a definition which states an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680721
DREMT,
That was in response to you saying an axis was confined to rotations.
Both rotations and revolutions have an axis.
Then you’re arguing that orbits are rotations.
Your definition:
"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."
If an "axis of revolution" is a line around which an object rotates, then an object that’s revolving (or orbiting) is rotating around a line.
So, you need to make up your mind about whether or not you think orbits are rotations.
Then, you need to acknowledge that if you think the ball on a string is rotating about a line called an "axis of revolution", and rotating about a line called an "axis of rotation", then you obviously think it’s rotating about two axes. Which is wrong, for the ball on a string. There is only one axis for its motion. How many times, and in how many different ways, does this need to be proven to you?
DREMT,
Rotations are circular.
Orbits are not circular.
Therefore orbits are not rotations.
“How many times, and in how many different ways, does this need to be proven to you?”
Once, and it has yet to be proven.
"Rotations are circular.
Orbits are not circular.
Therefore orbits are not rotations."
The definition that you provided states that an "axis of revolution" is a line around which an object rotates. If an "axis of revolution" is a line around which an object rotates, then an object that’s revolving (or orbiting) is rotating around a line.
So, you need to make up your mind about whether or not you think orbits are rotations.
"Once, and it has yet to be proven."
It was proven mathematically by Ftop_t. Remember, I’m not saying where the axis is, just yet. I’m saying that there’s only one axis. Not two. That’s what he proved. If there were two axes, the ball would have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
DREMT,
Ftop did not prove anything, you failed to look under the hood of his animation.
How many variables does it take to model a ball on a string in two dimensions?
[DREMT]”If an “axis of revolution” is a line around which an object rotates, then an object thats revolving (or orbiting) is rotating around a line.”
No, it’s revolving around that line, in Astronomy a distinction is made between rotating and revolving.
[DREMT]”So, you need to make up your mind about whether or not you think orbits are rotations.”
How many times do I have to say that orbits are not rotations.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
"Ftop did not prove anything, you failed to look under the hood of his animation."
The proof I am referring to involved rotation matrices. It did not involve an animation.
"No, it’s revolving around that line"
Wrong, bob, according to the definition that you provided. It specifically states that it rotates around that line:
"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,
A distinction is made in Astronomy.
Ftops matrix proof is not good.
How many variables again?
The definition you provided is completely clear in what it’s saying, bob. It doesn’t support you. It supports me.
If there is something wrong with Ftop_t’s proof, show it. Show your work.
I’m done for the day (that’s my ten comments). Have fun continuing your denial.
You’re not fit to teach anyone, because you’ve been wrong for half a decade on an incredibly simple issue, and you refuse to admit it.
DREMT,
All Ftop proved is that a rotation is a rotation.
Did you study matrices when in university?
Several companies disagree with you on my ability to teach.
Obviously, I can’t teach you.
You can’t answer any of my questions, like how many variables are in Ftops proof? Which might lead to answering the question of how many motions are in a ball on a string revolving around your hand while it rotates on its internal axis.
Ftop_t proved that movement like a ball on a string could be modelled with only one single rotation about an external axis, and that if you also rotate the object about an internal axis, then it no longer moves as per the ball on a string. He also conceded that the movement of the ball on a string could be modelled as a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis.
So, either way, there is only one axis for the ball on a string’s movement.
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
DREMT,
“He also conceded that the movement of the ball on a string could be modelled as a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis.”
That translation in a circle also has an axis, perpendicular to the plane of the circle through the center of the circle.
That plus the axis of rotation through the ball makes two axes.
Though I would call it an orbit plus a rotation.
Now bob is arguing that translation involves an axis! An “axis of translation”, I guess. The phrase “you couldn’t make it up” springs to mind.
DREMT,
If the translation repeatedly follows the same path, then yes, and it traces out a circle perpendicular to that axis.
Here is the money quote:
“The mathematical formula for rotating that triangle about its own axis (90 degrees) and about an external (90 degrees) would be as follows”
Quess who made that statement.
FYI,
“In astronomy the orbital axis is a line that’s perpendicular to the imaginary plane that Earth moves through as it orbits the sun. The orbital axis is also perpendicular to the ecliptic, which is a thin disk that surrounds the sun and extends to the edge of the solar system.
Earth’s orbital axis is not perpendicular to its rotational axis, which is an imaginary line that passes through both the North Pole and South Pole. The angle between the two axes is called the axial tilt, or obliquity of the ecliptic.”
bob, the result of applying that formula was that the object did not move as per the ball on a string.
There is no such thing as an axis of translation.
DREMT,
Yes, there is such a thing as an axis of translation.
It is the line perpendicular to the path of the curvilinear translation in a circle. It exists, and I just described it
.
Ftops mathematical transformation does what the ball on a string does, it rotates on its axis as it revolves around the origin.
But we are talking about real celestial objects, not imaginary lines on paper.
bob, there is no such thing as an axis of translation. As usual, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Maybe link to something to support your contention that an axis of translation exists!?
You apparently cannot even follow the verbal description of what Ftop_t is doing. He describes that he rotates the object about an external axis and an internal axis, and the resulting movement is different to how the ball on a string would move. He gets it to move like the ball on a string by only rotating it about an external axis. Then, he adds at the end that he could also replicate the same movement by translating the object and rotating about an internal axis.
DREMT,
I give up, I will only discuss whether or not the Moon rotates on its axis.
Because you have no training in Geometry, Physics, or even Astronomy.
And the Moon rotates on its axis.
I will respond to that and nothing more.
Yes, you should give up, because you are in the wrong about the ball on a string. You’ve been in the wrong for half a decade, and you refuse to admit it, even going so far as to make up nonsense about an “axis of translation”. It’s because of stuff like this that people should recognise you are not fit to teach.
And, you’re far from the only one.
“Maybe link to something to support your contention that an axis of translation exists!?”
Orbital axis exists, as my quote above demonstrates.
Because orbital motion occurs in a plane, a line perpendicular to that plane can be geometrically defined.
Here is Nate, agreeing with what Ftop_t showed:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-567585
For some reason, he is not arguing with bob, who disagrees with what Ftop_t showed. Instead, he is trying to support bob. Yet, an “axis of translation” does not exist, and the closest thing they can find is “orbital axis”, a term from astronomy. Yet, we’re talking about a ball on a string, not a celestial body. Up in smoke that goes, then.
DREMT,
You can cut out the insults.
And by the way, Ftops proof is only a rotation, not a rotation about any axis, because there is no axis of rotation on an Euclidean plane.
I’m not insulting you, bob. You tried to make out you were a teacher. I’m pointing out that you are not fit to teach, because you have been mistaken on a simple issue for five years, and won’t admit to it.
Another example was when we argued about two descriptions of the GHE. I pointed out that they could not possibly both be correct. You insisted they were both correct. You attacked me relentlessly for weeks, about it. In the end, Tim described one of the versions as wrong, and that anyone arguing it was a description of the GHE did not understand the GHE, or words to that effect!
Good exemplar of DREMT reverting to ‘playing the man not the ball’.
Now, he admits “the closest thing they can find is orbital axis, a term from astronomy.”
An orbit is simply a translation of body around another. As noted, that motion is in a plane, and therefore there is a line perpendicular to that plane called the orbital axis.
That is a different axis from the rotational axis, for both Earth and the Moon.
Which is a KEY point. Because ultimately this conversation IS ABOUT orbits and rotations.
But the entire argument of the non-spinners has involved a Motte-Bailey fallacy, in which the idea that the BOS is a good model of planetary motion is very often promoted…. until that is challenged, then they return to defensible Motte:
“Yet, were talking about a ball on a string, not a celestial body. Up in smoke that goes, then.”
Wrong, Nate. This discussion is about bob saying he’s a science teacher, despite being wrong for half a decade on something as simple as a ball on a string. The rotation discussion is thus specifically about the ball on a string. Not the moon.
DREMT,
Maybe I disagree with someone about descriptions of the greenhouse effect, but I am not like you, who thinks there is no greenhouse effect at all.
You are totally wrong about that, and the green plate effect.
I do have corporate teaching certificates, so you saying I am not fit to teach is just hot air.
Anyway, it has been known since Newton and Cassini that the Moon rotates on its axis while orbiting the Earth.
Reducing the problem to a curvilinear translation is just wrong because that is planar motion, not three dimensional.
All these things including Ftops work ignore the fact that all these things are rotating because they fit the definition of rotation that you provided.
You can bark at me all you want telling me I have been wrong for half a decade, but it is still you who have been wrong.
Ftops thing rotates his triangle on any axis on the plane, because it is a pure rotation, not a rotation about any axis.
He rotates 3 points, points can’t rotate, they only have 0 dimensions, but once you have connected them with line segments, then those line segments rotate.
So anyway, my point was to show that this ststement
“bob, there is no such thing as an axis of translation. As usual, this is getting beyond ridiculous.”
was wrong.
Since a motion (orbit) that can be purely translational can still have a defined axis.
Oh well!
And, as explained, a ball on a string is not a celestial body. So, you are wrong, and I am right, Nate. Oh well!
bob, if you could admit your mistakes, you might finally gain some of the credibility you obviously feel you deserve.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] In other words, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. This is apparently accepted by some Spinners, so I will be expecting them to
[NATE] [Graham] reads selectively again. Read the part from EQUIVALENTLY onward. What do you find there to disagree with?
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568169
Astute readers might wonder about the onward part:
[ALSO NATE] EQUIVALENTLY as a translation of the CM of the object around the external axis, ie a circular orbit, plus rotation around its own axis.
Bob might have had a point all along after all.
No, bob has been wrong on rotation, and the ball on a string, for half a decade.
I read through a lot of those old discussions earlier today, actually. Really astute readers will have noted the relentless abuse I received for being obviously correct about a trivial matter.
I think that’s my ten comments for the day. Have fun talking to yourselves, until tomorrow.
Yes, Graham D. Warner has been wrong all along, conflating equivalence with incompatibility. Astute readers knew that already. What they might have forgotten is this remark by MR:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568134
Let them to what the asterisk refers. What matters here is that Flop knew that his trick relied on breaking isometry all along.
Tsk tsk.
DREMT,
I may have to go back to DR EMPTY if you don’t stop with the abuse and the lying.
Of course if an object in translation repeats the motion, and that motion describes a circle, which has a center and that circle and center defines a line perpendicular to that center and aligned with that center, that is an axis of that translation.
In other words, translation in a circle defines an axis, every point of which is equidistant from the circle.
Still won’t try to revolve a baseball around a basketball three times keeping one face of the baseball towards the basketball, standing in one spot and not changing the grip on the baseball.
If the students won’t do the experiments I suggest, it’s not my problem that they can’t learn, and they can bitch to whomever they want when I give them an F.
Another thing, the ball on a string can not wrap around the string because the string is pulling on the ball, causing it to rotate with the same frequency as the string revolves.
bob, there is no such thing as an axis of translation. As usual, this is getting beyond ridiculous.
Notice this is a general statement is not specific to a BOS.
And it is still wrong.
Oh well!
Nate,
Unless you are being doppleganged, you know I am referring to a specific case of translation.
This should make DREMT happy, do you want to argue some more?
Threads too long but
Oh well,
I forgot the obligatory response to an Oh Well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Little Willy, not only are all the points you’ve brought up wrong, for one reason or another; far more importantly, they are all irrelevant to what bob and I are talking about. Maybe next time, try to check through the discussion before you comment, to make sure you’re going to be contributing something that’s relevant.
bob says:
"I may have to go back to DR EMPTY if you don’t stop with the abuse and the lying."
What abuse, and what lying, bob? Falsely accusing me of lying is just another form of abuse, by the way.
"Of course if an object in translation repeats the motion, and that motion describes a circle, which has a center and that circle and center defines a line perpendicular to that center and aligned with that center, that is an axis of that translation. In other words, translation in a circle defines an axis, every point of which is equidistant from the circle."
Make up whatever you like, bob. In the context of the ball on a string, there is no such thing as an "axis of translation". In astronomy, there is an "orbital axis". Note that it’s not called an "axis of translation", so still, even in astronomy, there’s not actually an "axis of translation", by name. Whether or not an "orbital axis" can really be considered to be an axis for an object that’s translating of course depends on the rather thorny question of whether "orbit without spin" is translational or rotational motion. A subject that I will not be getting into in this discussion.
"Still won’t try to revolve a baseball around a basketball three times keeping one face of the baseball towards the basketball, standing in one spot and not changing the grip on the baseball. If the students won’t do the experiments I suggest, it’s not my problem that they can’t learn, and they can bitch to whomever they want when I give them an F."
More abuse.
"Another thing, the ball on a string can not wrap around the string because the string is pulling on the ball, causing it to rotate with the same frequency as the string revolves."
Of course the ball cannot wrap around the string.
bob, my only point in this entire discussion has been that you’ve been wrong about something as simple as rotation, and the ball on a string, for half a decade, and thus are not fit to teach. What you’ve got wrong, repeatedly, is to suggest that the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. And, calling one of them an "axis of revolution" doesn’t change the fact that you’re saying the ball on a string has two axes of rotation, because the definition you provided said that an "axis of revolution" was just an axis of rotation!
You also used to argue that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was movement like the MOTR, and not the MOTL. You were wrong about that, too, but it seems like you’ve stopped arguing that now, without ever really acknowledging that you were wrong about it for all those years.
Plus, of course, you were wrong about those GHE descriptions. Making Swen.son’s constant requests for descriptions of the GHE understandable, since you lot can’t even describe it properly! You can’t even agree amongst yourselves on how it’s described. Yet, you claim you’re here to teach science.
Dear oh dear.
Bob,
This https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685044
dropped the quote symbols on the first sentence, which was DREMT’s statement.
I was pointing out, again, why it was wrong.
And it was a response to this DREMT excuse
“And, as explained, a ball on a string is not a celestial body. So, you are wrong, and I am right, Nate. Oh well!”
which is a red herring, since his statement about ‘there is not such thing as an axis of translation’ was general and not specific to the BOS.
So he was wrong about that as well.
Par for the course. And we see new excuses today. They will never end.
The whole discussion was about the ball on a string, Nate. Context is important. You bringing up a phrase from astronomy was the red herring, in the first place. But, you never concede anything, so no point continuing to discuss it.
DR EMPTY,
“bob, my only point in this entire discussion has been that youve been wrong about something as simple as rotation, and the ball on a string, for half a decade, and thus are not fit to teach.”
That’s a lie.
The ball on a string is rotating around a single axis through the ball.
If I am wrong about that, I am in good company, at least a dozen posters on this site, as well as Newton and Cassini.
You can find a lot of people who don’t get this.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-the-ball-rotate-about-its-axis.415818/
The ball on a string rotates according to your provided definition of rotation.
So, now bob changes to “it’s only rotating about a single axis”! I suppose he’s going to pretend he’s never said the ball on a string has two (or more) axes of rotation.
Hilarious.
DR EMPTY,
One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.
Yes, I changed my mind on that, because of the abuse I got from you.
The Moon on the right is the one that is not rotating.
It’s ridiculous to claim it’s rotating clockwise.
An “axis of revolution” is an axis of rotation, according to the definition that you provided. So, you are still saying the ball on a string has two axes of rotation.
DR EMTPY,
Since my moat has been over run by pedantry, I will retreat to my bailey.
The Moon rotates on an internal axis while revolving around both the Earth and the Sun.
“The whole discussion was about the ball on a string, Nate. Context is important. You bringing up a phrase from astronomy was the red herring, in the first place.”
oh I see. So when you said
‘There is no such thing as an axis of translation.’
You meant
‘There is no such thing as an axis of translation for a ball on a string’??
But, unfortunately you didn’t actually say that.
So, no I do not concede that your statement was wrong, because it was wrong.
As I said, you can never concede anything. Thanks for proving me right, yet again.
DR EMPTY,
If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Then the ball on a string is not rotating on any axis, neither external nor internal.
[ME, QUOTING MIKER] “Unfortunately your ball on a string is not going to fare any better, particularly if the string is of constant length”
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] irrelevant to what bob and I are talking about.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] The whole discussion was about the ball on a string, Nate.
Mike R’s point was about elliptical orbits, Little Willy. Nothing to do with what bob and I are talking about. Again, try to read through the discussion before you start commenting, to make sure your comment is relevant. Just some advice for you, going forward.
That’s my ten comments for the day.
I wonder if bob is proud of the comments he makes?
Pride goeth before a fall.
So not for a few weeks then.
I am proud of my wife and daughter’s accomplishments, but not much else.
If you are anticipation leaving us because you want to spend more time with your children, well Just a Duck might be worthy.
Graham D. Warner, besides soon reaching his 10th comment for the day, if he didn’t overstepped it since astute readers last counted, still forgets that a real ball on string has at least two axes of rotation:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
This echoes MikeR’s point, for the only way *this* can be described as a pure rotation is if rotations could break isometry.
And of course Bob is right in recalling that a ball on string is usually three-dimensional.
DR EMPTY,
“Mike Rs point was about elliptical orbits, Little Willy. Nothing to do with what bob and I are talking about. Again, try to read through the discussion before you start commenting, to make sure your comment is relevant. Just some advice for you, going forward.
Thats my ten comments for the day.
I wonder if bob is proud of the comments he makes?”
DR EMPTY, we were talking about a lot of things, orbits being one of them.
You shall not mention another poster when responding to a different poster unless you quote them.
It’s bad manners you uncouth Englishman.
Graham D. Warner is obviously wrong:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
This echoes MikeR’s point.
And of course Bob is right in recalling that a ball on string is usually three-dimensional.
Little Willy, “the hammer throw” and “isometry” have absolutely nothing to do with whether a ball on a string has two axes of rotation or not. For the third time, please try to make sure that the points you raise have some relevance to what is being discussed.
For the record, your “hammer throw” animation shows two objects rotating about a single, shared axis, located at what’s known as a “barycentre”. The axis is external to the smaller object, and is within the larger object, but not passing through its centre of mass.
Even if you could somehow make an argument that the ball on a string was not rotating about an external axis (which you have failed to do thus far) it would then still not be rotating about two different axes. Which is why your points are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a ball on a string has two axes of rotation.
The answer is that a ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation.
Graham D. Warner does not always return to old threads to *get* the last word, but when he does sometimes it is to add to his own fabrications. To remind less astute readers, he misrepresents the topic being discussed (it is not only his motte but also the motion of the Moon) and he misrepresents the point behind the hammer throw.
As astute readers already noted, that physically twirling the ball on string requires that the hand moves in space. It cannot stay still. If one could, there would not be olympians specializing in throwing stuff. Just like with a real, concrete spinning wheel, that involves a little more than one axis in space.
So in a way when Graham D. Warner is talking about his balls, he is mostly referring to his pet GIF.
Yes, Little Willy, the hand moves back and forth in space, to twirl the ball on a string. That just means the external axis of rotation moves back and forth in space. It doesn’t mean there is no longer an external axis of rotation. Even if you could somehow successfully argue that there wasn’t, then you still don’t have two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. So, it’s a moot point.
There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string.
And no, this discussion is not about the moon. It’s just about the ball on a string.
And no, I have not “fabricated” anything.
And no, I was not returning to get the last word. I already had the last word. I just wanted you to understand why you were wrong. So, I elaborated.
Its been going on now for years.
bobdroege, tim s, willard, bindidon, rlh, and nate all remain slaves to their daddies. Their daddy taught them the ”convention” of considering the moon as rotating on its own axis and they then extrapolate far beyond science to an extent that they effectively deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis.
But they won’t even admit that. They make so many conditions for a rotation around an external axis they effectively eliminate it ever occurring in nature.
It really is laughable how they follow their leaders nose to butt. . .where the view never changes.
Bindidon especially. He even gets indignant as if somebody is insulting him and who he believe his daddy is by somebody simply noting the emperor has no clothes on a single issue.
For example, they consider a rotation can’t be anything but a perfect circle with zero perturbations. They argue about the perturbances of the moon denying an orbit is consistent with the concept of a rotation on an external axis. They will then deny orbital forcing by handwaving it away without a single calculation. All this because they believe their daddy told them to not think about such stuff. . .thats its dangerous misinformation and should be oppressed.
Actually their daddy, or at least who they believe their daddy is, didn’t actually tell them that yet they still believe it.
the problem is they only actually connect with their daddy through a seance session with a gypsy fortune teller. Otherise known as the mainstream press and the writers of children books.
They can’t provide a single scientific and quantified reference to practically any key concept they absolutely believe to be an incontrovertible fact.
> They cant provide a single scientific and quantified reference
That’s true. I alone provided more than 100. Here’s one:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11293
Astute readers should expect some “but modulz” galloping. Meanwhile, they surely appreciate that science can be beautiful:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359637877/figure/fig3/AS:1139901043093505@1648784995920/Rotation-and-translation-in-hammer-throw-Adapted-from-Dapena-1986.png
One simply has to drop word games.
Uggh, Bill seemingly is trying to get banned…
"…and they then extrapolate far beyond science to an extent that they effectively deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis."
Absolutely correct, Bill. That’s what I was going to get on to, if any of them had ever conceded that the ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame.
I know that Nate agrees, he just doesn’t want to explicitly say so, because then he’d be throwing bob and Ball4 under the bus, who have both been wrong for half a decade on the subject.
I tried to stick to just talking about the ball on a string, because then we don’t have all the silly distractions about "isometry" and the like. Also, I’ve spent years arguing with people purely about the ball on a string, so it seemed a fitting way to end my run of commenting.
Anyway, I digress. Yes, once you’ve accepted the fact that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, either way you want to look at it, then logically it shouldn’t be long before you finally accept that the ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis. That’s because you have to basically "deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis" to think otherwise. If the ball on a string is not a textbook example of an object rotating about an external axis, then I don’t know what is. And, if you’ve accepted that it has only one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, then if it’s rotating about an external axis it is not rotating about an internal axis.
If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is rotating about zero axes of rotation.
The non spinner argument, no rotation about any axes.
That’s your argument DREMT in a nutshell.
No external axis, no internal axis, no axes whatsoever.
Bill,
“Their daddy taught them the convention of considering the moon as rotating on its own axis and they then extrapolate far beyond science to an extent that they effectively deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis.”
Not from my daddy, but from Herbert S Zim, way before third grade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Zim
But thanks for the gratuitous insults.
You don’t seem to understand why we think orbits are not rotations.
We don’t deny the concept of rotations, we just know better where to apply them.
Nate says:
”Wow. Now you think orbital forcing also produces CO2?? Odd.”
No little Natty I don’t think orbital forcing ”produces” CO2. Orbital forcing changes the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere vs the ocean and it does so by heating and cooling the surface of the ocean.
—————–
Well if you accept that there is a rotation about an external axis as most scientists believe. Then you have to recognize orbital motion is a rotation around an external axis.
If you want to claim that determining whether an axis exists or not is optional, ”we just know better where to apply them.” then don’t pretend any longer that you are still talking about science.
"If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is rotating about zero axes of rotation."
bob, when we started these discussions, years ago, you used to tell me that "revolution", or "orbit", was a rotation about an external axis. However, you used to claim that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was movement as per the MOTR, rather than the MOTL. That’s how you mentally justified your belief that the moon spins.
Now, years later, you’ve finally realised that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTL, and not the MOTR. So, to mentally justify your belief that the moon spins, you have to now argue that "revolution", or "orbit", is a translation in an ellipse. No rotation about an external axis any more, for bob.
Your beliefs have turned around 180 degrees to what they were before. But hey…as long as you still think the moon spins, who cares, right?
> If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is rotating about zero axes of rotation.
Absolutely correct, Bob. It’s as if Graham D. Warner never realized that if the ball did not spin, neither did he. At least if he accepts the real physics behind a hammer throw…
But does he?
With the normal ball on a string being swung around by a person’s hand, the single, external axis of rotation moves back and forth in space as the person’s hand moves back and forth in space. No problems there.
With the hammer throw, the entire body of the person swinging the hammer also rotates around an axis passing through the barycenter between the hammer and the thrower. Just as I already explained, Little Willy, in response to the animation that you linked to. Both thrower and hammer are rotating about that single, shared, external axis of rotation that passes through the barycenter.
None of that changes the reality that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, either way you want to look at it. Not two. Never two axes of rotation. Even if, for some bizarre reason, you wanted to describe the hammer throw as the hammer and thrower both translating in a circle around a barycenter, whilst they rotate on their own internal axes, then there would still only be one axis of rotation for the hammer, which is the object in question.
> With the normal ball on a string being swung around by a person’s hand, the single, external axis of rotation moves back and forth in space
Astute readers might wonder four things here:
First, how to describe that “back and forth movement,”
Second, if that “back and forth movement” follows a path along some axis.
Third, how should we call such “back and forth movement” using the relevant concepts of geometry.
Fourth, if such “back and forth movement” should be included in the description, or if Graham D. Warner should continue to treat his balls as an indirect way to return to of his pet GIF.
Little Willy’s attempts to obfuscate something painfully simple are as amusing as they are desperate, and are not to be taken seriously. The origin of our reference frame passes through the external axis of rotation located at the person’s hand. So, the “back and forth” movements of the hand are effectively eliminated from our analysis. Just as the fact that the Earth is rotating on its own internal axis, and revolving around the Sun, which in turn is revolving around the galaxy, are also motions that are effectively eliminated from our analysis. We don’t need to consider that the “person plus ball on a string unit” is rotating about the Earth’s axis along with every other part of the Earth, in order to analyse the motion of the ball itself.
Of course, I’ve explained all this already, but some people just can’t listen.
bobdroege says:
”You dont seem to understand why we think orbits are not rotations.”
My list wasn’t designed to be comprehensive. For example I left out isometry.
If you feel I left out something original and important on your part by all means name it. I am not here to stop debate.
bobdroege says:
”Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.”
You are confused bob. Your own side disagrees.
orbiting has everything to do with orientation.
1)Your brethren say its a motion separate from rotation on the internal axis and have called it a translation which demands that it maintain a single orientation wrt the stars.
If as you say it is NOT a rotation, and it is not a translation what kind of motion is it?
2) the gravity that creates the orbit is also a force that stretches the moon; such that if it does have a 2nd motion on its internal axis, the energy of at motion will be eventually transferred to the orbit and moon will become tidal locked. So tidal locking is integrally connected to orbiting and orientation arising out of the motion of orbiting and the gravity of the object orbited (external axis)
bobdroege says:
”But thanks for the gratuitous insults.”
If you think pointing out blindly following a leader when you are smarter than that is an insult. . .why do you keep doing it? I haven’t seen you even to attempt to explain why orbiting has nothing to do with orientation when clearly it does and most of your brethren also accept that having other irrelevant complaints like the orbit is perturbed by the gravity of other celestial bodies like the sun and the planets.
It also seems to be the case that you all deny such perturbations as I have been talking about orbital forcings and consistently seen a lot of handwaving simply because their daddies try to
keep that underwraps by never mentioning it in the context of radiant forcing. And they have never have quantified it while at the same time the science literature is full of general recognition of it.
If we can get to the root of why that is, figure out how to fix it, science could reclaim its rightful respect. Of course they don’t do that because my goodness it could be the first successful calculation related to climate change in history. Its complicated from the standpoint of barycenters between multiple objects being a complex equation. But in the end its just sines, cosigns, and gravity and the effects of gravitation pull on the 2 main orbital parameters along with solar brightness monitoring and the square distance law.
But I get it. In the private sector thats called grunt work. Probably really hard getting done in the public sector where you have students and teachers.
> Bill Hunter says:
Nothing much behind his wall of words.
Perhaps he could help Graham D. Warner characterize his “back and forth movement”?
Shouldn’t be too hard for him.
If he could also reflect on the fact that if we the hammer doesn’t spin, then neither is the thrower, that’d be great.
Neither the hammer nor the thrower are “spinning”, Little Willy (rotating about an axis passing through their centre). Both hammer and thrower are instead rotating about a single, shared axis that passes through the barycentre. Study the animation you linked to some more, until you understand it.
DREMT,
I am not discussing the Moon.
I am only talking about the ball on a string and concept of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Please try to recognize a conditional statement when I make one.
I’ll try again.
If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is not rotating about any axis.
Bill writes a confusing bit of word salad.
“You are confused bob. Your own side disagrees.”
I am on my own side and make my own arguments.
“orbiting has everything to do with orientation.
1)Your brethren say its a motion separate from rotation on the internal axis and have called it a translation which demands that it maintain a single orientation wrt the stars.
If as you say it is NOT a rotation, and it is not a translation what kind of motion is it?”
It’s an orbit and a rotation, I don’t care what kinematics says, if you are calling it a translation then you are in the wrong building, try the one with a dome on top.
“2) the gravity that creates the orbit is also a force that stretches the moon; such that if it does have a 2nd motion on its internal axis, the energy of at motion will be eventually transferred to the orbit and moon will become tidal locked. So tidal locking is integrally connected to orbiting and orientation arising out of the motion of orbiting and the gravity of the object orbited (external axis)”
The Moon is already tidally locked, but orientation changes at a different rate than the orbital speed, they are still independent. What is Libration Alex?
“If you think pointing out blindly following a leader when you are smarter than that is an insult. . .why do you keep doing it? I havent seen you even to attempt to explain why orbiting has nothing to do with orientation when clearly it does”
You can’t even identify the leader you claim I am following. Orbits are simply paths and rotations are independent of the path, and both are measured by Astronomers.
“It also seems to be the case that you all deny such perturbations as I have been talking about orbital forcings and consistently seen a lot of handwaving simply because their daddies try to
keep that underwraps by never mentioning it in the context of radiant forcing.”
Orbital forcings and their changes to radiant forcing are very slow and not relevant to the speed of climate change at this time.
bob how does that make any sense at all? No axis? what makes the ball go around the hand holding the other end of the string? Its an external axis. As I said to deny an orbit as a rotation one has to deny a rotation on an external axis that is accepted by innumerable numbers of scientists. Can you refer to a single paper that claims external axes don’t exist? You are way out beyond the outfield fence. Any thing you catch out there doesn’t stop the other team from scoring.
Bill,
Its really simple.
Some orbits are elliptical, and none are circular.
External rotations are circular.
Therefore no orbits are external rotations.
I dont need to find a paper that says that.
I hope I finally post this in the right place, is just a DREMT thread that goes on past its best by date.
bobdroege says:
”I am on my own side and make my own arguments.”
OK we have spinners and non-spinners. I guess we have to classify you as a half-a-spinner. When are you going to take on the spinners? Or is it you just have a grudge against non-spinners?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”Its an orbit and a rotation, I dont care what kinematics says, if you are calling it a translation then you are in the wrong building, try the one with a dome on top.”
You need to direct that one at the spinners that are calling it a translation. . .not the non-spinners. They are saying you need to recognize it as a rotation.
How do orbits differ from a rotation on an external axis Bob? You avoided answering that question.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”The Moon is already tidally locked, but orientation changes at a different rate than the orbital speed, they are still independent. What is Libration Alex?”
Thats the point I am making with the issue of natural climate change Bob. Other planets primarily cause the change in speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun. Like with a tetherball when somebody hits your service. . .yet that is still a rotation around an external axis. . .it just changed direction and the ball can change its orientation in that some of the energy from the rotation around an external axis can remain in the object at precisely the spin rate of the orbit. Thats the basic concept of angular momentum. If the object comes apart (like escaping orbit) each piece will have different spin rates depending upon how far they were from the axis. In the case of the moon that rate is the same whether you consider the axis to be external or internal. You just carry it further without any scientific merit and simply claim without evidence that the axis was internal as the internal axis is a redundant axis physically unconnected from the angular momentum of the orbit rotation but it becomes connected when the system breaks apart usually from the string breaking or in the case of an LP record spun on its internal axis the results will be identical to a rotation on an external axis with the same rate of revolution.
Its beyond me why you don’t want to recognize an orbit as a rotation of a system of objects. The easiest explanation is your daddy told you to not recognize it (like Bindidon’s interpretation of Newton) and/or you made up your ”own argument”. Of course you aren’t out there as far as Nate who changes his mind from translation, to general plane motion, to astrology or whatever he feels like at the moment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”You cant even identify the leader you claim I am following. Orbits are simply paths and rotations are independent of the path, and both are measured by Astronomers.”
Thats incorrect. We know that the rotation is not independent of the path as it was created by the so-called path. If that path had never existed the tidal locked condition would have never existed. We know that should be considered a fact since the statistical chances of the moon to have independently matched the RPM of the orbit is nil.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”Orbital forcings and their changes to radiant forcing are very slow and not relevant to the speed of climate change at this time.”
Thats false. You have no authorities of any credibility to support that notion. We know that science accepts that the 100,000 year maximum and minimums to be a combination of an ever changing orbit wrt to the planets combined with axial changes. We also know that science attributes somewhere around 57.5% of the total variation that produces the 100,000 year cycle to planetary orbital effects and their feedbacks. And only 42.5% to the slow axial changes. Thats documented. Did you make up your own argument here or did you hear it from your daddy?
Most real scientists won’t touch this with a ten foot pole. They like to call it the 100,000 year problem and state they have no idea where the 100,000 year cycle came from. Convenient excuse? or is it actually obfuscation?
“Well if you accept that there is a rotation about an external axis as most scientists believe.”
Sure.
“Then you have to recognize orbital motion is a rotation around an external axis.”
No, does not follow.
Orbits in general are elliptical, and no one but you guys think that qualifies as a ‘rotation around an external axis’.
Eg Madhavi,
“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”
Now go ahead and whine about this is just ‘textbook’ science, not real world science, or some such nonsense!
If you cannot find a definition in any legitimate source that agrees with you, then we can all conclude that you just made it up.
Nate says:
”Orbits in general are elliptical, and no one but you guys think that qualifies as a rotation around an external axis.
Eg Madhavi,
”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”
Now go ahead and whine about this is just textbook science, not real world science, or some such nonsense!
If you cannot find a definition in any legitimate source that agrees with you, then we can all conclude that you just made it up.”
Nate all you are doing is what I said you do. You take what your daddy tells you, then you interpret it and establish limits nilly willy.
In the process you come to scientific conclusions about the real world and orbits that your daddy may or may not have even addressed.
Its not nonsense to distinguish between textbook science and real science. If you do that science can’t progress.
For example one can effectively argue that the only reason the orbit of earth is never perfectly circular is because Jupiter makes up more than 50% of the pull on earth of all the objects in the universe other than the sun.
that defines the ellipticity of earths orbit as a varying anomaly caused by the gravitational pull of other objects in the universe. Seems to me that is the current state of science on the matter and because it gets so near to zero thats the difference between a rare cooperation of the other objects pulling on earth in opposition to Jupiter. then its greatest ellipticity is when all the planets including Jupiter is cooperating.
Via that argument you have this underlying circular orbit that is in constant perturbation variation.
Seems a perfectly reasonable argument. Perhaps you have some science that disputes that. I am all ears. And of course even if you do you still don’t have an argument for why a rotation must be circular other than your interpretation of what your daddies have told you. So you can’t win and every argument you have offered heretosofar has been rebutted. . .meaning of course there is no science that establishes an orbit as not being a rotation. . .while in fact many do refer to it as a rotation.
Do you see where this is going?
Didn’t proof read until after posting.
”Its not nonsense to distinguish between textbook science and real science. If you do that science cant progress.”
Should have read: Its not nonsense to distinguish between textbook science and real science. If you don’t do that science cant progress.
Also, I said above: ”Seems to me that is the current state of science on the matter and because it gets so near to zero thats the difference between a rare cooperation of the other objects pulling on earth in opposition to Jupiter. then its greatest ellipticity is when all the planets including Jupiter is cooperating.”
I would assume that is how the maximum extent of earth’s orbital eccentricity was actually calculated giving maximum and minimum ellipticity.
At least I am not aware of any other way of estimating it as obviously we have never observed it.
If I am wrong about that, that would seem to be a path you could pursue to continue to support your subjective interpretations as to how orbits differ from rotations on external axes. See what a nice guy I am? I am trying to help your argument. Please show a little appreciation.
Bill,
“When are you going to take on the spinners?”
I am not going to do that. Because the Moon spins on its axis.
“How do orbits differ from a rotation on an external axis Bob? You avoided answering that question.”
I have answered that several times, but here again, some orbits are elliptical with a body at one of the foci. If they were rotations, one body would have to be at the point where the major and minor axes of the ellipse cross.
“Other planets primarily cause the change in speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun.”
Say what? The force on the Earth from other planets is very small compared to the force from the Sun.
“If the object comes apart (like escaping orbit) each piece will have different spin rates depending upon how far they were from the axis.”
Try to watch a high speed video of a record rotated so fast it come apart. The individual pieces rotate at the same rate but move with different velocities, as the conservation of angular momentum would predict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-DTjpde9-0
“We know that should be considered a fact since the statistical chances of the moon to have independently matched the RPM of the orbit is nil.”
25% of the planets are tidally locked, and many of the moons in the solar system, especially the larger one. All the Galilean satelites of Jupiter are tidally locked.
Tidal locking represents the low energy solution to an orbit, so it is the most stable.
” You have no authorities of any credibility to support that notion. We know that science accepts that the 100,000 year maximum and minimums to be a combination of an ever changing orbit wrt to the planets combined with axial changes.”
That is slow in my book, more than 1000 lifetimes. That means what we are seeing is not natural climate change.
Something to grok on.
“In celestial mechanics, an orbit (also known as orbital revolution) is the curved trajectory of an object[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the center of mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.”
Note the mention of how fast orbiting object rotate.
From my Daddy Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
You can check the references at the bottom of the page.
“You take what your daddy tells you”
As I predicted: nonsense.
In science we have to come to agreement on how things are defined, amps, volts, velocity, translations, rotations.
It makes little sense to alter these definitions jusy to advance your otherwise losing argument.
So you cannot offer a legitimate source that defines rotation to suit your needs, then that’s the end of it.
Nate says:
You take what your daddy tells you
As I predicted: nonsense.
In science we have to come to agreement on how things are defined, amps, volts, velocity, translations, rotations.
———————–
Using definitions is semantics rather than physics amd is an admission you don’t know the physics and just rely on what your daddy told you or worse what you think your daddy told you.
Its abundantly clear you have no intention of doing anything beyond what it took to memorize the test so you could pass it, if you did even that.
> Using definitions is semantics
Is that a definition?
Perhaps he should help Graham D. Warner, who just admitted that he did not believe that the Earth spins.
As usual Bill offers nothing but childish insults.
INsult? I see you proudly defending the practice. You sound like you are trying for a phony victim ID card.
I find it amazing how much difficulty these people have in accepting that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. Yet some “Spinners”, e.g. Bindidon and Norman, have no problem accepting that.
Truly bizarre, the depths of denial some people will go to.
What is really amazing is the inconsistency.
They want to deny that orbital motion is a rotation simply because their daddy supposedly told them so.
Their support? Few scientists have acknowledged that orbital motion qualifies as a rotation.
After that they run out of consistent arguments. Its classic ”my” daddy never told me so, and since my daddy is the perfect there must be something wrong with those who have noted the inconsistency.
Yet if you actually dive into the literature, gravity of other celestial objects beyond a given binary orbiting system is the only acknowledged way for an orbit to not be circular.
Thus ellipticity of an orbit is simply an expression of a more complex system.
Its also a huge area of unquantified climate change.
There is a statistical relationship to the orbiting of the outer gas giants to the temperature record. It is also acknowledged as such in the literature. Pre-1980 mostly but a little has leaked through the chinese wall since.
The claims that these effects are nil because earth’s gravity is too strong is nonsense. The changes to earth’s inertia is not initially controlled by the sun because the force of gravity in a a circular orbit is perpendicular to the orbiting body and has no effect on its orbit speed.
The sun only gets a very slight control when the earth’s orbit is moved to ellipticity as the earth’s orbit at its highest ellipticity is only slightly non-circular. Where as for example Jupiter is positioned in the direct line of travel about 2 times roughly every 13 months. accelerating it once and decelerating it once. And of course that varies because the speed of jupiter varies from the forces of other planets including earth.
the sun has little to say about any of this.
Thus the definition they apply to rotation would disqualify rotations on external axes in every case as such forces that turns circular motion into non-circular motion are ubiquitous.
This imparts a universal inconsistency to their main arguments that is seemingly held by every single one of them. Its part and parcel to any argument for orbits to be arbitrarily excluded from being a rotation.
This is a complex topic.
It was only this year that I discovered its application to climate change. Most of the literature referred by what was left in the open has been repressed and not even available for purchase anywhere I can find. But its clear this means of climate change has been ignored. Monitoring data is available that shows how orbit speed changes do occur that is not consistent with the idea of an ultra slow change to the earth’s elliptical orbit from very near circular to less circular.
The 100,000 year slowly changing ellipse so often bandied around here by the orbit rotation deniers is a fraud. Its not science. They can’t support it as science. Data exists to prove its wrong. And its calculably wrong yet it gets no attention.
Exactly, Nate.
It’s still amazing that he will follow Graham D. Warner wherever he goes, even if that includes holding that the Earth does not spin. Both should collaborate on a physics textbook. They could then revise celestial mechanics, and introduce the “back and forth” motion as the absolute unit of everything.
If they don’t want to see "orbit without spin" as being "rotation about an external axis", they don’t have to. They can call it whatever they want. Or, simply call it "orbit without spin". As long as it’s understood that it’s movement like the ball on a string, where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, then it’s fine.
The whole point of my persisting with the "translation in a circle" and "rotation about an external axis" kinematics terms was more to try and get across the point that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Once you can accept, as Nate has before and Tim did recently also, that movement like the ball on a string could potentially be described as either:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
And, that both these descriptions apply wrt an inertial reference frame, then you should understand that movement like the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, whether you go for description a) or b). Once you’ve got that, then you should see that reference frames do not resolve the ball on a string issue – instead, it’s whether you go with "rotation about an external axis" or "translation in a circle" as your "base motion", that determines whether or not the ball is spinning.
With the ball on a string, the choice is made for you – objectively, it’s being swung about an external axis on the end of a string. That’s that, then. The ball on a string is objectively not spinning. Option a) is chosen for you.
For the moon, it’s more complicated, there’s more ways for them to obfuscate. Still, though, the idea of using the kinematics terms was to get across that the issue transcends reference frames, and that instead of a choice of "base motion" for the moon, the choice is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. However, it’s the same principle…and the idea of bringing up the kinematics terms was to teach that principle. Not to get bogged down in endless discussions about whether "orbit" is defined as "rotation about an external axis" or "translation in an ellipse".
All of points 1) – 4) were interlinked, in this way, designed to get across everything needed to understand the "Non-Spinner" argument. I don’t think they ever really got it, though.
Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
Dremt said:
Not to get bogged down in endless discussions about whether “orbit” is defined as “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in an ellipse”.
All of points 1) 4) were interlinked, in this way, designed to get across everything needed to understand the “Non-Spinner” argument. I dont think they ever really got it, though.
———————-
i agree but would add that there doesn’t seem to be any science to suggest that the moon and the earth (or any other binary orbiting system without power packs of some sort) isolated alone in their own universe would not be a perfectly circular binary orbiting system. at least i have not found any exception to that. and the spinners haven’t either.
Bill,
“i agree but would add that there doesnt seem to be any science to suggest that the moon and the earth (or any other binary orbiting system without power packs of some sort) isolated alone in their own universe would not be a perfectly circular binary orbiting system. at least i have not found any exception to that. and the spinners havent either.”
As far as I know, perfectly circular orbits do not exist.
Pluto and Charon, and Dysnomia and Eris are close. With Pluto and Charon the eccentricity is small but there needs to be no other bodies near by and it would take time to achieve a perfectly circular orbit. Lots of time.
Triton, a moon of Neptune has the lowest eccentricity in the solar system, but it’s still not zero, and not circular, but the closest.
Tidally locked moons appear to not rotate, but actually all of them do.
DREMT,
” Not to get bogged down in endless discussions about whether “orbit” is defined as “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in an ellipse”.”
It’s actually neither, so you should look it up.
And the definition has to include circular, elliptical, chaotic, and all the other flavors of orbits.
And get your head out of the kinematic textbooks and open an Astronomy one.
I’m well aware of the definition of “orbit” just being a “path”, bob. That doesn’t resolve the issue either way. You lot seem to think it resolves the issue in your favour…but then again, you always think everything resolves the issue in your favour.
bobdroege says:
”As far as I know, perfectly circular orbits do not exist.”
Well yeah. They would only exist in a universe where the gravitational influences were exactly balanced in all directions over time.
The same is true for all rotations on external axes if you really want to precondition a rotation as being a perfect circle.
DREMT,
Whatever, it resolves to the Moon rotating once per orbit, it does not matter how you define orbit, as long as you define it correctly.
Defining it as a rotation is still wrong.
Bob you haven’t give any reason why its wrong to call an orbit a rotation other than YOUR daddy told you so. Fact is DREMT has shown many scientists calling it a rotation. You are merely playing semantic games and have shown any unique reason why it shouldn’t be considered a rotation.
The ball on a string does not have two (or more!) axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Try to just accept that first, bob.
Bill,
Just my daddy Kepler, maybe you have heard of him?
Or all the Astronomers that have not found any objects orbiting in perfect circles.
DREMT,
“The ball on a string does not have two (or more!) axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Try to just accept that first, bob.”
I already have, did you not notice?
There is only one axis or rotation, it’s through the interior of the ball.
No, bob, I didn’t notice…because you say it has only one axis of rotation, then you say it also has an “axis of revolution”…even though the definition you provided states an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation. So you were still saying the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. Then you said I was arguing “semantics”. That’s how we last left it.
DREMT,
A clear distinction is made in Astronomy between rotation and revolving.
Look at the red dotted lines. Note there are two of them.
If, as you say, orbits are rotations, then there are definitely two axes of rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.PNG
Bye Bye
bob, I must have seen that diagram a hundred times. If a diagram is showing the moon has two axes of rotation, then the diagram is wrong. Simple as that. The moon does not have two axes of rotation.
Yes, there is a distinction between revolution and rotation in astronomy. OK, then…let me put it this way to you. The ball on a string does not have an “axis of revolution” and an axis of rotation. It has either an “axis of revolution” or an axis of rotation.
That is what you need to accept first. OK?
For some reason Graham D. Warner never really opined on his buddy’s idea that rotations could be non-circular. Perhaps he did not “actually dive into the literature,” as that buddy suggested?
In any event, these two claims were astonishing:
(G1) Rotation is not independent of the path as it was created by the so-called path.
(G2) Orbits are simply paths and rotations are independent of the path.
Astute readers might like to know how to reconcile them.
DREMT,
“bob, I must have seen that diagram a hundred times. If a diagram is showing the moon has two axes of rotation, then the diagram is wrong. Simple as that. The moon does not have two axes of rotation.”
So go argue with Wikipedia and every Astronomer since Cassini.
You know what that’s called?
When all the experts are wrong and you are right?
bob, it’s a mathematically proven fact that any object that’s rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis will present all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves.
We’ve been over and over this.
You’ve been wrong for half a decade on a simple, geometrical fact.
Appealing to authority when it’s not clear if those authorities even think (or thought) the moon has two axes of rotation is not going to help your case. It’s clear they think (or thought) the moon rotates on its own internal axis, but the “two axes of rotation” claim is not clear.
DREMT,
“bob, its a mathematically proven fact that any object thats rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis will present all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves.”
Not a proven fact, see Cassini.
> its a mathematically proven fact that any object thats rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis will present all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves.
Graham D. Warner has still to prove the converse, and only the converse would do.
He’s also wrong, but that would deflect from his post hoc ergo propter hoc.
“Well yeah. They would only exist in a universe where the gravitational influences were exactly balanced in all directions over time.”
Newton’s solution to the 2 body gravity problem is clear. The closed orbits are elliptical.
No other bodies need to be involved.
And indeed that is what we observe.
“an axis of revolution is just an axis of rotation.”
That’s clearly wrong.
Earth revolves around the sun in the ecliptic plane. There is a perpendicular to this plane, which is the orbital axis, or axis of revolution if you want.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Earth’s rotation.
Earth’s rotation is around a different axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to the orbital axis, and it is much faster than its revolution.
And the Moon also has an orbital axis and a rotational axis not aligned with each other.
“Their support? Few scientists have acknowledged that orbital motion qualifies as a rotation.
After that they run out of consistent arguments. Its classic my daddy never told me so”
Bill appears to be stuck at that age (16?) where his dad must be wrong about most things.
There is no daddy involved here.
We are just using definitions that have been around for centuries and have worked well for countless generations of scientists.
And again, we need to communicate with other scientists and engineers and be clearly understood when we use the words rotation, or rotate.
There is no good reason to switch to some vague, undefined notion of what you guys think ought to qualify as a rotation.
And then use the word and have others be confused about what the motion actually is.
Nate and Bob.
Both of you are just name dropping (i.e. parroting your daddy).
Kepler discovered orbits were elliptical. . .as I noted.
He also discovered:
Johannes Kepler, a German mathematician, discovered that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times while orbiting the sun. This is known as Kepler’s second law of planetary motion.
Newton in the next century established orbit motion was controlled by gravity.
But unfortunately both were dead before perturbation theory began to be developed.
Here is a nice later source for you to continue your journey in scientific knowledge.
https://sciencing.com/causes-perturbations-discovered-orbit-planet-uranus-21418.html
Perturbation theory explains small variations in the ellipticity of orbits. Later Milankovic showed it was a major cause of climate change.
So if you correctly apply without extrapolation:
1)Newton and Kepler
2) add to it the fact that the gravitational pull of the planet systems, asteroids, and perhaps even stars; you will find:
a) that the sidereal orbit time does experiences small differences in the number of days it takes for the earth to go around the sun
b)larger differences in days spent in a half orbit close to the sun versus further from the sun.
c)that it takes per Milankovic 100,000 years to finally even out.
d) later analysis found small residuals at 100,000 years that were estimated to take 400,000 plus years to resolve.
Over the past 40 some years this information has been suppressed and you have been treated like a mushroom farm. Namely, kept in the dark, and fed manure.
Nate says:
”Bill appears to be stuck at that age (16?) where his dad must be wrong about most things.”
Thats just as bad of conclusion as assuming your daddy is right about everything. . .or of that matter if you even understood the limits of what your daddy told you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”There is no daddy involved here.
We are just using definitions that have been around for centuries and have worked well for countless generations of scientists.”
————————-
that depends upon what you actually do with the knowledge from your daddy. Auditors and Scientific Researchers have to learn to think outside of the box and in the process learn exactly where the actual borders of the box exist. Certainly not the job of a typical degreed scientist that knows enough to perhaps qualify as a teacher in the general field of physics. A student that wants to be a researcher can’t generally do that without an extended internship or academic project with a researcher.
Yes, bob, it is a 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
How many times do we need to go over the same thing?
An object that rotates around an external axis, and an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves. An object that rotates only around an external axis, presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
Nate, try to pay attention. bob provided this definition, which states an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation:
"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."
“that depends upon what you actually do with the knowledge from your daddy. Auditors and Scientific Researchers have to learn to think outside of the box and in the process learn exactly where the actual borders of the box exist.”
When Bill uses financial and business terminology, I would think he would expect others in his field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are very likely found in textbooks.
So it is unclear why he feels the need to belittle scientists and engineers for using standard definitions of terms and expecting others in the field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are found in textbooks.
How would Bill react if my argument with him depended on my changing the definitions of revenue or fiduciary from their standard definitions to whatever I thought they should be mean instead!
“”Line around which an object rotates
An axis of rotation (also called an axis of revolution) is a line around which an object rotates.”
Again, DREMT takes phrases out of context and mistakes them for definitions.
Because he knows very well, that when a body rotates, its orientation changes wrt the surroundings.
Whereas when a body orbits or revolves around another body, it is following a path around the other body, and that motion need not involve any rotation (orientational change).
As I noted the Earth orbits (revolves around) the sun, no rotation of Earth is involved.
Whereas, Earth rotates around a DIFFERENT axis from that of its orbit.
I don’t see why after all this time DREMT still has trouble seeing that these are two distinct motions.
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
Nate, bob provided a definition of “axis of rotation”, which states that an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation. You could assume that an “axis of revolution” specifically refers to an external axis, if you liked, but it would still be an axis of rotation. Make of that what you will, those are the facts.
You desperately want the definition of “orbit” being “just a path that a body follows around another” to mean “no change of orientation whilst it follows that path”; in other words, that “orbit without spin” is translation in an ellipse. Yet, it doesn’t mean that. It doesn’t say anything about the orientation of the object following the path. So, it could mean that there is no change in orientation of the body, or it could mean that there is a change in orientation of the body. You just don’t know, because orientation is left unspecified. So, the definition of “orbit” resolves nothing.
Whereas, the definition of “revolution” hints at “rotation about an external axis”, and in some definitions that is even directly stated.
On the other hand, you don’t have anything stating that either “orbit” or “revolution” means “translation in an ellipse”.
Graham D. Warner still conflates a matrix rotation with a proof that anything that could be described using that matrix rotation can only be moving using that rotation. An infinity of motions could be described using that same matrix rotation. And best of all he still ignores that Bob said simply follows from that equivalence!
Besides, that matrix cannot be used to describe the actual motion of the Moon unless he accepts the idea that any ellipse could be seen as a circle if one squirted long enough, an idea from his buddy that he still refuses to corroborate.
An object that rotates around an external axis, and an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves. An object that rotates only around an external axis, presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
bob has been wrong for years on rotation, and I have been correct. Nothing in the universe can change that.
DREMT,
I’ll try once more.
“The strict definition of rotation is “the circular movement of an object about a point in space.” This is used in geometry as well as astronomy and physics. To help visualize it, imagine a point on a piece of paper. Rotate the piece of paper while it’s lying flat on the table. What’s happening is that essentially every point is rotating around the place on the paper where the point is drawn. Now, imagine a point in the middle of a spinning ball. All the other points in the ball rotate around the point. Draw a line through the center of the ball where the point lies, and that’s its axis.”
“For the kinds of objects discussed in astronomy, rotation is used to describe an object rotating about an axis. Think of a merry-go-round. It rotates around the center pole, which is the axis. Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons, asteroids, and pulsars. When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin, like that top mentioned above, on the point of the axis.
Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
From https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
And yes orbiting and rotating are independent, that means an orbit does not specify a rotation, and a rotation does not specify an orbit.
If what you wanted to try once more was to find a bunch of quotes supporting the “Non-Spinner” position then well done, bob.
While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation”…
is a fact, make of it what you will.
“…in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.’
is another fact, make of it what you will.
Now, there is no question that a body in orbit around another, but with fixed orientation, will still have orbital angular momentum, which is a kind of rotational motion.
What is rotating? This is a SYSTEM of two bodies, and the vector between them has an orientation, and that orientation is changing. And it has an axis. The orbital axis.
And that angular momentum, for the Moon, is way way way larger than the rotational angular momentum of the Moon by itself.
The rotational angular momentum of the Moon by itself is tiny in comparison. And it is rotation around a different axis.
It makes no sense to insist that these two motions are ONE motion, when clearly they are different and have different axes.
The moon does not have two axes of rotation.
An object that rotates around an external axis, and an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves. An object that rotates only around an external axis, presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
The minute anyone suggests that to “orbit”, or “revolve”, is a rotation about an external axis, is the minute they concede the moon does not spin.
DREMT says:
“You desperately want the definition of orbit being just a path that a body follows around another
Not me. Astronomy defines it that way.
“to mean no change of orientation whilst it follows that path.
FALSE. I have never said that.
“in other words, that orbit without spin is translation in an ellipse.”
That is a different statement! You are trying to mix them up. Pure obfuscation.
“Yet, it doesnt mean that. It doesnt say anything about the orientation of the object following the path. So, it could mean that there is no change in orientation of the body, or it could mean that there is a change in orientation of the body. ”
Wow, now that sounds a lot like what I have been saying for years. You and I are finally in agreement!
Previously you had been consistently promoting the view that ORBIT means ‘following a path whilst keeping orientation fixed to the center’. IOW the Moon is simply orbiting.
Now it looks like you have changed your tune!
Nate exhibits multiple reading comprehension failures.
“The minute anyone suggests that to orbit, or revolve, is a rotation about an external axis, is the minute they concede the moon does not spin.”
Ignoring what I have said.
I said that a system of bodies, one orbiting the other, has angular momentum, which implies a kind of rotational motion.
Angular momentum is a vector, which is the axis around which masses are moving. For orbits that would be the orbital axis.
This orbital motion and its orbital angular momentum is entirely separate from, and independent of, any rotation of the body itself, which would be called ‘spin’ or just ‘rotation’ in astronomy.
You wish to combine what astronomy calls the ‘orbital motion’, eg of the Moon, with the spin motion, and make than one motion and call that ‘rotation around an external axis’ or ‘orbital motion’.
But that is wrong, fails to work for the Moon, because there are TWO DIFFERENT AXES.
I repeat the parts of my comments that Nate refuses to acknowledge the existence of, and which refute his every response.
DREMT,
“If what you wanted to try once more was to find a bunch of quotes supporting the Non-Spinner position then well done, bob.”
How so?
It says right off the bat that rotations are circular.
Kepler said orbits are elliptical.
Therefore the orbit of the Moon is not a rotation.
Glad we could clear that up.
Or not.
bob returns to saying “orbits are not rotations”, contradicting the earlier bob who was insisting the moon had two axes of rotation…
…and Nate wants “orbiting” to be “a kind of rotational motion” that involves an “axis”, but not rotation about an external axis, because then the moon wouldn’t be spinning!
Hilarious.
Nate says:
”I said that a system of bodies, one orbiting the other, has angular momentum, which implies a kind of rotational motion.”
—————
IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK. . . .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nate says:
”You wish to combine what astronomy calls the orbital motion, eg of the Moon, with the spin motion, and make than one motion and call that rotation around an external axis or orbital motion.”
———————
Nate, simply wants to call the orbiting motion of the moon two motions.
but thats because his education on this topic ended with Newton.
Perturbation theory applies universally to all motions and engineers that don’t account for them will eventually experience failure. this theory immediately started to evolve during newton’s lifetime as an adjunct/perturbation to his discovery of the major elements of a rotation.
now the less educated want to claim the elements of a rotation as two motions. . .a spin and a weird sort of rotation. the earth has two rotations evidenced by having 2 different ways of counting days. where one counts the days wrt to the sun plus the extra day wrt to the stars. they add up correctly to the number of full rotations wrt rotations wrt to the earth and (spin) and the sun (orbit). KISS
what fails to comprehend is there is no end to the deconstruction of Newton’s lunar rotation right down to every particle of the moon. . . meaning of course there are no rotations at all. . .just a simple spin of particles in space moving in weird shaped paths wrt countless imaginary axes (”kind of rotation(s)”).
nate says:
”But that is wrong, fails to work for the Moon, because there are TWO DIFFERENT AXES.”
——————–
see what i mean. he arbitrarily invents only two axes and chooses to ignore the solar tides on the moon when in fact the moon rotates around the sun as part of the earth system and also rotates around star systems as part of the solar system as nate arbitrarily selects an axis as a true rotational axis while the remainder are simply implications of ”a kind of rotational motion” because they have angular momentum.
perhaps nate should take ”subjectivity” out of his objective view of the world and get back to physics and kinematics since it should be obvious to him now just how subjective and judgmental he is being.
DREMT,
“bob returns to saying orbits are not rotations, contradicting the earlier bob who was insisting the moon had two axes of rotation”
Well, you consider that the Moon is rotating around an external axis, which is not a rotation because rotations are circular.
But you claim the Moon is rotating around only one axis, then that axis has to be through the Moon, which means you believe the Moon is rotating on an internal axis.
So, bob’s really going for the "orbits are not rotations" thing, this time. Does that mean he will never again state the moon, or a ball on a string, has two axes of rotation? If so, that would be something.
Trouble is, his own source states that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis:
"Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit."
And, Nate’s "rotation" link, from earlier, contained the following:
"A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1]
Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum)."
So, if "revolution/orbit" really is a rotation around an external axis, as their own sources state, that means the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Or, are they now going to say their own sources are wrong?
nate says:
”When Bill uses financial and business terminology, I would think he would expect others in his field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are very likely found in textbooks.
So it is unclear why he feels the need to belittle scientists and engineers for using standard definitions of terms and expecting others in the field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are found in textbooks.
How would Bill react if my argument with him depended on my changing the definitions of revenue or fiduciary from their standard definitions to whatever I thought they should be mean instead!”
———————-
Nate you are now trying to create a strawman. I have been clear that the moon’s rotation can be broken down into conceptual elements as detailed by Newton (spin and orbit). I am not objecting to that in any way. I am not trying to change anything regarding how you define the conceptual elements of the moon’s rotation, or in isolation how you may want to treat that rotation focusing solely on the moon.
Yet you try to manufacture out of whole cloth that the existence of more than one element of a motion means that it represents more than one independent motion.
Of course you will deny that and continue to try to claim an orbital rotation is not really a rotation when in fact DREMT just above pointed out your own sources call it a rotation.
We have you admitting its a ”kind of rotational motion” which in fact means its a rotation. Yet instead of addressing DREMTS point that the moon has only ONE rotation you continue to ignore the orbital rotation and try to come up with a thousand excuses to exclude if from being a rotation.
Of course from a debate contest approach your argument has been reduced to a pig rotating slowly on a spit above a pit fire.
You keep rotating different sides of the pig to the fire and calling them two different pigs.
You should probably just give it up.
“We have you admitting its a kind of rotational motion which in fact means its a rotation.”
No. A body in orbit is not ‘a rotation around an external axis’. Because that has a specific meaning (Madhavi), and you don’t get to redefine it to suit your argument.
Just as I don’t get to redefine revenue to suit my argument. Or do I? I’m just ‘thinking outside the box’.
As I stated, the line between the two bodies is rotating. Not the body.
“Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum).”
There you go. An orbiting body has orbital angular momentum and could also have spin angular momentum.
Orbital angular momentum arises only from the body’s translational momentum at a distance, r, from the center. Then it is mvr. The body needs no rotation!
If the body also has rotation, then that is spin angular momentum.
“So, if “revolution/orbit” really is a
rotation around an external axis”
No no no no no! That does not follow.
An elliptical orbit plainly, obviously cannot ever be ‘a rotation around an external axis’.
See Madhavi for the 47th time!
as their own sources state, that means the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Here is the full quote, Nate:
"The special case of a rotation with an internal axis passing through the body’s own center of mass is known as a spin (or autorotation).[1] In that case, the surface intersection of the internal spin axis can be called a pole; for example, Earth’s rotation defines the geographical poles. A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1]
Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum)."
It clearly states that "orbital angular velocity" and "orbital angular momentum" relate to "a rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body". Not a translating body. A rotating body. So, I’m not sure why you’re saying "there you go", as if your source supports you, when it doesn’t…
…and, that’s my 10th comment of the day. So, that’s it from me until tomorrow.
Checkmate!
> We have you admitting its a “kind of rotational motion” which in fact means its a rotation.
Both buddies keep conflating pure rotation and rotation as a component of general motion. They might disagree on many other things, but they got at least this in common!
Alas, not every single rotation is a pure rotation.
There’s not a soul on the blog who has a clue what Little Willy is talking about right now. And, instead of elaborating, he’ll just accuse me of “playing dumb”.
He’s just t-word-ing.
Of course Graham D. Warner is playing dumb.
I spent years showing time and time again that he kept extrapolating from pure rotation to general motion. Take how he misconstrued what Flop was supposed to have shown. Or his recent claim that an object that spins and orbits presents all of its sides “whilst” it moves, which has been refuted many, many times already. Even his pet Truther refuted it in fact.
Or take his buddy’s recent “daddy issues” about how we should accept a more expansive conception of rotation, one that would allow ellipses to be pure rotations. Speaking of which, have we seen Graham D. Warner rubberstamp his buddy’s suggestion?
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
The colloquial use of the word ‘rotation’ to describe an orbit or a revolution obviously does not imply that an ‘orbit’ = ‘rotation around an external axis.’
For example, DREMT knows very well that the MOTR is an orbit, is a revolution, but is most certainly NOT a ‘rotation around an external axis’. That body is not rotating at all!
What an elliptical orbit or revolution has in common with ‘a rotation around an external axis’ is that
1. Both are repeating motions.
2. Both have angular momentum
What they do not have in common is
Only the ‘rotation around an external axis’ requires all parts of the body to move in concentric circles around the external axis.
“It clearly states that “orbital angular velocity” and “orbital angular momentum” relate to “a rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body”. Not a translating body.”
Well that is totally wrong.
Angular momentum is present in bodies translating past one another, with no rotation whatsoever.
The whole point of angular momentum is that it is conserved, and can produce rotation.
For example a kid translating at high speed toward the outer edge of a merry-go-round (MGR) and jumps onto it. As a result the MGR starts rotating.
Before and after have the system has the same angular momentum. This is how we can easily determine the angular velocity of the MGR.
So we know the kid in pure translation had angular momentum! And it was mvr, m =mass of kid, v = his velocity, r = his distance from the center of MGR as he jumps on.
This is standard physics. And you know I am a physicist.
Nate, movement like the MOTR could be either:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Obviously, if "orbit without spin" is "rotation about an external axis", as your own source suggests, then it’s a) for a celestial body moving as per the MOTR.
> movement like the MOTR could be either
Here is the error, in a nutshell. *Any* movement can be described by a series of rotations and translations. There’s no either-or that holds.
That is how Graham D. Warner conflates general motion and pure rotation. And this is why his pet GIF as always been pure bait.
About all I can follow from Little Willy’s comments is that he’s falsely accused me of misconstruing Ftop_t’s proof, and has misrepresented me by saying I claimed “an object that spins and orbits presents all of its sides “whilst” it moves”. Perhaps he could quote what I actually said, and try to appreciate the difference.
DREMT,
When a source says a rotation about an external axis is a revolution or orbit.
He is not saying an orbit is a rotation.
For example
All runners are athletes
does not mean
All athletes are runners.
The example given in Nate’s source was the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. As far as I’m aware, that’s an elliptical orbit. So, according to Nate’s source, an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis. But, you’re all deeply in denial about what Nate’s source said, as well as your own, bob.
What was your point again, exactly?
” So, according to Nates source, an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis. ”
FALSE. Quote that.
As I mentioned there are colloquial uses of the word rotation, particularly in publicly edited Wikipedia.
DREMT knows very well that there are plenty of orbits that are not ‘rotations around an external axis’, such as the MOTR.
So obviously any claim that an orbit is ‘a rotation around an external axis’ contradicts what DREMT already KNOWS.
And he also knows very well how a ‘rotation around an external axis’ has all parts of the body moving in concentric circles around the axis, according to HIS source, Madhavi.
And every other textbook discussing Rigid Body Dynamics agrees with this definition.
So his present approach to this argument seems to be: just play dumb.
And that makers it a dead end argument.
As usual, Nate’s method of debate is to avoid quoting the sentences of my comments that refute the points he makes. As one example, he yells “FALSE” and demands that I quote his source saying that an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis. Yet he didn’t quote from my comment where I pointed out that the example they use for an orbit (which they explicitly state is a rotation around an external axis) is the Earth around the Sun, which is an elliptical orbit!
Then he repeats his point about the MOTR, which I already refuted, without quoting from the comment refuting it!
> For example, DREMT knows very well that the MOTR is an orbit, is a revolution, but is most certainly NOT a rotation around an external axis. That body is not rotating at all!
YAHTZEE!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1686623
“and demands that I quote his source saying that an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis.”
Yes, where is it?
“Yet he didnt quote from my comment where I pointed out that the example they use”
Again, for the umpteenth time, an example is not a definition!
I don’t know why DREMT finds this concept so difficult.
“for an orbit (which they explicitly state is a rotation around an external axis) is the Earth around the Sun, which is an elliptical orbit!”
For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia is publicly edited. And there is much colloquial usage of the word rotate. It is not a textbook on rigid body dynamics.
Yet DREMT is quite familiar with one. Madhavi. And it does not agree, at all, period.
And for some reason he keeps ignoring this source in favor of Wikipedia, which can be edited by any ijit.
Then he repeats his point about the MOTR, which I already refuted, without quoting from the comment refuting it!
More denial, more excuses. He keeps muttering about “colloquial” usage even though it’s an article on rotation and it specifically says that “rotation about an external axis” is “revolution” or “orbit”. Nothing “colloquial” about it. He just can’t stand it! So he mentions Madhavi, which says nothing at all about “orbits” or “revolution”. Just going on and on about the “rotation has to be circular” thing, no doubt.
In the end, it simply doesn’t matter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685849
“So he mentions Madhavi, which says nothing at all about orbits or revolution. Just going on and on about the rotation has to be circular thing, no doubt”
Yes it clearly defines ‘rotation around and external axis’ in a way that is not consistent with elliptical orbits, or orbits containing NO rotation at all such as the MOTR.
As do all other such textbooks on Rigid Body Dynamics.
But when a publicly edited Wikipedia article gives an example inconsistent with these textbook definitions, DREMT chooses to believe the Wikipedia article!
Even though the article is internally inconsistent stating that in Astronomy ‘rotation’ is not applied to orbits or revolutions, only to the axial rotations of bodies.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1686623
In the end, it simply doesn’t matter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685849
Nate has completely ceased to make a kinematics or physics case for what an orbit is and is now 100% talking about what his daddy told him it is.
“In the end, it simply doesnt matter”
Which is an admission that the argument he has been pushing for days is a losing one.
Not at all. In fact, the argument has already been won that way. Your only counter is to keep pushing a strict definition of rotation being circular, as if that somehow means “orbits are translations” should be accepted as “correct” by default. But, you actually have nothing. Not a single reference saying “orbits are translations”. Not even a reference saying “orbits are motion of the CoM”!
It just doesn’t matter, though, because you don’t even have to think “orbits are rotations” to know that the “Non-Spinners” are correct. The whole “kinematics” approach is simply there to help get across the basic principle that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. You get that, right? As in, you must finally understand what my point 3) means, and that it is correct. Yes?
When an engineer or scientist gives instructions, e.g. ‘rotate the triangle 120 degrees around a point’ that instruction has no ambiguity. Because all scientists and engineers KNOW precisely what that means!
Here is the first quote from a link FTOP used to explain what a ‘rotation’ is.
“Rotation” means turning around a center:
The distance from the center to any point on the shape stays the same.
Every point makes a circle around the center”
https://web.archive.org/web/20231216174944/https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
So FTOP obviously agrees.
All of his graphical tools agree with this. When he tells it to ‘rotate’ the triangle 60 degrees around a point, every point on the triangle makes a circle around the center. The distance from the center to any point on the shape stays the same!
If saying ‘rotate the triangle around a point’ is a motion that allows points on the triangle to move further away from the axis, then engineers will be confused about what to do! The instruction is no longer clear and unambiguous.
See what I mean? It’s just the same thing over and over again. He just doesn’t listen to a word you say to him.
As a matter of fact, Ftop_t didn’t agree, and actually used Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
But, it really doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter! So, why are we still talking about the “orbits are rotations” thing? I already explained that it’s not necessary for “orbits to be rotations”, for the “Non-Spinners” to be correct.
“But, it really doesnt matter. It just doesnt matter!”
None of these arguments really matter. Science will carry on doing what has worked for centuries.
The only difference here is that you have realized this is a losing argument. And thus need an excuse to exit it.
My last post shows more evidence, it just keeps piling up!
Yet you keep denying this reality.
All you have to do is acknowledge that you were incorrect.
“As a matter of fact, Ftop_t didnt agree, and actually used Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.”
No. He programmed Desmos to perform a quasi-elliptical motion, that did not actually move like a planet in an orbit. It did not speed up at perihelion as real orbits do.
Then he called that a ‘rotation’.
So what? Is he a noted authority on this subject?
Any dude on this blog can declare their own truth, as he did there. He did not have a sound rationale.
But his posts are inconsistent. He linked to source that explained what a rotation is, and it made clear that it is circular motion!
He used graphical tools with commands such as ‘rotate the triangle around point P’, and always ALWAYS that resulted in a concentric circular motion of all points on the triangle.
Because there is simply no ambiguity about what the word ‘rotate’ means in science and engineering.
“None of these arguments really matter. Science will carry on doing what has worked for centuries.”
Not what I meant, as you know.
“The only difference here is that you have realized this is a losing argument. And thus need an excuse to exit it.”
False. See my previous comments.
“My last post shows more evidence, it just keeps piling up!”
Not at all. You just keep repeating yourself, and not listening to me.
“Yet you keep denying this reality. All you have to do is acknowledge that you were incorrect.”
Denying what reality? What am I incorrect about? You are the one denying:
a) What your own source states.
b) That I’ve already explained that the “orbits are rotations” thing is simply not a big deal to the “Non-Spinner” argument.
“No. He programmed Desmos to perform a quasi-elliptical motion, that did not actually move like a planet in an orbit. It did not speed up at perihelion as real orbits do. Then he called that a ‘rotation’.”
Nice goalpost shift. All he needed was to show that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. That’s exactly what he showed. If Desmos allows that, maybe it suggests rotations can be elliptical?
“But his posts are inconsistent. He linked to source that explained what a rotation is, and it made clear that it is circular motion! He used graphical tools with commands such as ‘rotate the triangle around point P’, and always ALWAYS that resulted in a concentric circular motion of all points on the triangle.”
Apart from the time he rotated it in an elliptical pattern.
Also, you’re aware that you can combine “rotation about an external axis” with “rotation about an internal axis”, right? It doesn’t have to always be movement like the MOTL. For instance, you can add clockwise rotation about an internal axis to anticlockwise rotation about an external axis and get movement like the MOTR, yes?
> All [Flop] needed was to show that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
Which he failed, for his trick broke isometry.
What is Graham D. Warner still doing here?
Of course it “broke isometry”, it was an elliptical pattern. It’s like you’re asking him to rotate an object in an elliptical pattern whilst making sure it’s a circular pattern! Your complaint has never made any sense.
I’m “still here” because I said I would leave when people stopped responding to me. They can’t stop responding to me. So here I still am.
“All he needed was to show that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. Thats exactly what he showed”
Exactly how did he show that?
And how can computer program prove a definition wrong?
Makes zero sense.
Maybe it proves that there is no need to desperately and obsessively hold to one specific detail of a definition like your entire life depended on it. Perhaps it proves that some mental flexibility is allowed. Possibly even encouraged!
So its clear that you cannot tell us how he did it. No need for you to know that for you to believe him?
“Maybe it proves that there is no need to desperately and obsessively hold to one specific detail of a definition like your entire life depended on it.”
I proudly admit that I live in the world of facts and sound logic. How bout you?
“Perhaps it proves that some mental flexibility is allowed. Possibly even encouraged!”
Sure if you realize that the facts do not support your argument, then make those facts ‘flexible’.
"So its clear that you cannot tell us how he did it. No need for you to know that for you to believe him?"
I can’t remember, Nate. It was years ago. I tried to look again recently using the "wayback machine" but the Desmos links no longer work, sadly. That’s a shame, as Ftop_t really put a lot of work into proving his points.
"I proudly admit that I live in the world of facts and sound logic. How bout you?"
Sure you do, Nate. Sure you do.
"Sure if you realize that the facts do not support your argument, then make those facts ‘flexible’."
The definition of "rotation" does not make or break the "Non-Spinner" position, Nate. As I’ve tried to tell you numerous times, but you’re not listening. "Orbit without spin" is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical, could be circular. If you don’t want to call that "rotation about an external axis" for elliptical orbits, then don’t. Just stick to "orbit without spin".
“If you dont want to call that “rotation about an external axis” for elliptical orbits, then dont. Just stick to “orbit without spin”.”
Not just me. Everyone in science and engineering expects the words ‘rotate’ and ‘rotation’ to have a precise meaning.
Otherwise totally unnecessary confusion would ensue, when these words are used!
If you say so, Nate. Will that be eternally all?
Orbit without spin” is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical”
What does ‘faces inside of the orbit’ mean ? No longer points to the Earth?
This is vague, how does one predict where that face will point at anytime during the the orbit?
How many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have, Nate? One, or two?
Astute readers might need to recall:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Neither the hammer nor the thrower are “spinning”
which implies that, according to his logic, that the Earth does not spin!
The thrower is just rotating about the barycenter, the Earth is rotating about the barycenter and spinning.
According to Graham D. Warner, Ethan is NOT spinning here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEQAb61QZE
Astute readers might wonder then what Ethan’s body does at the beginning and at the end of his throw.
This makes it perfectly clear, Little Willy:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
The barycentre is closer to the thrower, so it may look like they are spinning. The axis of rotation does not pass through their centre, though. It passes through the barycentre. Both thrower and hammer are rotating about that single, shared axis.
That is my ten comments for the day.
Anyone flexible enough could get that the GIF is a very basic model of what Ethan does. At the beginning, he mostly twirls his arms around, not unlike with Graham’s pet ball on string. And at the end, we clearly see Ethan’s body spin after he released the hammer.
By Graham’s logic, the Earth does not really spin – it is fixed around the Solar system’s barycenter…
I asked the questions:
“What does faces inside of the orbit mean ? No longer points to the Earth?
This is vague, how does one predict where that face will point at anytime during the the orbit?”
And your answer is:
“How many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have, Nate? One, or two?”
When challenged to answer questions about the Bailey, return to the safety of the Motte!
Hint: Librations are easily explained by the Spinner model.
No, Little Willy, that is not by my logic – as I already explained.
Nate, I’m just trying to get the thread back on topic. It’s not a good look when even Little Willy is more on topic than you are. I could re-answer your questions, and “do the libration dance” for the thirtieth time, but it would be a lot more interesting if you could answer the question I asked you weeks ago, further up-thread, and get things back on track…
So, wrt an inertial reference frame, how many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have? One, or two?
This subthread is actually about dismissing Cassini’s work because he was an astrologer.
So once again Graham D. Warner evades Nate’s question for no good reason.
Get real, Little Willy. I’m the one you’re all obsessed with, and my original point was that bob is not fit to declare himself a teacher, since he has been wrong for half a decade on something as simple as the number of axes of rotation that a ball on a string has. It would be nice if Nate could at least get one relevant comment in.
Looks like Binny did not fall for the Cassini bait once, but twice:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1687530
In fairness, the second time he himself injected it!
You took us off the topic from the BOS.
“Orbit without spin” is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical, could be circular.”
As usual, must’ve been an oops, because you can’t/won’t defend it, and need to succry back to the safety of the BOS!
And no, you guys have NEVER made a rationale argument explaining Librations from the non-spinner POV.
Librations for our Moon support the Spinner approach in two ways.
-The lunar rotation angular velocity is fixed while the orbital angular velocity is variable, proving that they are not ‘one single orbital motion’
-The rotation is around an axis tilted wrt the orbital axis. This can only be possible if the rotation is around an axis thru the Moon.
“You took us off the topic from the BOS.”
The permanent internet record shows that not to be the case, Nate. You have been pushing the discussion as far away from the ball on a string as you can, since you began responding to me. You wish to move the discussion on to things like libration (your motte) and avoid any of the difficult questions that relate to the ball on a string (your bailey).
Answering the question is a problem for you for two reasons:
1) An honest answer means Ball4 and bob are thrown under the bus, exposed as having been wrong for years on a simple issue, despite claiming they are here to teach.
2) You know where it leads if you give an honest answer…eventually you have to concede the ball on a string is objectively not spinning. Then we’re back on to viable physical models of “orbit without spin”, and you’re seriously in trouble.
“Orbit without spin is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical, could be circular.
So we’re just going to have to set aside these kinds of remarks as ‘stuff that DREMT says but is unable to defend.’
Because all you want to ever discuss is the BOS, which only effectively models a ball on a string.
So, wrt an inertial reference frame, how many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have? One, or two?
“So, wrt an inertial reference frame, how many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have? One, or two?”
Our Moon has an internal axis of rotation, tilted wrt to its orbital axis. TWO DIFFERENT AXES.
The BOS has nothing to say about these facts about our Moon. Nothing useful at all!
I said axes of rotation, Nate. Or are you now saying you think the moon rotates about an external axis!?
You will say anything to protect the others.
Look it is plainly obvious that you will avoid talking about our Moon anymore, because it is a no-win argument.
So you need to distract from it, with irrelevant discussion of anything but the Moon!
How bout your favorite Taylor Swift song?
I literally just talked about the moon, Nate. Our moon does not have two axes of rotation. “Synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.
“I said axes of rotation, Nate.”
I said orbital axis.
YOU have maintained an orbit is a rotation! Can’t make up your mind?
Nate, please stop being ridiculous.
1) Do you think our moon has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
2) Do you think a ball on a string has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
I don’t need to see anything else from you besides your one-word answer to each question. Thank you.
“I dont need to see anything else from you besides your one-word answer to each question. Thank you.”
Sounds more like a ‘want’ then a ‘need’.
And why should I care what you want?
What WE ALL want from you is evidence to support your years long claim that our Moon does not spin. Any evidence at all!
But we know that won’t be forthcoming.
And we understand that everything else about the stoopid BOS is a distraction from this main issue.
Answer the questions, or stop responding. Your choice. All I’m going to do from now until you either answer, or stop responding, is to repeat the request over and over again.
“”It does directly address your comment”
Nope. All you are doing is repeating your standard talking points, which is YOUR way of thinking, which we all know all too well.
But none of that addresses what the Video is saying, nor what its narrator is thinking, which, judging by his many statements, is not in agreement with your thinking.
He consistently states that our Moon is not rotating. While you have consistently stated that the MOTL and our Moon are rotating.
So, you cannot rebut my way of looking at it, and you’re reduced to assuming that the CSAItruth guy sees it the same way Gordon does – that translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL. That’s the only way you can see the movement of the MOTL as not involving any rotation at all (about either an internal or external axis).
It’s actually far more likely that the CSAItruth guy just means “spin”, or “rotation about an internal axis”, when he says the moon does not rotate. But, I know that once you’ve got an idea in your head, you’ll never see sense, so there’s no point talking to you, really.
Plus, you’ve responded in the wrong place.
New Mars study suggests an ocean’s worth of water may be hiding beneath the red dusty surface
https://www.koat.com/article/study-suggests-water-may-be-hiding-beneath-mars/61856141
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.
Mars may be drenched beneath its surface, with enough water hiding in the cracks of underground rocks to form a global ocean, new research suggests.
The findings released Monday are based on seismic measurements from NASAs Mars InSight lander, which detected more than 1,300 marsquakes before shutting down two years ago.
This water believed to be seven miles to 12 miles down in the Martian crust most likely would have seeped from the surface billions of years ago when Mars harbored rivers, lakes and possibly oceans, according to the lead scientist, Vashan Wright of the University of California San Diegos Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Just because water still may be sloshing around inside Mars does not mean it holds life, Wright said.
Instead, our findings mean that there are environments that could possibly be habitable,” he said in an email.”
It seems to me, the main reason to explore the Moon and Mars, is to understand Earth.
It seems to me, if US govt spend billions or trillion dollar trying to explore Earth, they would fail badly- just they have spent billions of dollars to study “climate change” and have failed badly.
We have studied “climate change” for centuries, without any goverental funding, and one could claim “some” progress was made, but rather than “help” governmental funding has frozen the effort.
But US govt does Cold war PR stunt to land of a man of the Moon, and all kinds of stuff is discovered about Earth.
A question is why does Earth have an ocean. It wasn’t that long ago, that it was assumed all planets and our Moon had oceans. And comparatively recent, that Mars had canals.
It seems generally, the reason why Earth has an ocean is because of global plate tectonics. And that it’s assumed most of the body Earth is quite dry. And the theory of plate tectonics, is new {in terms of a accepted theory, and it followed the Apollo program. Other new “theories” is Earth gets impacted by small space rocks {not something that was accepted]. And also huge space rocks given enough time, also impact Earth.
One could ask, whether NASA can explore the Moon. And other part of question, can NASA explore the Moon, then explore Mars.
What I think is significant about exploring the Moon, is can NASA do this {which is quite easy} and follow up with something harder, exploring Mars.
Or if NASA can’t explore the Moon, it will be proven, it can’t explore Mars.
More bad journalism, this time about a hypothesized underground ocean on Mars
https://behindtheblack.com/
Robert doesn’t like it.
I generally assume, we don’t have a clue
“What I think is significant about exploring the Moon, is can NASA do this {which is quite easy} and follow up with something harder, exploring Mars.”
NASA has been exploring Mars for several decades.
Most recently by the Perseverance rover, which has been persevering in its exploration of Mars for 3 years.
I think the title of this post is wrong. It should read: Festivus Celebration. That would be very descriptive. We have the following: Airing of Grievances, Feats of Strength (virtual of course), and Festivus Miracles (claims of things that not scientifically possible).
Am I making a statement of sarcasm or irony? I am not sure.
Calm down people. I have a sense of humor.
To all those who tend to believe the nonsense that a few Zharkovists are constantly spreading about an imminent Grand Solar Minimum:
Please be careful, especially if you live in Western Europe; our supposedly weak sun is extremely aggressive these days.
I have never used so much sunscreen material as this year.
Bindiclown’s science
Says the constantly abusive dachshund (which is why I gave him this name, as his behavior in this blog reminds me of that type of dog).
Heil Freedom of Speech!
Actually, Zharkova said there would more intense sunlight.
And she talking about cooling in the further future.
But nobody has been very accurate about weather in the future.
Which reminds me. What hurricane situation?
1/2 way thru August, and we might get some later.
Got, Ernesto tropical storm, and nothing on my side, now.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Anyhow, it’s suppose to turn into a hurricane
Would you please provide a citation of her claiming “there will be more intense sunlight”.
It was related to a paper in terms earth orbit and getting closer to sun, and thereby earth getting more sunlight, and related to Sun going around it’s barycenter.
Everyone knows this, but publishers, didn’t. She would endless complain about.
In terms of everyone, sunlight at Earth distances is:
1,413 1,321 watts per square meter
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
I mean it’s quite that simple, and everyone knows this.
“I mean its quite that simple, and everyone knows this.”
I mean its *not* quite that simple, and everyone knows this.
I generally say it’s about 1360 watts. At around Earth distance and in the vacuum space.
Also it didn’t post the hyphen:
1,413 – 1,321 watts per square meter.
‘Would you please provide a citation of her claiming there will be more intense sunlight.’
Think about what happens when the sun is more active. Higher UV and higher XRay; more intense sunlight.
Ken
Zharkova predicted that the sun would be LESS active.
gbaikie
Except the earth is NOT getting closer to the sun.
It is more like shift in seasonal distance timing
https://tinyurl.com/4fetk8nt
‘Zharkova predicted that the sun would be LESS active.’
She is showing solar is cyclical, sometimes more and sometimes less active. Projection is cooling over the next few decades followed by warming to higher levels as now.
For people who rather want to get informed than to follow simple-minded guesses, here is a real example explaining the ‘shift in seasonal distance timing’ and over which periods of time it matters:
Earth-sun distance dramatically alters seasons in equatorial Pacific in a 22,000-year cycle
https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/11/09/earth-sun-distance-dramatically-alters-seasons-in-equatorial-pacific-in-a-22000-year-cycle/
–Antonin Qwerty says:
August 14, 2024 at 3:48 AM
gbaikie
Except the earth is NOT getting closer to the sun.–
It seems we know that the Moon is getting further from Earth.
I am not sure, if we likewise “know” Earth is getting closer or further from the Sun.
But we “know” Earth’s orbit around the Sun, completely controls global climate- and CO2 levels “don’t”.
A tropical storm appears to have split over Puerto Rico into two storms.
D. Atmospheric CO2 Is Now Heavily Saturated, Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lindzen-Happer-Koonin-climate-science-4-24.pdf
It just means the effect is logarithmic.
For each doubling of CO2 the effect on warming is halved.
So if the first doubling since pre-industrial (280-560 ppm) results in, say, ~2C warming, then the next doubling (560-1120 ppm) will result in only a further ~1C warming.
The warming will still continues, just at a reduced rate.
Can you show how CO2 can warm Earth’s surface, from principles of physics?
Or are you just mesmerized by the word “logarithmic”?
Not quite.
Each doubling produces the same amount of warming.
If a doubling from 280-560 ppm produced 2C warming, the next doubling from 560-1120 ppm would also produce 2C warming.
What is halved is the effect of each quantity of CO2.
For the first doubling adding 280ppm produces 2C. For the second doubling it would take the addition of twice as much CO2, 560ppm, to produce the next 2C.
The “nail” got both the physics and the math wrong.
Ent at least got the math right.
But, the math means nothing when the physics is wrong….
The perfect example of an alarmist claim:
Op. Cit.
Let’s hope news media do not pick up on that kind of claim, for they do not understand how speculative it is.
“The recent experience in Sri Lanka which eliminated the use of nitrogen fertilizer is unfortunately another example of net zero ideology trumping science. Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa in April 2021 banned the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordered the countrys 2 million farmers to go organic.14 The result was disastrous. Its rice production has dropped more than 50%, while domestic rice prices have increased more than 80%.15 This is a real-life warning of the worldwide disaster that would result from eliminating fossil fuels.”
Not exactly alarmist when the facts fully support the claim.
Turning “another example” (there was no real other example) into “the facts” is doing most of the alarmist lifting here.
The Canadian Fertilizer Ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM
The Revolution of German Farmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2Yx7jV-H8
Dutch farmer protest: ‘Controlling the food supply is the best way to control people’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R2CdtLWGFk&t=4s
More fear mongering tactics presented as evidence, please.
The Insane Paris Climate Accord – Dr Roger Bezdek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxJfwWiherg&t=185s
ICLEI is a disastrous policy that every level of government is implementing. The buzzwords, ‘sustainability’ ’15 minute cities’ etc, all sound great on the surface but have massive sinister implications for rights and freedoms.
https://icleicanada.org/
Chris Sky explains 15 Minute City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ae9pPGx-s
The Revolution of German Farmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2Yx7jV-H8
Ken
For someone who has lived in Germany for over 50 years, this YouTube session is pure manipulation.
The vast majority of farmers have nothing in common with what Jordan Peterson dares to yutjub in their name.
*
You are simply naive enough not to understand that your Peterson boy is only talking about a minority of huge agricultural corporations that are shamelessly destroying German soil and groundwater resources in favor of unbridled meat production.
What do you plan to eat if the ‘unbridled meat production’ is ended?
Our meat food is less than 3-5 % of what we eat and we don’t really need it.
You, Ken, do.
I’d be very surprised to find that any of the ‘meat food’ is wasted; there is a demand for the product.
If people don’t have access to the ‘meat food’ they will want other food … which will put pressure on those crops.
Long overdue, Roy. I’m sure I speak for many when I say that we so enjoy having this forum, but it can be a little soul destroying to see someone attack a person because they have no argument to oppose the statement made.
The lid is off.
This is the most organized I’ve seen the Polar Vortex in years.
https://postimg.cc/FYvXQMX3
Comment count in 2024 threads.
1. W1llard 5847
2. Swens0n 4563
3. DREMT 3833
4. Nate 2407
5. G0rd0n 1738
6. Cl1nt 1615
7. B1ll Hunter 1396
8. B1nd1don 1135
9. b0bdr0ege 1121
10. gba1k1e 1102
11. Ball4 871
12. Ant0n1n Qwerty 709
13. Chr1st0s V0urnas 707
14. Barry 606
15. walterh03 603
16. RLH 555
17. T1m F0lkerts 538
18. Ell10tt B1gnell 530
19. Entr0p1c Man 529
20. Arkady Ivan0v1ch 518
21. E. Swans0n 422
22. Ireneusz Palm0wsk1 383
23. T1m S 305
24. bdgwx 298
25. N0rman 257
26. Ken 256
27. Eben 190
28. Stephen P Anders0n 162
29. J0hn W 122
30. Cra1g T 104
The aim of the first three is to stomp on all conversation.
Same animal, different clothing.
AQ made 42 comments so far in the thread, most of them playing the ref or asking for room service. Including the last one, and also the rant in which we can read:
(AQ) One thing I find very distasteful is this continual addressing of people in the third person.
I presume he acquired a new taste.
***
Also, AQ’s conclusion isn’t supported by his accounting alone. It also omits that we entered a new regime recently. Now that MF and GR left us for greener pastures, suddenly AQ wrote more than twice my number of comments in the last open thread.
Which goes on to show that no good deed goes unpunished.
In the first thread post Flynn, you made 99 comments to my 3.
Who was it who referred to special pleading?
Their presence does not cause anyone to make 1300+ posts in a month, mostly fluff. That comes from an obsession for having the last word, something you NEVER concede in a two-way contest.
I thought you had learned what “addressing someone in the third person” means. Looks like I was wrong. Your comment has it, mine doesn’t. Trump university?
I again grant you your obsession, on the house. Perhaps you will surprise me by being a big man and ignoring me. But I highly doubt it – you’re too insecure.
I’m not a real moderator. Real moderators are able to just delete any comments they feel like, on a whim, to indulge their fantasies of having some sort of control over other people. Real moderators are here to censor, and suppress freedom of expression. I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write “please stop t-word-ing,” it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my “please stop t-word-ing”.
I think what people are really upset about by the “please stop t-word-ing” is…they don’t get to have the last word.
^^ My impersonator strikes again ^^
YOUR impersonator … hahaha … what a joke. Karma strikes.
Yes, my impersonator. I have somebody who posts comments under my name. Nobody else would put up with it, but there you go. I am a nice guy, so I let it slide.
It is NOT your name.
Perhaps AQ missed when I asked him to stop pretending that we’re in speaking terms.
Special pleading would be to respond to “Now that MF and GR left us for greener pastures” to “in the first thread post MF” while forgetting to mention that GR was in that thread, throwing a tantrum. Not that there isn’t anything special about MF or GR. For instance, in that thread we can read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681487
That’s about half of Graham D. Warner’s comments there.
Of the 1608 comments in that July thread, Graham D. Warner made 376, GR made 119. Many being mere verbal abuse directed at me, after which he disappeared. And then there’s Puffman, whose number of comments are in the same order as GR.
Add these three together and we reach 605 comments. That’s something like 37% of the comments.
Who wrote the remaining comments? The usual suspects: Bob and Nate with 136 each, I had 99, Binny 88 (inauspicious), Tim 84, Richard 66 (almost inauspicious), Christos 61, EM 59, gb 46.
That’s a grand total of 1380 comments. I will let others account for the remaining 300 comments {1}. Now, put gb, Richard, and Christos on the contrarian side {2}, and we get 376 + 66 + 61 + 46 = 549 comments. Compare that number to Team Science’s side, where we have 136 + 136 + 99 + 88 + 84 = 543 comments.
Now, there are many ways to interpret this result. Could be a coincidence. Could be that people who interact tend to pair up comments. The last hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that Graham establishes some kind of comment parity with his PSTering.
Lots of theories.
***
To see the dynamic in action at a smaller scale, take Binny’s comment after which MoonBall got resurrected:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683142
Then follows 43 comments. Out of the 322 comments in this thread about Roy’s policy. I won’t count who replies to whom. Astute readers already get the idea.
Alternatively, one might wish to compare AQ’s comments with mine, and see how our mutual numbers converge now that he has set himself as Roy’s Hall Monitor.
{1} I apologize if I miss anyone else with more than 50 comments.
{2} We could put gb in his class of its own, as Roy’s free particle.
My aim is not to stomp on all conversation – I just seem to attract a lot of people keen to respond to me, so end up in lengthy back and forths.
That is NOT what explains your high comment count, and you know it.
How many PSTs, then?
DREMT is one of the most polite commenters here. He’s both polite AND patient.
I’m polite, but nowhere as patient. I tend to lose patience with people that refuse to grow up. Someone that ignores reality is a child. And, I respond accordingly….
How am I supposed to distinguish between you and Flynn in a count of PSTs?
I just did a brute-force count of your posts in the May Temperature report, and 43% of your posts were PSTs. This included interrupting posts that were purely about science. You complain about moderation, yet you insist on doing your own personal proxy moderation.
The majority of my comments are part of long back and forths between multiple commenters and myself. Prove me wrong.
“Majority” means 51%.
My count shows you are doing slightly better than that.
I would estimate I made 800 PSTs this year. Leaving just over 3000 comments as due to what I am claiming they are due to.
“I would estimate”
Why would anyone believe you?
II guess they wouldn’t, because a lot of people only see the PSTs. That’s because they maybe don’t even realise how involved I get in discussions that are happening "up-thread", out of sight of where the comments have currently got to. For example, I doubt anyone’s even aware that there is still a heated discussion going on between Ball4, Nate and myself on one of the older articles that everyone else has moved on from.
If my percentage of PSTs is really at 42% then that would be 1600 PSTs, or about 200 per month. That seems too high from my recollection, although I certainly could be wrong. 100 a month seems more in line with what I think I’ve done.
Like I said; I could be wrong, but it’s an honest estimate. I’ll let someone driven by their intense hatred and desire to prove me wrong about anything, ever, do the actual counting.
You mean driven by a desire to get this site cleaned up.
Done the count and found it was close to 800, then, Antonin?
“I guess they wouldn’t”
The truth comes out.
The truth is, my genuine estimate is 800. Feel free to prove me wrong instead of just insinuating I’m a liar all the time.
Nice job putting this list together, AQ. Maybe in a couple of months or at the end of the year, we can see an updated version of this list.
I remember when DREMT posted a comment complaining about being impersonated. Dr Spencer wrote a reply suggesting that someone pretending to be a moderator should not complain about someone pretending to be him (words to that effect).
More to the point, I would be interested to see a word count ratio if that is possible. Number of posts / number of words. Many of those high number posts are just short insults back and forth using their favorite pet names for each other. GR would be just the opposite with a huge word count per post.
Any one of you would be up in arms if somebody posted using your screen name.
I was convinced for a long time that you were real and rather rude for a mod. You are the prime example of how much people can get away with on this site. You have no basis for complaint. You do not own the user name unless Dr Spencer wants you to own it. Your complaint is with him alone.
Thanks, but I’m a good person.
Any one of you would be up in arms if somebody posted using your screen name.
> Dr Spencer wrote a reply
Here:
http://tinyurl.com/roy-speaks-to-graham-d-warner
Emphasis on the operative word.
In that thread, Graham wrote 821 comments. He PSTered 59 times. Which may not be representative. In this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comments
there are 24 comments by Graham D. Warner, all PSTs, most of them belated.
You can all relax. I won’t be commenting for much longer, anyway. I have other things going on in my life right now and this is one of the things that has to go. I’m sure I’ll check in from time to time, just to make sure you’re all behaving yourselves.
So, Little Willy, Antonin – you can drop the incredibly transparent attempts to try to get me banned. I’m leaving soon, anyway. OK? You can celebrate in your “alarmist/warmist” echo chamber that you’ve always wanted. You can all spend your days debating exactly how bad things are going to be.
Have fun.
DREMT, in my teamwork training and on-the-job experience, we are taught not to take ownership of our comments. Realize this would be in a problem solving environment, but the concept is that an idea is put on the table without ownership and open to debate of all kinds. That improves participation so that shy people will not fear rejection and it promotes open discussion because you criticize the idea without criticizing the person. It works only if the idea was put on the table without prejudice or cheer leading that it has to the best idea. The group will decide by consensus (not here they won’t — LOL). That is the way I try to operate here and why I can usually just walk away from rude or incompetent comments.
Good luck!
TimS, the reason you keep blowing your own horn is because you have NO science
But, please continue.
“Im leaving soon, anyway. OK? You can celebrate in your alarmist/warmist echo chamber that youve always wanted.”
Because Spencer is watching, and you know it will be much harder to get away with your usual antics.
Wrong, John W. Not why I’m leaving, and I don’t get up to any “antics” for Dr Spencer to worry about anyway.
DREMT
The quote from Dr Spencer that you have been presented with shows that claim to be false.
If you say so, Antonin.
What do you not understand about “Somebody is impersonating me again. Not sure why that’s deemed to be acceptable.” ?
Do you need a word explained?
As those were my words, not Dr Spencer’s, I don’t need any of them explained, Antonin.
In answer to Dr Spencer’s point, the difference is:
1) I never thought people would actually believe I was a real moderator. There is no genuine imitation attempt being made.
2) People’s screen names are part of their online identity. If anyone can just post as anyone else, it completely undermines the entire functioning of the blog.
There is no need to think that when Roy used the word *impersonate* he believed that Graham D. Warner was fooling anyone. Only that it does not connote a Good Thing. The obvious implication is that Graham ought to stop. But then Graham has been resisting the most obvious implications since the time he started to comment here, under various sock puppets.
These people never concede anything, or ever apologise, for their mistakes. They just drift off to another thread to falsely accuse you of something else. Where’s Antonin to acknowledge he got it wrong?
Graham D. Warner has no real response to the evidence and the analysis offered, and so he tries to burden me with what AQ said.
It would be interesting to know why he commented under DREMT at Ed Berrys.
I was actually just trying to ignore you, not “burden” you with what Antonin said. I agree that Dr Spencer is implying that impersonating a member of his “moderation team” is not a good thing, but as I already said, there is no genuine attempt to impersonate a member of his “moderation team”. Otherwise, I would have picked a more serious name.
Sometimes Graham D. Warner fails at ignoring. Sometimes he succeeds.
He succeeds at ignoring what Roy hinted.
He succeeds at ignoring that he commented at Ed’s under a perfectly fine moniker.
His successes at ignoring outshine his failures.
All personal remarks, all the time.
Let’s see how personal that syllogism is:
P1. Graham D. Warner should respect Roy’s will.
P2. Roy hinted that he disliked his actual moniker.
P2. “DREMT” (like he used at Ed’s) is a perfectly fine moniker.
C. Graham D. Warner could use the “DREMT” moniker.
P.S:
“The aim of the first three is to stomp on all conversation”
Why is Nate exempt from this accusation? At 2407 comments he’s not exactly slacking himself, this year.
Nate acts like a politician. I would not be surprised if he serves as an elected official or as a volunteer in his local government. Given how strongly he argues his position, he is also one of the more polite people who usually sticks to the message rather than personal stuff.
So do I, but I still got the false accusation that my aim was to “stomp on all conversation”. I just wondered why Nate was exempt.
Your PSTs are NOT polite. Why can’t you get that into your thick skull.
Even if that were true, Antonin, 80% of my contributions are not PSTs, are about the topics others bring up, and are “sticking to the message rather than personal stuff”. Of course, when people attack me personally, as they so often do, then I defend myself, and thus the conversation is moved onto “personal stuff”. That’s hardly my fault.
Right, because nothing is ever your fault is it. You’re like one of those annoying weeds at school who continually pester people then wonder why they keep getting smacked in the face. Just clueless.
“But sir, I only fart 20% of the time”.
Wrong, Antonin. Some of those PSTs were inappropriate. I take full responsibility for that. I’m sure you can find many examples where nothing bad was said, but I still PSTd. That was wrong.
I’m sure maybe one day you can even take responsibility for your own actions, too.
ALL are inappropriate.
Even IF it was only 800, that is more than ALL my comments this year. More than 100 per month.
You NEVER apply it to obvious T-ing by those on your side of the fence. In a tit-for-tat exchange you skip right over the likes of Flynn and co. And it is T-ing in its own right.
“ALL are inappropriate.”
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. There’s a lot of t-word-ing that goes on from the people I ask to stop. One person, in particular, who probably accounts for at least 50% of all my PSTs…
“You NEVER apply it to obvious T-ing by those on your side of the fence. In a tit-for-tat exchange you skip right over the likes of Flynn and co. And it is T-ing in its own right.”
Part of the point of PSTs is to mimic and criticise the tribalism and ultimate futility of the climate debate. I assumed people would get that.
> I’ll let someone driven by their intense hatred and desire to prove me wrong about anything, ever, do the actual counting […] One person, in particular, who probably accounts for at least 50% of all my [PSTering]
Is that a third-person address, or is it too informal for the superintendent?
What Ant does not recognize is the quality DREMT has brought to this blog.
He has spent hours patiently negating the nonsense from silly willy. That ties up silly willy so he can’t interfere with the adults.
I don’t have the patience to do the same with my stalkers….
Interesting definition of “quality”.
So much hatred, so little reason for it.
Indeed DREMT. There is no need for the hatred you express every time you post PST.
No hatred at all, Antonin.
To answer my own question, “the superintendent” is a third-person address in the usual sense of the term. It is a direct address. It is in the third person.
Let the mind probing contest continue.
Is Little Willy addressing me, or Antonin? What exactly is his point?
Who knows?
Perhaps Graham D. Warner missed all the fuss about third-person addresses.
“The superintendent” can’t refer to him. First, I *never* address him directly. Second, he doesn’t try to moderate the blog.
He’s just having a little fun.
If you all stop responding to me, I will stop commenting. Simple, huh?
Graham D. Warner’s departure seems delayed once again.
Up to you guys. If you can let me go, I will go.
“If you all stop responding to me, I will stop commenting. Simple, huh?”
So long as DREMT has the very last word. Because that is all that really matters to him.
Bless them.
Crap,
I didn’t even make the top 20!
Stay away from the Welsh and next year is yours!
BTW, someone else in that list apart from Swens0n is blocked.
My comment wouldn’t post, even after changing the o in Flynn’s name to zero. I couldn’t be bothered experimenting, so I changed ALL the other o’s to zeroes and all the I’s to ones, and it posted.
Does anyone know who that person is?
I’m not sure, but how would you go about ‘experimenting’?
Changing one at a time until it posted.
Elliott Bignell? No, I guess not.
Another flaw in the cult’s “thinking” is their definition of “science”. To cultists, “science” is whatever they believe. That’s why I started stating “That ain’t science”.
In reality, science is verifiable, observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.
Clint R,
What part of “The Moon doesn’t rotate” fits into all that?
Rhetorical question, the answer is a territory in Canada, Nunavut.
Stephen,
” most of the water vapor is low altitude and the same with CO2 so it is concentrated down near the surface”
The radiation from the surface is absorbed and thermalized within the first few meters of the atmosphere, driving convection which increases the rate of cooling of the surface
Thanks, Phil,
Makes sense and I agree with that. The more I study the planet’s physics, the more I believe that it is albedo that controls temperature. CO2 has an insignificant effect on temperature. I believe that CO2 mostly follows temperature changes. I don’t know how much GHE contributes to temperature and neither does anyone else. It is low watt meters whereas albedo changes can be over a hundred watt meters from day to day.
Here are the 2023 counts. I have not bothered to include individuals who have not been posting in 2024.
1. Willard 7324
2. DREMT 5673
3. Nate 4604
4. Swens0n 4177
5. Gordon 3634
6. Bill hunter 3507
7. RLH 2743
8. Clint 2678
9. gbaikie 2159
10. Bindidon 1991
11. barry 1743
12. Antonin Qwerty 1401
13. bobdroege 1164
14. Ball4 1011
15. Entropic man 812
16. Ireneusz Palmowski 746
17. E. Swanson 741
18. Tim Folkerts 675
19. Norman 558
20. Eben 534
21. Ken 485
22. Arkady Ivanovich 450
23. Tim S 412
24. Christos Vournas 404
25. bdgwx 375
If the job wasn’t way, way too stoopid to be done, I would download 7324 posts and show us how many of these might be considered ‘extremely inauspicious‘, he he he…
Some people really have an unattainable level of arrogance and egocentrism.
The only extremely inauspicious number known so far is 1488.
Look it up.
Again, probably about 20% PSTs, or less, putting my number of actual contributions below Nate and above Swens0n. The vast, vast majority of the actual contributions being polite and reasonable even in the face of overwhelmingly aggressive and relentless personal criticism, false accusations, misrepresentations, condescension, and general abuse.
Thanks for admitting that your PSTs contribute absolutely nothing.
It reads well when somebody is t-word-ing away, and then the thread ends with a PST. I think it can be quite effective at showing the t-word-ing up for what it is. So I wouldn’t say there is absolutely no contribution. I just don’t consider them my “real” contribution to the blog. Feel free to be permanently outraged by those three little words, though, making the biggest fuss about it I’ve ever seen.
It does no such thing. All it does is give you a reason to toss.
IMO it does, IYO it doesn’t. That’s fine, opinions differ.
Of course, if you believe your opinion is fact, then…
*Showing* is so important to Graham D. Warner that he goes back many days later to PSTer dead threads. He does it in small batches of 5-10 comments. This way he does not get caught by the spam filter.
He is just having a little fun.
"He does it in small batches of 5-10 comments. This way he does not get caught by the spam filter."
That’s false, Little Willy.
Also, the reason I go back to dead threads is because of the t-words here who like to do the same thing with actual responses to dead threads. They like to write actual, detailed responses to people who have clearly moved on further down-thread, and most likely won’t even see their response. Just so they can get the last word. So my dead thread PSTs are mocking that behaviour.
Graham D. Warner’s farewell is lingering, and astute readers with an RSS feed who understand how the spam filter works can verify that I’m right, whether Graham D. Warner’s PSTering behavior is fully conscious or not.
He is just having a little fun.
My "farewell" will take as long as it takes. I’m going though, so you can drop the whole "trying to get me banned" thing.
> They like to write actual, detailed responses to people who have clearly moved on further down-thread
Exactly like here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/#comment-1683766
It is quite clear that TS left the building less than 30 minutes after he wrote his comment.
If you say so, Little Willy.
And for some, the egocentrism goes so far that they feel like they are being addressed even though they are not at all – was the number above not clear enough?
Why the heck can’t this pseudo-moderator just stop his endless egocentric whining?
If I had been replying to you I would have hit the reply button next to your name, Bindidon. Instead, I was replying to Antonin’s original post.
Agreed, my bad.
Oh the hypocrisy. Posting your PST BS without regard to anyone’s opinion, then expecting others to respect who you WANT to hear back from. You have ZERO sense of what is fair and appropriate.
Huh? What have I done wrong this time? Lol, this is getting ridiculous. Bindidon just acknowledged his mistake, nothing more needed to be said.
So let me get this right … you can jump in on any post uninvited, yet everyone else must wait until you address them directly before replying to you … is that right?
No. You are so blinded by hatred you can no longer even follow a simple exchange.
Ant’s effort to defame DREMT, in light of Willard’s pathetic performance for 2023-2024, tells us Ant’s agenda.
> pathetic
I would have preferred a 1-to-5 ratio, Puffman, but a 1-to-3 ratio is more than fine. AQ is having a hard time getting to a 1-to-2 ratio as we speak. And he busted the 10 comments limit multiple times already.
DREMT
So you can’t even answer a simple question.
(1) Are YOU permitted to jump in on a post uninvited?
(2) Does someone else have to wait until you address them before joining in?
Yes or no to each please.
(1) Yes. Anyone can jump in, in any discussion.
(2) No.
Now, onto what actually happened. Bindidon, at 5:27 AM, thought I had written my 5:03 AM comment to him, because it followed his 4:16 AM comment. However, I wasn’t actually replying to Bindidon, I was replying to your 12:47 AM comment. So his 5:27 AM rant against me was misplaced. As soon as I explained that to him, he admitted his mistake.
So, there’s no problem.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Anyone can jump in, in any discussion.
[PUFFMAN] And I wont be responding to your next stalking effort. As someone one said Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Point?
Remember the years Graham D. Warner spent calling Nate “my stalker”?
Those were the days
Anyone can jump in, in any discussion. That is just how the blog works. However, when specific people follow you around from thread to thread, always jumping in whenever you comment on anything, it does seem like they’re stalking you.
So only Graham D. Warner is always permitted to jump in on a post uninvited.
Wrong. You’re not listening. You, bob, Nate and Ball4 are all welcome to stalk me, and I am allowed to criticise you for it. That’s how it works. You can all whinge endlessly about PSTs, I’m allowed to defend myself.
Graham D. Warner does not always use the word “stalking,” but when he does it’s a welcoming gesture.
If you say so, Little Willy.
When AQ was asking Graham D. Warner was *permitted* to join in and pile on anywhere in the blog, AQ was of course asking about the capacity to click on “reply” and post a comment.
He was asking a mere technical question, no doubt.
What’s the overly critical nonsense this time, Little Willy? I can’t keep up with all the endless hatred.
Astute readers should never fear:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/#comment-1683938
So here we are. According to Graham D. Warner:
R1. Everybody is “permitted” to jump in, in any discussion.
R2. When when specific people follow you around from thread to thread, always jumping in whenever you comment on anything, it does seem like theyre stalking you.
R3. Except for PSTering, which doesn’t count.
Yep.
Based on this list of names and without needing to replace 0s with Os or 1s with Is, I was able to narrow down the banned individual to five possible candidates on your 2024 list: #15, #18, #28, #29 (myself), or #30.
If you post too many comments with a banned word in a short time, the spam filter kicks in. You won’t be able to post anything. That also voids your test.
When that happens, wait for about 30 minutes.
Where is Antonin to acknowledge he got it wrong again?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683751
I’ve not read comments here a lot. What’s striking here now is fighting pairs that can’t leave stuff uncommented.
I suggest a daily limit could help combined with some hand moderation like Jo Nova does.
Also, killing off-topic personal vendetta is important. It’s not just insults, but focus on the person.
You presume something that, if it ever existed, would have made our predicament impossible.
For interested readers: here is a comparison of the last three solar cycles (monthly averages with 13 month running means), based on the Belgian SILSO data.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZXKy96mHyuMttcg2vy7k0b3DeLfKzmML/view
The dashed line links SILSO’s last official monthly value with the monthly average of their daily estimated international sunspot number (EISN) for the current month. It’s non-committing of course and can change during the month.
*
Slowly but surely, solar cycle SC 25 is moving toward the prediction made by McIntosh & al.
Deciphering solar magnetic activity: The (solar) hale cycle terminator of 2021
Scott W. McIntosh, Robert J. Leamon and Ricky Egeland (2023)
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523/pdf
*
We can watch the comparison of SC 25 to their prediction at any time, updated daily by a group around C. Mstl (GeoSphere Austria):
https://helioforecast.space/static/sync/icme_solar_cycle/cycle25_prediction_focus.png
Damnd blog scanner 😡 🔥 🦂
Please read Möstl
I don’t fancy the chances of going close to 180. I think this is the last hurrah before the peak.
The longer it takes to get to the peak, the weaker the cycle in general, and this has been a long climb. I can’t see it going much higher than 150. I hope I’m wrong though – it would be good to put that “winter is coming” BS to bed for good.
BTW – that McIntosh paper. In the opening paragraph, why are they giving 1sigma as +/- 17, and 2sigma as +/- 63?
” … why are they giving 1sigma as +/- 17, and 2sigma as +/- 63? ”
What’s wrong there?
Antonin Qwerty
” I cant see it going much higher than 150. ”
I will wait until August 2025 to agree.
If 1 standard deviation is 17 then 2 standard deviations is 34.
68% and 95% are the confidence intervals for 1sd and 2sd respectively.
You do realize that standard deviation is only relevant to the arithmetic mean?
WTH are you on about. What mean of sunspot counts do you BELIEVE is being taken? Do you think the monthly averages are geometric means?
In any case, variance (and hence standard deviation) is calculated for ALL probabilistic and statistical distributions.
You didn’t do statistics did you?
“Variance and Standard deviation are the two important topics in Statistics. It is the measure of the dispersion of statistical data. Dispersion is the extent to which values in a distribution differ from the average of the distribution.”
https://byjus.com/maths/standard-deviation/
https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mode/
“Though we commonly use the word average in everyday life when discussing the number that’s the most ‘typical’ or that’s ‘in the middle’ of a group of values, more precise terms are used in math and statistics.”
Search for the Levene test, Richard.
RLH
I not only studied statistics, I TEACH statistics.
Nothing you just quoted speaks against anything I said.
AQ: Though we commonly use the word average in everyday life when discussing the number that’s the most ‘typical’ or that’s ‘in the middle’ of a group of values, more precise terms are used in math and statistics.
“‘Mean,’ ‘Median,’ And ‘Mode’: What’s The Difference?”
“Namely, the words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole.”
Yet more irrelevance.
A reminder – you implied that the arithmetic mean is not used with this data. Whackamole anyone?
The arithmetic mean is what the running mean is usually based on.
Which is EXACTLY what I said.
So what was the point of “You do realize that standard deviation is only relevant to the arithmetic mean?”
As a statics teacher you should NEVER use ‘average’ in statics conversation.
Are you saying that standard deviation is taking about something than arithmetic mean?
I’ll ask again:
What was the point of You do realize that standard deviation is only relevant to the arithmetic mean?
Recall that I had not used the word “average” when you made that statement.
“The Version 6 global AVERAGE lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2024 was …”
Make your you have a go at Dr Spencer for that. Tell him that he should know better.
Antonin Qwerty
” BTW that McIntosh paper. In the opening paragraph, why are they giving 1sigma as +/- 17, and 2sigma as +/- 63? ”
*
Please read this:
https://q-interline.com/technology/statistics/
Maybe it helps… :–)
Bindidon
That page seems to be saying precisely what I said.
I agree that the sentence
” Slowly but surely, solar cycle SC 25 is moving toward the prediction made by McIntosh & al. ”
might be misunderstood.
But between ‘moving toward’ and e.g. ‘reaching soon’ there is imho a huge difference.
Running mean again. Even though others have said that they contain ‘way too much distortion’.
Yet the SSN is PRECISELY a running mean.
Can you find any issue with saying the average number of sunspots per day up to this point in SC25 is 73, compared with 53 up to the same point in SC24? Or is that also a distortion?
Or how about … it will take an EXTRA 10 months of SC24 to catch up to the total number of sunspots SO FAR this cycle? Is that a distortion?
You know that ‘average’ covers a lot in statistics?
What do you THINK I meant? I’ll wait …
> Yet the SSN is PRECISELY a running mean.
Has anyone invited this comment?
What distortions do you think a running mean is subject to? What distortion level do you think that a running mean causes?
You made the claim. You answer your question.
Answer mine while you’re at it.
“Namely, the words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole.”
Are you saying that the running mean causes NO distortions? See Vaughn Pratt.
You made the claim … you answer the question.
I have answered it.
“The words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole”
As a statistics teacher you should know better.
Your quote is correct, but it has nothing to do with your claim.
You have not answered your question.
I have. Show me where I did not answer it?
“The words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole“
The words mean, median, and mode are all used as ‘average’ in non statistics conversation.
I don’t see the word “distortion” anywhere in that quote.
So you have NOT answered the question.
See Vaughn Pratt.
I’ll take that as an admission that you did not in fact answer the question.
Antonin Qwerty
I think you’ll have no chance in discussing technical facts with RLH whom I renamed ‘Blindsley H00d’ for good reasons.
*
Look at what he writes:
” Running mean again. Even though others have said that they contain way too much distortion. ”
*
As always, instead of trying to contribute to the points discussed, the stubborn, pathologically opinionated Blindlsey H00d can’t refrain from putting himself and his ‘science’ in front of the exchange.
We can read in one of his recent posts: ‘I was taught simple statistics as part of my MSc’. Ah well ah well.
His aim is simple: to focus into what he learned from a Climate etc guest post presented in 2013 by a blogger named Greg Goodman: that simple running means are evil, and that the entire world should use cascaded running means instead.
Even worse: StanU Emeritus Prof. Vaughan Pratt wrote in that thread that he would not wish simple running means on his worst enemy.
Since then, from Blindlsey H00ds point of view, anyone who uses simple running means should be pilloried, to say the least.
Blindsley H00d speaks since years about running mean distortions in general – without however having ever been able to show even once the presence of any of them in the data of any time series we discuss on the blog.
The difference between simple and cascaded running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification is negligible (see the umpteenth, lengthy discussion starting on July 21, 2024 at 6:04 PM).
Rather, he proudly refers to authorities (statisticians, Wikipedia, bloggers), e.g.
An SMA can also be disproportionately influenced by old data dropping out or new data coming in.
or even better
” 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. ”
*
Note that he wouldn’t dare to contact e.g. the SILSO team and ask them about their definitely illegal use of a running mean, let alone criticize Roy Spencer for using them too.
*
The very best is that he even these days still won’t have understood why I recently posted this UAH data graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Zs4u1sjqnN3EoDTjtEX7GM5uCjUiTCu/view
He sidesteps claims he has made and posts irrelevances as “explanations”. He clearly has little intuition for basic statistics.
As usual Blinny fails to note the what I quoted came from VP.
AQ: I use points instead of lines on a graph precisely because of what my statistics professor said.
What “lines” are you referring to?
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
instead of what Roy et al post.
Now you’re doing a ren. I have no idea what your graph is supposed to be telling me.
Use WORDS. What are these “lines”?
The lines where there is no data. i.e. between the points.
Is Blinny saying that the Wiki is wrong? Yet fails to correct it?
” As usual Blinny fails to note the what I quoted came from VP. ”
Oh oh oh…
Did I not write above:
” Even worse: StanU Emeritus Prof. Vaughan Pratt wrote in that thread that he would not wish simple running means on his worst enemy. ”
Maybe Blindsley H00d forgot that ‘VP’ is his own acronym for the person I highlighted above, who knows?
After all, people like Robertson forget everything they have written after a week at the latest.
*
What Blindsley H00d intentionally forgets to tell us, however, is that, unlike me, he never asked Vaughan Pratt what he thinks these days about cascaded versus simple running means – in comparison to what he wrote over 10 years ago.
*
Blindsley H00d reminds me here again of Robertson, who years ago read a NOAA document archived by Amazon’s crawling robot Alexa, and is still ‘convinced’ that NOAA today only uses the 1,500 weather stations it had for a brief period around 2008, after abandoning 4,500 stations worldwide that only transmitted their data manually.
*
Slowly but surely the mental difference between RLH on the one hand and Robertson or Clint R on the other is shrinking to… zero point zero.
” Is Blinny saying that the Wiki is wrong? Yet fails to correct it? ”
As always, Blindsley H00d polemically, disingenuously insinuates things instead of technically arguing.
I never told that Wiki’s statement is wrong. Hence no reason for me to correct it.
*
I told – and tell again – that Blindsley H00d even these days still doesn’t understand why I recently posted this UAH data graph showing aqbsolute temperatures instead of anomalies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Zs4u1sjqnN3EoDTjtEX7GM5uCjUiTCu/view
Any 10-year-old child would immediately recognize that not only the simple running mean but also the cascaded running mean behaves inversely to the source in many places, and that cascades therefore behave just as incorrectly as simple means. Blindsley H00d, however, cannot recognize or accept this. No wonder!
Blinny also said “The difference between simple and cascaded running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification is negligible” did he not?
Blinny also fails to recognize that running means let through WAY too much high frequency. Such I (and Wiki) said.
“showing absolute temperatures” which shows data (between the data points) which does not exist.
Oh look…
” https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
instead of what Roy et al post. ”
*
Blindsely H00d aka RLH is probably one of the only few people in the world who ridiculously represent time series as sets of points instead of intelligently connecting them with lines.
Doing this namely allows observers to not only see how these dots form visible time series, but also to distinguish which time series they belong to when several are shown on the same image.
There may well be reasons why he insists on this clueless, lineless representation, for example:
– to emphasize his cascades at the expense of the original data so that only the cascades are perceived by the reader
or
– simply the inability of the system he uses to represent the lines that we lack.
*
I will never forget how Blindsley H00d responded years ago to my request to display UAH and RSS data not in separate graph images, but together in one image:
https://imgur.com/a/Y96Ph5O
This explains a lot, doesn’t it?
” Blinny also said
‘The difference between simple and cascaded running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification is negligible’ did he not? ”
*
Yes I did, and Blindsley H00d was never able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict what I wrote.
On July 21, 2024 at 6:04 PM, I presented on the blog a graph 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 because of their differing active periods):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PDFit-vkoTLnwOq7fl2hP_pKaWKz6qUk/view
*
And I added:
” 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 latters active window:
SRM: 0.13608 +- 0.006 (C/decade)
C3RM: 0.13620 +- 0.005 ”
*
Instead of admitting this evidence, Blindsley H00d wrote:
” RLH says:
July 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM
SRMs and CxRMs a la VP show exactly the same polynomial behavior
Again you lie. ”
Where the heck did I lie? The second order polynomials in the graph above are so extremely similar that I had to draw the one at top in dashed mode, in order to make the other below half visible.
*
I apologize for this endless discussion.
But the blog community should understand that if I don’t react to RLH’s intentional misrepresentations he endlessly repeats since years, anyone might think I’m wrong.
This I can’t accept.
*
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 a decade ago, he nevertheless stopped long time ago using these cascaded running means he no longer considered useful.
This is by the way the correct comparison, for the UAH 6.0 LT time series, of the cascaded 12 month triple running mean and the cascaded 12 month triple running median, both based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification (1.0; 1.2067; 1.5478 – leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB) giving 12/10/8 month cascades:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umE0x_ObQqkafV33CqwRkzXHwMVQWJEJ/view
The mean and median cascades are implemented in exactly the same way, the only difference of course being to use
‘AVERAGE(from:to)’
versus
‘MEDIAN(from:to)’
in the respective cascade cells.
*
Every professional engineer using Excel or a derivate – e.g. Libre Office Calc on UNIX/LINUX systems – should be able to perfectly replicate this result.
“The lines where there is no data. i.e. between the points.”
There is no missing data.
“ridiculously represent time series as sets of points instead of intelligently connecting them with lines”
So what data represents those lines? Data along the lines that is.
“There is no missing data.”
So show me the data that represents the data at the half way point (say) along the lines.
…the data at…
…the point at…
Antonin Qwerty
As you can see, there is no way to discuss with such a stubborn, inexperienced, opinionated person, who thinks he can teach the entire world with his pseudo-knowledge, located exactly at the same level as that of Clint R’s denial of e.g. the lunar spin.
I have never supported Clint et al views on Lunar spin.
This Blindsley H00d guy (he is over 75) behaves like a crazy 12-year old school boy.
I wrote:
” As you can see, there is no way to discuss with such a stubborn, inexperienced, opinionated person, who thinks he can teach the entire world with his pseudo-knowledge, located exactly at the same level as that of Clint Rs denial of e.g. the lunar spin.
*
But he insidiously replies:
” I have never supported Clint et al views on Lunar spin. ”
*
I never claimed he did that!
I wrote and write again that the way he argues about
– distortions in simple moving averages,
– the alleged difference between median and mean calculations in time series,
– and especially about
– his utter nonsense about the alleged use of nonexistent data in connecting data points with lines,
is located exactly at the same level as that of Clint Rs denial of e.g. the lunar spin.
*
But I know – and have experienced for years – that Blindsley H00d aka RLH never admits he is wrong and constantly pushes to distort and misrepresent everything you write – exactly like Clint R does.
Just checked on the Polar Vortex. Two weeks ago, it was being squeezed by two high-pressure systems, resulting in some blocking. But, the PV has won the day and is now healthy, with wind speeds hitting 280 mph.
If the PV maintains this health, we should soon see a drop in global temperatures, including ENSO and UAH.
I’ve been tricked several times, trying to guess the end of the HTE. But, maybe this is finally it.
Now why does this feel familiar?
https://xkcd.com/1166/
Si j'étais un sale menteur comme le sont pas mal de posteurs sur ce blog, je vous répondrais que je n'en ai pas la moindre idée 😡
Car Brutus est un homme honorable ; nous le sommes tous, tous des hommes honorables.
Exactement, Entropic man… ☺
From an earlier comment,
“* CO2 actually cools the earth, it doesnt warm the earth.”
True!
More specifically it is the primary coolant of the mesosphere
While warming the troposphere.
> CO2 actually cools the earth
From Roy’s last post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
When the coolant increases, the height that it cools efficiently gets higher.This might have an effect on how much heat CO2 manages to dispatch – and what’s the temp profile of the atmosphere below.
> This might
Only if that “might” is an English one:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/11/11/12/language-web.jpg
For it does have an effect.
Roy’s ain’t Jo’s.
You can’t be sure of what you don’t see. I suggest considering it, though.
One can’t be sure of what one sees either. Certainty might not be our best guide here. In the English sense of “might” at least.
I suggest that science requires a little more than appeals to incredulity based on double negatives.
As I said, ibid. *plonk*
As Roy explained, the atmosphere with its GHG are operating much like insulation.
The topmost layer of insulation in your attic is emitting the heat loss from your heated house (in winter) to the cold air outside.
With the insulation present, the heat loss from the house is reduced. No one could logically claim that the top-most layer of insulation, which is colder than the house below, is acting as a COOLANT for the house.
Without the atmosphere, all radiation from the surface goes directly to space. With an atmosphere, much of the heat loss from the surface is intercepted by radiative gases and clouds before being released to space.
And since these gases and clouds radiate from a much LOWER temperature than the surface, their net effect is to REDUCE the heat loss to space.
That is certainly not acting as a coolant.
And with ADDED GHG, as noted, the height of radiation to space increases, and the heat loss is further reduced.
Nah, doesn’t cool. Main purpose is plant growth.
Hello Antonion,
What little heat is transfered from the surface to co2 is insignificant compared to h20 in warming the bottom of the troposphere. However that would add to the rate of convection. Increasing the rate of convection increases the rate at which the surface cools…
PhilJ
Actually the H2O greenhouse effect is about twice the CO2 greenhouse effect.
The problem with ascribing most of the surface heat loss to convection is that the converted heat then has to be converted into radiation and lost to space. What mechanism do you think is doing that?
However you think it happens you still need a chain of processes which begins with heat loss from the surface and ends with infrared radiation to space.
If you want to downplay the role of greenhouse gases you need something else to do the same job. What do you suggest?
“ends with infrared radiation to space”
at what temperature?
“Actually the H2O greenhouse effect is about twice the CO2 greenhouse effect.”
H2O is 90% of GHE. CO2 is 8%.
Does Infrared radiation have a temperature?
My understanding of wave-particle is that radiation has electro-magnetic characteristics and that doesn’t include a temperature.
“Does Infrared radiation have a temperature?”
All radiation is caused at a given temperature.
Actually the H2O greenhouse effect is about twice the CO2 greenhouse effect.
That’s almost as bad as claiming passenger jets fly backward. H2O is many times more capable of returning energy to Earth’s surface. CO2 is extremely ineffective.
However you think it happens you still need a chain of processes which begins with heat loss from the surface and ends with infrared radiation to space.
That “chain” would be: From surface — emission, conduction, convection, evaporation/condensation. From atmosphere to space — emission
If you want to downplay the role of greenhouse gases you need something else to do the same job. What do you suggest?
So-called “greenhouse gases” are just infrared-radiative gases. They very effectively emit infrared to space. There is no need to downplay their role.
“Infrared radiation refers to electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between microwave and visible light, ranging from 0.78 to 1000 μm. It is not directly visible to the human eye but is emitted by any object with a temperature above absolute zero”
Ken
Measure the spectrum of thermal radiation and you get a bell curve with a maximum intensity emission wavelength. The intensity then tapers off to zero to either side. You can predict the pattern using the Stefan – Boltzmann and Planck equations.
For example the red line here plots the emission from Earth’s surface at 294K
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
If you increase the temperature the central peak gets higher and the whole curve moves to shorter wavelengths. You can measure the temperature of the emitting surface by measuring the wavelength of the peak, which is how infrared thermometers work.
The wattage, the total amount of energy emitted, also increases with increasing temperature.
Hello Entropic,
Most of the surface heat loss is through evaporation which is increased by convection.
The majority of ir loss to space comes from h20 at the top of the troposphere.
Thus h20 is the primary means by which the surface cools to the atmosphere and the primary means by which the atmosphere cools to space
Does Infrared radiation have a temperature?
“All radiation is caused at a given temperature.”
Emiss…ivity is same frequency as absor…tion. CO2 at high altitude isn’t going to have the same temperature as at low altitude.
“CO2 at high altitude isnt going to have the same temperature as at low altitude.”
But it emits the same frequencies of radiation.
RLH
ends with infrared radiation to space
at what temperature? ”
Rather depends on where it is emitted from.
Surface radiation emitted through the atmospheric window depends on the surface temperature. That would be somewhere between 220K and 320K.
GHG emissions mostly reach space from the tropopause, emitted at 220K to 240K?
Ken
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
“A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder. “
“25% due to clouds”
What temperature are the clouds at?
“50% … is due to water vapour”
What temperature (range if necessary) is the water vapour at?
Good questions. Look them up for us, there’s a good chap.
Ent fails to answer the question.
Ent has decided that RLH is not pulling his weight.
As usual, Ent fails to answer the question.
So if I were to fly an atomic clock from London to South Africa (and vice versa) which is younger and why?
Blindsley H00d
Why do you keep stalking other people with questions that you should be answering YOURSELF?
Are you that lazy?
Bindidon appears too lazy to answer the question.
If I were to fly an atomic clock from London to South Africa (and vice versa) which is younger and why?
They are both the same, regardless of the velocity between them. That is against Einstein. Prove me wrong.
“That is against Einstein.”
How do you know that, RLH?
What would Einstein have predicted?
From an earlier comment,
> cult […] cultists […] In reality, science is verifiable, observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.
Science is either verifiable or falsifiable. It can’t be both. And empirical science isn’t demonstrable, for is truly demonstrated can’t be undone.
Observability and testability matter, but for scientific theories as a whole and while being connected to one another in a manner that is still unclear:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3131087
Appeals to scientificity are not very different than appeals to reality or even appeals to religiosity. They oftentimes amount to mere posturing. And when they reveal an incuriosity regarding these topics, they always do.
Reducing science to its theories seldom leads to anything fruitful. Theories are formal apparatus. Those who wish to follow suit need the chops to do so. For instance, the transitivity of rotation has little to do with set theory; there are sets that allow for intransitive relations. It’s just a result of Euler’s rotation theorem. By the same token, there are many definitions of rotation in astronomy, and they all are relative to some frame of reference.
Cult children don’t understand “falsifiable”.
But that’s okay. There are a lot of things kids don’t understand….
> Cult children
Perhaps Puffman could comment on this:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/08/03/the-popper-ratio/
I’ll let him discover who wrote this.
Correct, cult children don’t understand “falsifiable”.
People like Clint R are so incompetent that they don’t understand the difference between ‘verifiable’ and ‘falsifiable’ and that if something (a scientific result or a piece of software) has been verified, it NEVER can be falsified at the same time.
Says a retired engineer – no idea what Clint R is or has been, but a science man or an engineer he has been as much as his friend-in-denial Robertson, namely NEVER.
Clint R’s cultish, childish pseudo-science reminds us something like a mix of flatearthism and geocentrism.
Sorry Bindi, but I never said “verifiable” was the same thing as “falsifiable’. That was YOUR buddy Willard trying to confuse things, as usual.
But keep the insults and false accusations coming. That just verifies you have NOTHING, and your claim to know science is easily falsifiable.
You cult kids just keep making me look good.
> I never said “verifiable” was the same thing as “falsifiable”.
Puffman forgot to read the whole sentence:
“If something (a scientific result or a piece of software) has been verified, it NEVER can be falsified at the same time.”
This is the part that does not cohere with what he said.
total comments so far in the thread – 540 {1}
Graham D. Warner 102 (18,89%)
AQ 84 (15,56%)
W 60 (11,11%)
RLH 50 (9,26%)
Binny 35 (6,48%)
Puffman 33 (6,11%)
Bob 33 (6,11%)
gb 21 (3,89%)
K 19 (3,52%)
TS 16 (2,96%)
Nate 16 (2,96%)
JW 13 (2,41%)
EM 10 (1,85%)
SPA 10 (1,85%)
Eric 6 (1,11%)
TF 6 (1,11%)
PJ 4 (0,74%)
518 95,93%
Remaining commenters: ren, other brad, skeptical, barry, EB, Roy (!!), George, AK, sb, bdgwx, John Boland, Joachim, Norman, Ansgar, Buzz, winston. Sorry if I forget anyone.
Corrections welcome.
{1} Besides this one and the one in which Puffman calls the father of falsificationnism a cultish child.
2024-08-18 00:17:55 UTC+2
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 102
Antonin Qwerty: 84
Willard: 61
RLH: 49
Bindidon: 35
Clint R: 34
bobdroege: 33
Ken: 19
Tim S: 16
Nate: 14
John W: 13
gbaikie: 12
Entropic man: 10
Stephen P Anderson: 8
tim folkerts: 6
Eric: 6
PhilJ: 4
bdgwx: 4
sunsettommy: 3
Elliott Bignell: 3
Eben: 3
barry: 3
Ireneusz Palmowski: 2
The other Brad: 1
TheFinalNail: 1
studentb: 1
Stephen P. Anderson: 1
Stephen P anderson: 1
stephen P anderson: 1
skeptikal: 1
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.: 1
Roy W Spencer: 1
Richard Greene: 1
Norman: 1
John Boland: 1
Joachim: 1
Gee Aye: 1
Curious George: 1
Buzz: 1
Anthony Kirkpatrick: 1
Ansgar John Brenninkmeijer: 1
RLH: 49
Bindidon: 35
The majority of mine are responding to yours.
Wrong, Blindsley H00d.
Rather, it is I who, for years, has responded to your pseudo-scientific nonsense with data-based facts that you have never been able to technically contradict and which you therefore instead discredit, sometimes deny, and even accuse me of lying (see upthread).
You were the one who said that running averages (mean) were little different to VP’s calculations. Never heard of ‘distortions of running means’ have you?
Whoops!
I have been inattentive and missed out on getting listed.
This gets me into 20th position.
You i.diot. Why not say something constructive?
“Why not say something constructive?”
OK:
My father was a carpenter.
Thanks!
If people are able to stop responding to me, I will stop commenting.
Christos,
Not sure if I’ve asked you this before. If the Moon spun once every 24 hours, what would its temperature be?
The latest update has Ernesto weakening to a TS but forecast to get back to hurricane strength as it move north. It is not expected to make landfall, but will pass close to Newfoundland on Monday.
https://i.ibb.co/9ZXchN6/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
I am still interested in somebody explaining the GHE.
From mainstream media science we get that as CO2 is increased we get less emission to space from the atmosphere.
But if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, mainstream media science also tells us there would be no emissions to space by the atmosphere and if we add some CO2 then emissions to space from the atmosphere will increase.
So at what point does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere do emissions to space from the atmosphere stop increasing and start decreasing?
Anybody?
> Anybody?
Roy did, in his last post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
Why bring this here?
Willard Roy explained that a warmer roof would make the surface warmer. I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Since this roof doesn’t conduct heat to space. I haven’t seen proof though that but it seems to be worthy of an experiment to prove it.
However the issue is more complex than that. My question was clear.
How is the roof going to get warmer despite CO2 cooling it?
> explained that a warmer roof would make the surface warmer
A lot warmer, in fact.
Perhaps you do not necessarily disagree with the fact that you keep asking for an explanation that has already been provided by Roy in the previous post and that this is a post about his new comments policy either.
You might be hard pressed to disagree with the fact that yesterday you posted 11 comments in the wrong thread.
No question that the existence of an atmosphere means it will have a temperature much greater than the temperature of space.
The question is does the addition of GHG to an atmosphere of say just oxygen and nitrogen force the lower atmosphere to be warmer, the same, or colder. We already know the answer for the upper atmosphere.
What makes it so puzzling is that the means by which we believe it makes it warmer is via the Tyndall experiment of observing the scattering of IR.
Yet the Seim and Olson experiment observes the scattering of IR in the CO2 chamber but does not record any significant warming of the heating plate.
That pretty much leaves the greenhouse theory with an untested mechanism. Its imply not good enough to have observed the scattering of IR.
People can be taught an answer but what really calls that answer into question is people actually talking about how they think it works. . .which subjects it to experiment.
bill,
“From mainstream media science we get that as CO2 is increased we get less emission to space from the atmosphere.”
Maybe mainstream media is not a good source of information.
As CO2 increases, there is less emission to space from the surface and the atmosphere, until the surface heats up to restore the balance.
And you believe you are a better source than mainstream media science? Seems to me all you did was parrot it.
Bill,
Maybe a reputed scientific source instead of me or the mainstream media.
“Seems to me all you did was parrot it.”
You must know it very well to accuse me of parroting.
I also know that there is not such thing as a third grade model.
I haven’t heard any decent refutations from you.
Obviously you don’t have a better source.
Bill,
You have been at this game long enough to know where to find good sources.
Do your own homework.
Start here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Well if you don’t know thats fine. It certainly isn’t Real Climate. It’s not mainstream either. Its just a political hack board that pretends to be talking about science. If you ask the wrong question you will get booted rather than get an answer.
Bill,
Well I do know.
First it is an ill formed question, because as CO2 increases, the emission to space remains the same.
Because energy in equals energy out.
That would be incorrect Bob. Energy in is constantly changing.
All you did was completely ignore that fact. Then you made the statement that energy in equals energy out.
If energy in always equaled energy out the temperature would never change. We know that to be untrue. One would not be able to ”store” solar energy or convert it to electricity if that were true.
I am afraid you need to look into this a lot deeper than the pablum you get off Real Climate.
Bill,
Energy out is also always changing.
The solar energy in varies over the year, but is relatively constant from year to year.
First law of thermodynamics says so.
“If energy in always equaled energy out the temperature would never change. We know that to be untrue.”
So we know the temperature changes due to changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, because that changes the energy out on the short term, temperature responds by increasing.
Good Job to recognize the Greenhouse Effect.
“If energy in always equaled energy out the temperature would never change. We know that to be untrue.”
Here we have the basis of the great misunderstanding.
It is true that energy in equals energy out and that the PLANETARY mean temperature stays the same. However, the SURFACE temperature can increase due to increased CO2.
How?
The PLANETARY mean temperature represents the mean temperature of the SURFACE and ATMOSPHERE. As CO2 increases, the SURFACE mean temperature increases while the upper ATMOSPHERE mean temperature decreases.
i.e. the stratosphere cools because CO2 below blocks some of the surface radiation that reaches that level.
Please do not make the mistake of equating planetary temperature with surface temperature.
bobdroege says:
So we know the temperature changes due to changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, because that changes the energy out on the short term, temperature responds by increasing.
[/quote]
I am not sure we know that. Wouldn’t adding GHG if anything increase the number of molecules in the atmosphere that are emitting heat to space.
I have said and most have acknowledged that the argument for a GHE in the first place is that the sky is warmer than outer space. Thus for a GHE to increase it would need to get warmer. Where is the evidence that is happening because of GHGs?
Yeah, have you heard that cooling of the upper atmosphere is one of the fingerprints of warming caused by CO2 and or other radiative gases.
BH: I am not sure we know that.
We do that via the 1LOT equation dE = Ein – Eout and the heat capacity equation dT = dE/(m*c) which via substitution becomes dT = (Ein – Eout)/(m*c). And we know via 160 years of experimentation that increasing CO2 concentrations results in dE > 0.
bobdroege says:
”Yeah, have you heard that cooling of the upper atmosphere is one of the fingerprints of warming caused by CO2 and or other radiative gases.”
IMO, science isn’t what I heard. . .its is, and only is, what I heard.
bdgwx says:
We do that via the 1LOT equation dE = Ein Eout and the heat capacity equation dT = dE/(m*c) which via substitution becomes dT = (Ein Eout)/(m*c). And we know via 160 years of experimentation that increasing CO2 concentrations results in dE > 0.
—————————
160 years of experimentation? You mean watching the temperature record? One cannot make a statistical argument worth the paper it is written on until natural variation is fully accounted for and we have a model that reconstructs what we hold dear, the ice core record and the last 160 years. some of these warming events don’t occur for a 1,000 years. As you can see below in the last 10,000 years it has occurred 10 times. . .and its been about 1,000 years since the last one.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
Bill,
“IMO, science isnt what I heard. . .its is, and only is, what I heard.”
I am sure there is a lot of science that you haven’t heard of.
You are an engineer right, not a scientist?
Well I laid the challenge down years ago in here to bring forth the evidence that CO2 was capable of significant climate change and no such evidence has been forthcoming. I have already acknowledged that CO2 could warm the globe in a minor way without significantly enlarging the atmosphere but that is simply a concession that I can’t prove otherwise thus I keep that possibility open.
Certainly I can’t be expected to go out and prove no such science exists. If you believe that you know nothing at all about science.
Then it must also be true, since you can’t find any evidence either, that the only thing you believe is the rumors you heard from your daddy.
BH: You mean watching the temperature record?
That’s part of it. But, I was actually referring to experiments where IR radiation is directed toward a cuvette filled with CO2 (or other GHGs). Tyndall first did this in 1861. The experiment gets replicated countless times every day now via NDIRs in many HVAC installations to mitigate CO2 narcosis.
A cuvette is a great way to watch convection slingshot CO2 being warmed by a beam of light to the top of the vessel diverting it from the horizontal target of the light beam was focused on.
You are just jumping to conclusions about what the results will be for the surface. If the atmospheric window was still effectively open in the CO2 bandwidths I have said there would be some warming occurring. . .but to date there have been no experiments demonstrating that. As I have seen in experiments the CO2 window is closed within a few meters of the surface.
Bill,
You are doing it wrong.
” I have already acknowledged that CO2 could warm the globe in a minor way without significantly enlarging the atmosphere but that is simply a concession that I cant prove otherwise thus I keep that possibility open.”
It’s not about proof.
A minor change in temperature of 1 or 2 percent, now is that bad or significant?
The temperature has increased about 1 C or about 0.3 percent.
There is no evidence it is from anything but the increase in CO2 and associated feedbacks.
It’s not the Sun, it’s not long term ocean changes, it’s not cosmic rays, etc.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
You are doing it wrong.
Its not about proof.
A minor change in temperature of 1 or 2 percent, now is that bad or significant?
The temperature has increased about 1 C or about 0.3 percent.
There is no evidence it is from anything but the increase in CO2 and associated feedbacks.
Its not the Sun, its not long term ocean changes, its not cosmic rays, etc.
[/quote]
Your opinion is not an independent opinion Bob so it can be considered to be biased.
Fact is we don’t know what feedbacks are and we don’t know what the primary surface forcing is on how you want to measure temperature increase.
The sun has been getting brighter for 350 years.
https://flic.kr/p/2q9bU4r
the other factors are how much time the earth spends closer to the sun than further away from the sun. This appears to be driven by the other planets and the only reason you don’t know that is because folks are ignoring Milankovitch and/or they don’t want anybody to know about what Milankovitch actually found.
BH: but to date there have been no experiments demonstrating that
The Earth performed the experiment multiple times in the past and we are doing the experiment again today.
its not an experiment without a control model showing the lack of warming of the surface.
Problem is the earth’s sky is always changing and there is no control model and thus no knowledge regarding the source of warming that has been observed.
One must actually model the entire sky, at a minimum the entire solar system to understand orbital eccentricity that has been identified as a major source of climate change.
And of course the above doesn’t even mention that Seim and Olson observed the scattering of IR but no warming of the surface resulted so your ”Tyndall cuvette science” extrapolation to the greenhouse effect has been absolutely refuted.
Good point, Bill. There is no GHE that works with CO2.
Dr. Spencer mentioned the lid on a pot, comparing to a real greenhouse which has a roof. That works. And, it even works in the atmosphere for water vapor, as we’ve seen with the HTE. Water vapor has pretty much a full spectrum, as compared with CO2’s 15μ line.
Well the fact is as Dr. Syun-ichi Akasofu said. One must understand natural variation in order to understand anthropogenic variation.
Dr. Akasofu was simply pointing out that climate changes naturally and rapidly by all measures we have from ice cores, to ocean bottom sediments, to long records of river breakups and over freezes.
IMO, we have ignored insolation and the several ways that can vary over the entire surface of the earth.
We are regaled with a false narrative that orbital eccentricity variation is uniform rate of variation over 100,000 years without a single shred of science or logic to support that claim.
As I see it orbital eccentricity variation is a global phenomena increasing or decreasing global insolation.
this source puts the 3 milankovitch global parameters of axial precession, axial tilt, and eccentricity perturbation at 10% 25% and 50% with co2 making up the remaining 15%.
the first two are primarily allegedly determine glacial extent and has nothing to do with insolation. And can be disregarded as they are slow moving phenomena that has nothing signficant to do with industrial age warming.
So with ice core records showing greenland with about 15C variation and the antarctic with about 12c variation. The average of the two is about 13.5c. 50% of that is 6.75C attributable to orbit perturbation.
For the orbital perturbation UAH shows a slightly lower rate of mean warming for the polar regions than for the globe as a whole. So nothing to gain there.
Milankovitch had to do all his calculations by hand. all we have seen over the past 50 years is recompilations of Milankovitch’s undoubtedly scant estimates.
Somebody needs to rebuild Milankovitch using a modern computer models then and only then would we have something to work with as long as some level of transparency is required which apparently isn’t required of current climate models.
Here is the source forgot to insert that:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.194.4270.1121
I don’t know if this is in your reference. I couldn’t get through the paywall.
IIRC the key value controlling the switch between glacial and interglacial periods is the amount of summer sunlight reaching 65N latitude.
If this exceeds 530W/m^2 the ice and snow melts completely each Summer and you get an interglacial.
If it is less than 530W/m then ice and snow persist through the Summer and extra ice depth builds up each Winter. You end up with extensive ice sheets and a glacial period.
We are not talking about switching to or from glacial mode, in which axial tilt and precession is implicated as an additional perturbance.
We are just talking about changes in eccentricity on a scale where those are not a big factor that produces the variations seen in the ice core records during both interglacials and glacials. During the interglacials the ice and snow only melts completely along the coastlines.
The ones noted in Figure 2 of this partial Milankovitch record: https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
I suspect he just came across some shorter termed orbital variations in his pursuit of finding the causes of the interglacial to glacial periods. Certainly it worthy of a modern effort using computers and more precisely prepared ephemerises, temperature proxy records, and abilities to measure distances and other relevant variations.
EM, the abstract has the summary breakdown of the milankovitch theory components. If you want the details look for an institution that has the full pdf.
Only one deals with the whole globe.
the issue is that Milankovitch came up with some estimates that are widely accept that arise from hand done calculations in the pre-computer model age.
I am early into my work and find high levels of correlation with temperature changes in the instrument record. None of that is attributable to CO2. I even find strong correlation with the warming of the past 40 years. Correlation with longer periods is greatly hampered because of a lack of reliable instrument records but what is there does show a good correlation all the way back to 1850 with no noticeable exceptions. I see very poor correlation to CO2. Thats why the models cannot duplicate the warming seen in the first half of the 20th century.
I am not claiming zero warming from CO2 just that it must be less than half the warming. In other words nothing to write home about. Gee mom the mean temperature here rose by a 1/4 degree in the past 40 years.
Bill, I am sorry to hear that you do not understand a fairly easy final exam question. Since the radiant energy from the radiant heat transfer gases (heat trapping gases) is omnidirectional, there is by definition as much radiant energy at each level of the atmosphere going toward outer space as there is transmitting back toward earth. Therefore, by a complex series of events, that most science educated people are able to understand, the surface of the earth attains a higher temperature than it would be without all of the feedback (back radiation) from the atmosphere. A higher temperature is needed for the heating of the sun to escape.
It is fairly easy to understand this qualitatively. The problem of making quantitative estimates using equations or computer simulations is that the exchange of heat (yes, heat) energy within the atmosphere is very complex, and there are other processes such as convection and latent heat.
The problem is how to quantify the effect, not whether it exists. Different gases have different radiant energy spectra. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil burning should have some effect, that can only be estimated. It cannot be accurately calculated or simulated.
Tim S says:
”Bill, I am sorry to hear that you do not understand a fairly easy final exam question.
Therefore, by a complex series of events, that most science educated people are able to understand, the surface of the earth attains a higher temperature than it would be without all of the feedback (back radiation) from the atmosphere. A higher temperature is needed for the heating of the sun to escape.”
——————
So your telling me. But what is the published source of this ”complex complex series of events, that most science educated people are able to understand” that you claim to understand?
You do have some experience with this right?
Bill Hunter
Try here. Particularly 7.3.2.1 and the associated references.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/
Bill, many years ago I attended a training session for fired heat transfer equipment. It turns out that the size and shape of the flame has no effect. The color in the flame is just visible light. It is thermal radiation in the IR range from the combustion gases that does most of the heat transfer to bare surfaces. Additional finned tubes exist in the convection section of large furnaces above the “radiant section” (where do they get that name?).
Do you have a gas stove or range? It is the combustion gases that make that work. Do the experiment. Get an industrial heat gun. They get really hot. Try to boil a pan of water with just hot air. Get back to us and report the results. An electric range also works by radiant heat transfer but from hot metal. That is why the newer ones can cover the element with a heat resistant glass.
The radiant heat transfer gases (greenhouse gases – heat trapping gases) in the atmosphere do the same thing except with a much weaker effect and over a much larger volume.
tim you obviously have not followed anything I have said.
Its also the case that the so-called IR is being overrated by you. The square distance law makes what you are saying feel like the case as the absorbing surface will only warm to some level where it is not giving off visible light.
Ernesto will maintain a course of 60 degrees W. Strong thunderstorms in central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/dg62S0F/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/AL052024/GEOCOLOR/20242311110-20242311810-ABI-AL052024-GEOCOLOR-1000×1000.gif
“The core description of the GHE is fairly simple science.”
And based upon a fundamentally flawed assumption, that the Earth is a cold BB warmed by the sun and then additionally warmed by the atmosphere..
Taking the limit of Earths cooling potential and trying to backtrack by adding atmosphere to ‘warm’ the surface of the Earth is to step into fantasyland…
the Earth of course once had a surface temp far above the boiling point of water, and has cooled despite solar input. It must continue to do so UNTIL it is a cold dead rock warmed only by the Sun.
Further the surface cooled dramatically when liquid water started reaching its surface.
Water with its unique heat capacity, high latent heat of evaporation, high emissivity and high condensation point make it an excellent transporter of heat from the surface to the point where it condenses out and radiates to space..
Water has kept the surface of Earth cool and its crust nice and thick for billions of years!
Happily this will continue as long as we have an ozone layer to protect our water and an oxygen supply (plants).
I agree. I would add that there is another source for maintaining the Earth’s temperature. These are tidal forces due to the Moon along with the Earth’s constant rotational speed.
Tidal forces work both ways, which helps in maintaining the ‘tidal lock’.
“Tidal locking” is for people that don’t understand gravity, orbital motions, and the associated physics.
Or, alternatively, those who understand them completely.
Do the numbers.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
The surface loses 503 W/m^2; 398.2W/m^2 by radiation, 18.4W/m^2 by convection and 86.4W/m^2 by evaporation.
The surface absorbs 163W/m^2 from sunlight and 503-163 = 340W/m^2 from back radiation.
50%, 170W/m^2, comes from the H2O greenhouse effect. 25%, 85W/m^2, comes from clouds. 20%, 68W/m^2 comes from the CO2 greenhouse effect and 5%, 17W/m^2, from other gases.
The contribution from geological heating is 0.1W/m^2, almost too small to notice.
Yes Ent, your cult believes the atmosphere heats the surface, not Sun. Your cult believes a lot of nonsense….
You can’t believe any of the budget numbers. They’re saying half the GHE effect comes from water when it is 10 times more abundant, farther up in the atmosphere, many times more IR bands, doesn’t make sense. CO2’s contribution is more like a watt. These are the same people who did the carbon cycle model. That was falsified by Berry.
Climate groups are giving $55M to Harris’ campaign. She is a Marxist. That tells you where climate groups are.
“She is a Marxist. ”
Why, Stephen?
John W
” Why, Stephen? ”
For 6.9 liter pickup drivers, anyone who just tries to make their beloved ‘my cheap gallon’ even a tiny bit less cheap is a marxist.
Why? You’ve never listened to her ideas? She believes in equity and diversity and that masterminds like her should set prices and control corporate profits. She believes in Big government. She believes that government is the solution. She doesn’t believe in what this country has historically stood for which is free market capitalism. She believes in equity and diversity. She believes in gun control and confiscation and doesn’t support the Second Amendment. Look what she has done as the border Czar because she hates this country and what it stands for. She doesn’t believe in the sanctity of life….and on and on.
Kamala also believes that the government should set salaries. She wants to fine companies that she believes don’t pay men and women equally. She wants pharmaceutical companies to surrender their patents if they charge too much for drugs. She would force a gun buyback. She operates in an asymmetrical way. She is arbitrary in her thinking and very tyrannical. But it is all in the name of goodness and her utopian vision. That is what marxism is. It is utopianism.
I told Blinny Goebbels that there are no 6.9L pickups. Some just don’t learn.
Stephen,
Diversity is overwhelmingly positive. When people interact and assimilate with those who are different from them, political tensions related to racism and accusations of racism tend to ease. It’s strange to me why this should be a partisan issue.
I see little value in the Second Amendment. In Australia, you can probably count the number of violent gun shootings on one hand. While mental health issues definitely contribute to gun violence, addressing them alone won’t do much. A complete ban on general gun ownership is ultimately necessary. There is no need for the average person to possess a firearm.
I fully expect Biden to resign in October. They want her running as President. Biden has lost his usefulness. They wanted him to resign before now so she could be President at least a year before the election. They didn’t expect her to be such an imbecile.
John,
Your government was the most tyrannical in the world during the pandemic. As an Australian, I’m sure you would not find anything useful about our 2nd Amendment. However, we have a right to keep and bear arms and you don’t.
Stephen,
“She wants pharmaceutical companies to surrender their patents if they charge too much for drugs.”
Did taxpayer money contribute to the development of these drugs? If it did, there is a valid argument for discussing whether the pricing of these drugs is fair.
Stephen,
“Your government was the most tyrannical in the world during the pandemic. As an Australian, Im sure you would not find anything useful about our 2nd Amendment. However, we have a right to keep and bear arms and you dont.”
He did not promote mask-wearing, social distancing, or vaccinations, and instead downplayed the severity of the disease. It was a dangerous virus.
Australia managed to keep COVID-19 transmission rates extremely low, while the United States recorded the highest number of COVID-19 deaths globally. This is surprising, considering the U.S. is a leader in medical science. A significant factor in the U.S. struggles was Donald Trumps lack of effective leadership. His failure to promote mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccinations, particularly among his MAGA supporters, contributed to the countrys high death toll.
**He did not promote mask-wearing, social distancing, or vaccinations, and instead downplayed the severity of the disease, which was actually very dangerous.**
” However, we have a right to keep and bear arms and you dont. ”
This statement is exactly why so many people around the world think US people are so dumb.
Actually we do (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have the right to bear arms.
See Bill of Rights 1688
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Ken,
Stop it.
John,
Those who would give up their freedoms for security deserve neither…Ben Franklin
Blinny,
I think Venezuelan citizenry wished they had guns.
If Harris becomes President, we probably won’t be able to protect you guys anymore. Australia, UK, Canada, NZ, can’t protect themselves. God help you if Kamala wins. God help us.
“His failure to promote mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccinations, particularly among his MAGA supporters, contributed to the countrys high death toll. ”
It made Republicans more likely to die than Democrats.
Think of it as evolution in action.
None of my MAGA friends died of COVID. The only one who almost died took his cardiologist’s advice and received the vaccine. He was in intensive care two days later and on a ventilator. They tried Regeneron and Remdesivir to no avail. Finally, his wife snuck Quercetin and Zinc to him and within three days he was out of ICU. He said he would never take the vaccine or wear a mask again. I had COVID two weeks ago, fourth time. Nasty China virus. This particular strain is diarrhea.
Stephen P Anderson says:
August 19, 2024 at 2:52 PM
“I told Blinny Goebbels that there are no 6.9L pickups. Some just dont learn. ”
https://dieselresource.com/diesel-resources/ford-6-9l-idi-diesel-specs/
6.9 liter pickup driver, your are even more dumb than I imagined.
We see that immediately with your completely ridiculous insult:
” Blinny Goebbels … ”
Whether or not 6.9 liter pickup exist doesn’t matter: it’s just a way to nickname you, no more, no less.
*
You don’t understand that if Trump would win this election, he would make out of the US a completely isolated country, deliberately ignoring what happens to the rest of the world.
Trump as president mean for Europe and Asia to be immediately abandoned by the US.
The consequence:
– Russia would extend its war against Ukraine to all states around it: the Baltic states, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania;
– China would extend its imperialism against Vietnam and the Philipines, and invade Taiwan.
*
But don’t fear, 6.9 liter pickup driver: your beloved ‘my cheap gallon’ would keep cheap, and your beloved 2nd Am would keep alive.
John,
That’s how Marxists think. If they allow corporations to take tax breaks to invest in research then somehow Marxists think this is giving them money. Of course, it is their money in the first place. All the wealth ever created was created by Capitalism. Even if it is a natural resource it takes a capitalist to take it to market.
Blinny,
Even your Marxist friends are laughing at you. Trump made NATO stronger. Trump wouldn’t abandon NATO. There were no wars when Trump was President. He didn’t run out on Afghanistan, Biden did. Trump supported Israel. Harris will pull the rug out from under Israel. Your ideas are nutty.
Ent,
If you can find one of those good luck. I would love to have one.
” I told Blinny Goebbels that there are no 6.9L pickups. Some just dont learn. ”
Yeah…
Just have a look for
Ford F250 6.9 liter IDI Diesel Pickup
*
People insulting you with ‘Goebbels’ mostly are brainless.
Blinny,
Yeah, you got me. You were thinking of a 37 year old diesel engine. You and Ent wouldn’t approve of that engine. No DEF required.
Ent.
One more thing. The vaccines were developed under Trump. Kamala said she wasn’t going to take any Trump vaccine.
I have to side with Harris as being as close to a card carrying socialist(marxist if that fits) She is slightly more left then Bernie ( an official card carrier). her environment policies prove this out in most respects. She’s by no means a Gretta Thumb….but being officially voted as the most left senator is saying something.
> She is slightly more left then Bernie
Good grief. In any event, teh Donald has been caught telling porkies again:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/08/20/donald-trump-howell-michigan-crime-campaign-speech-kamala-harris-illegal-immigration/74844154007/
Just to be clear… she ranked more liberal than old uncle Bernie…according to Gov Track’s official site. As for Ts lies…yeah he has a habit of bombastic statements but at least his policies are worthy of all demographics and have actual economics behind them. I doubt Harris understands economics any more than AOC understands markets. – “God Save the Queen”
I don’t know why some people here see the world only in black and white.
Anyone to their left politically must be a Marxist or a Communist.
The reality is that Harris is a liberal or progressive, and will govern as a centrist, no different from centrist parties throughout Europe.
Nope … we already know the facts and data on K. H she is nowhere near centrist…she is cultist leftist… she wants to snatch your property rights… she is a sick B as shown by her record in Cali.. and locking up minorities far longer than what they should have been. sad. she even ran on so many losing angles like wanting to ban all fracking … wanting to take away all private health care.. what a sick soul she is to be so socialistic in her stance… anyone trying to say she is centrist is not being intellectually honest
martin
“Nope we already know the facts and data on K. H she is nowhere near centristshe is cultist leftist”
I’m guessing you don’t read any sources that don’t align with your political beliefs.
Stephen,
“None of my MAGA friends died of COVID. The only one who almost died took his cardiologists advice and received the vaccine. He was in intensive care two days later and on a ventilator. They tried Regeneron and Remdesivir to no avail. Finally, his wife snuck Quercetin and Zinc to him and within three days he was out of ICU. ”
Your friend’s case is an exception rather than the norm. Extensive clinical trials involving diverse and large populations have consistently shown that vaccines are both safe and effective. Randomized, double-blind studies with large sample sizes provide the most reliable evidence for a drug’s efficacy. They are considered the gold standard in clinical research.
” she wants to snatch your property rights”
Can you show us where she said that?
As far as price controls, it was the well know Marxist, Richard Nixon, who attempted that in the 1970s. It didnt work well.
“It must continue to do so UNTIL it is a cold dead rock warmed only by the Sun.”
Only by the Sun is essentially what we have now, with the only additional heating being negligibly small ~ 80 mW/m^2, and the Earth is hardly a cold dead rock!
Hello Nate,
“the Earth is hardly a cold dead rock”
That is exactly my point! What we have now is a surface temp of about 278 K with additional heating wherever solar radiation is present
The Earth having cooled for 4 billion years
Is now cooling quite slowly, losing all of the solar input it receives plus a little of its own internal energy over any significant time scale.
He is gone but not forgotten.
the Earth is hardly a cold dead rock
That is exactly my point!”
Weird, PhilJ.
It makes NO sense to suggest, as you did, that when we arrive at the situation we effectively have right NOW, then the Earth will be a ‘cold dead rock’.
The GHE does not “warm” the earth in the strict sense of the word because it does not provide a heat source. This is where people become confused. The true effect is that the earth must be at a higher surface temperature than it would be without the GHE.
The higher temperature is needed to provide the necessary heat transfer rate to release the heat from the sun to outer space. The feedback from the GHE is an active rather than passive effect, but it has the same result on the overall heat transfer coefficient as insulation.
The effect is complex, but the basic physics and heat transfer concepts are rather simple. One of the stumbling blocks for people who reject the GHE is the fact that the net heat transfer of thermal radiation depends on the temperature of both the emitting body and receiving body and not just the temperature of the emitting body.
TimS, unfortunately you are one of the “confused people”.
You claim [correctly] that GHE is not a heat source and cannot warm the Earth. Then you claim the “true effect” is Earth “must be at a higher surface temperature”.
Then you mess up the “basic physics” with “net heat transfer”. There is no such thing as “net heat transfer”. “Heat” is the energy transfer from hot to cold.
Clint R, it is not clear what the problem is here, but your comments are not correct, competent, or useful. Other than that, I guess you are having fun. Good on you for that. People should have fun so long as nobody else becomes confused.
I did not comment to your post originally. Aren’t you the one who claims someone is “stalking” you? Honestly, I do not pay that much attention and it may have been someone else posting nonsense. At this point, you comments are useless to me.
Have fun!
The “problem”, TimS. is your confusion. You are somewhere between confused and talking out your butt.
And I’m not stalking you. I’m trying to clear up the confused mess you’ve made. Here’s an example of stalking:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683263
Some might say that false claims about basic science are just a nuisance distraction, but it runs deeper than just that. It is not merely that reasonable people with something to contribute might be reluctant to participate, but it is a major distraction from the real issues that are up for debate.
People who think they are being clever often make enough mistakes that are obvious faults of logic or even the most bizarre interpretation of science. At that point, it becomes clear that something other than a misunderstanding is involved.
Yes TimS, without an understanding of the basics, it’s best to avoid discussing any science.
Good job….
Astute readers might appreciate where Puffman (he’s not really “Clint R,” that’s just one of the many nicknames he took over the year – got banned multiple times):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/#comment-1682797
Our IT guy can’t even find an email, yet he wants to lecture Roy on pHYsICs.
PhilJ,
Geothermal only accounts for 51e12 W (0.1 W.m-2) of the surface budget. Solar radiation accounts 83000e12 W (163 W.m-2) of the surface budget. Obviously geothermal is no longer the dominating factor in the temperature modulation at the surface. In fact, its contribution is only 0.06%. Even if all the radiothermal energy were to stop tomorrow you’d be left with only 5e12 W (0.01 W.m-2) of lunar tidal dissipation resulting only a negligible loss of surface energy. I doubt we even have the ability to measure the resulting temperature decrease given the +/- 0.05 C uncertainty in our measurements.
It appears to me that the >.6 C deg warming seen 1904 to 1946 was due to the 3 major gas planets on the warmside of earth’s orbit accelerating earth through perihelion and decelerating it through the aphelion exposed earth to additional days close to the sun.
Changes in earth’s inertia is without question a climate change variable not yet accounted for by the IPCC.
https://spaceengine.org/articles/discovery-of-neptune-theory/
During that period Neptune lingered on the cool side of the orbit.
https://tinyurl.com/3r3z3v9f
In the most recent warming period. 1982 thru 2024
https://tinyurl.com/3r3z3v9f
Neptune was on the warm side along with the other three and produced a another >.6c degree warming with perhaps a bit less than .05 additional warming for Neptune to join the party for that period.
But there are other potential causes for Neptune contributing so little.
1) Sunspots, known to brighten the sun, have been in decline in the recent period and were increasing in the earlier period.
https://flic.kr/p/2qc9LRx
2) there are perturbations to Neptunes orbit from a potential unidentified planet beyond our known solar system that have yet to be identified as to where it was during those periods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103589901449?via%3Dihub
BH: Changes in earths inertia is without question a climate change variable not yet accounted for by the IPCC.
That’s patently false. The IPCC considers Earth’s orbital perturbations. Scientists have known about Earth’s orbital perturbations and their impact on climate ever since James Croll started studying it in the 1860’s.
BH: Sunspots, known to brighten the sun, have been in decline in the recent period and were increasing in the earlier period.
And yet the climate system continued to take excess heat after sunspots peaked circa 1958. In fact, the rate of energy uptake increased after sunspot activity began its secular decline.
BH: there are perturbations to Neptunes orbit from a potential unidentified planet beyond our known solar system that have yet to be identified as to where it was during those periods.
So what. Jupiter and Saturn are by far the most influential factors in the Milankovitch cycles which are already well understood. Neptune doesn’t perturb Earth’s orbit much as it is so having Neptune’s orbit perburbed isn’t going to add any substantial influence that isn’t already known.
bdgwx says:
BH: Changes in earths inertia is without question a climate change variable not yet accounted for by the IPCC.
Thats patently false. The IPCC considers Earths orbital perturbations. Scientists have known about Earths orbital perturbations and their impact on climate ever since James Croll started studying it in the 1860s.
——————
If thats true why isn’t it listed on the quantified list of the IPCC’s list of perturbations to climate?
Also one must as my link I gave you just above consider the effects of orbital perturbation (and their feedbacks) on all the Newtonian variables of orbital mechanics.
I also have previously provided the following link showing that this effect is about 30% of the maximum orbital variation figured by Milankovic. Note the 2,500 year orbital cycle found and its intensity in Figure 2 of this link: https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
This is approximately a 3c-3.5C variation which we see in both ocean bottom sediment and ice core records.
then of course this link from the CO2 coalition of scientists that shows the warming we have experienced in the industrial age was minimally experienced about 9 other times during the holocene. https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
And of course there is this also with mainstream media science cherry picking the beginning of warming in the 2nd half of the 19th century when it actually started at the end of the 17th century.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/naturally-driven-warming-began-more-than-300-years-ago/
And even the beginning of the industrial age doesn’t match up to the increases in CO2 which really didn’t get going until the 1950’s and the models fail to produce the warming of the early 20th century.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/rising-sea-levels-confirm-modern-warming-predated-increases-of-co2/
I am giving you links to the evidence and you are not giving any authorities in return.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bdgwx says:
BH: Sunspots, known to brighten the sun, have been in decline in the recent period and were increasing in the earlier period.
And yet the climate system continued to take excess heat after sunspots peaked circa 1958. In fact, the rate of energy uptake increased after sunspot activity began its secular decline.
——————–
Indeed! Changes to solar brightness is almost certainly far less powerful than orbital change.
All orbital change does is give us more total sunlight during the year because of being closer to the sun for longer periods of time as detailed in one of the links I gave you in the previous post.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bdgwx says:
BH: there are perturbations to Neptunes orbit from a potential unidentified planet beyond our known solar system that have yet to be identified as to where it was during those periods.
So what. Jupiter and Saturn are by far the most influential factors in the Milankovitch cycles which are already well understood. Neptune doesnt perturb Earths orbit much as it is so having Neptunes orbit perburbed isnt going to add any substantial influence that isnt already known.
————————-
Yes I have found clear statistical evidence of Jupiter and Saturn in the temperature record.
But what is not considered is how the outer gas giants jerk Jupiter around. I have you a link with that.
FYI, the CO2 coalition is a political advocacy organization. It’s mission is not science, but to influence policy.
It is thus not an objective source for science data.
So for example the Greenland Ice core data is not Global average temperature.
The Central England Temperature is not the Global Mean temperature.
FYI, this summer in Central England was cooler than normal, while the global mean was much warmer.
Nate says:
”FYI, the CO2 coalition is a political advocacy organization. Its mission is not science, but to influence policy.
It is thus not an objective source for science data.”
————————
Of course Nate is either lying or simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The CO2 coalition is a 501(c)3 organization that is publicly supported and its membership in fact is heavily weighted towards experts in science.
Individuals cannot deduct donations for income tax purposes to an advocacy organization that is organized under 501(c)4 and many others.
the coalition was co-founded by Dr. William Happer a celebrated physicist with a great resume in atmospheric physics. The coalition has over a 100 member and director scientists. They are by far mostly PhDs.
Dr. Roy Spencer, the manager of the blog you are on is a member.
But of course as most longtime participants here already know, or are in the tank with Nate, lying and ignorance are Nate’s primary forms of argument. this post is yet just another example of many.
Their mission is clearly stated:
”The CO2 Coalition was established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3) for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.” In the course of that its also necessary to highlight the difference between opinion and science which the coalition does.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
So for example the Greenland Ice core data is not Global average temperature.
The Central England Temperature is not the Global Mean temperature.
FYI, this summer in Central England was cooler than normal, while the global mean was much warmer.
——————————
No problem Nate. Those are only one example. Antarctic and Central England, and Greenland ice cores are all in accord.
So if you want to dispute any of this bring forward science sources and make a science argument Nate. . .that is if you know how to do that at all.
“Of course Nate is either lying or simply doesnt know what he is talking about.”
I had high hopes that Bill would try to adhere to the new commenting policies, but no such luck.
If Bill could focus on the content of posts, and not attack the poster, then a civil conversation is possible.
So this
“The CO2 Coalition was established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3) for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.”
is perfectly in agreement with what I stated:
“FYI, the CO2 coalition is a political advocacy organization. Its mission is not science, but to influence policy.”
As such, it has compulsion to present the science in unbiased, comprehensive, or objective terms.
And I see right away several instances of selective presentation of results (cherry picking) favorable to their narrative, while leaving out research results that disagree.
Eg. on sea-level-rise.
On the historical temperature record, etc
And I see many highly misleading unsupported statements.
Eg. “Modern warming began more than 300 years ago” then we see the T of Central England with a misleading linear fit.
“Current CO2 levels are near record lows. We are CO2 impoverished.”
A graph is shown going back 100s of millions of years to the time when volcanoes were belching out huge amounts of CO2.
CO2 levels are currently WELL ABOVE the levels existing during ALL of human history, in which agriculture developed. No evidence that the world is CO2 impoverished is shown.
Correction:
As such, it has NO compulsion to present the science in unbiased, comprehensive, or objective terms.
Nate says:
” ”Of course Nate is either lying or simply doesnt know what he is talking about.”
I had high hopes that Bill would try to adhere to the new commenting policies, but no such luck.
If Bill could focus on the content of posts, and not attack the poster, then a civil conversation is possible.”
—————–
You made some false claims about the CO2 coalition and its members who happen to be well regarded experts in their field. . .including our forum owner here.
If you want to make claims that their work is not based on science your job is to prove that rather than making unsupported declarations.
All these insults you leveled at the CO2 Coalition that their work does not involve science and or uses cherry picked science is simply a lie and you know its a lie.
That makes you a liar and you seem to be proudly defending that fact. So what is your complaint?
Examples:
1) Eg. Modern warming began more than 300 years ago then we see the T of Central England with a misleading linear fit.
————————-
You haven’t made any case here other than your unsupported declaration.
2)Current CO2 levels are near record lows. We are CO2 impoverished.
A graph is shown going back 100s of millions of years to the time when volcanoes were belching out huge amounts of CO2.
——————-
Here you complain then when it appears you admit its true at the same time.
3)CO2 levels are currently WELL ABOVE the levels existing during ALL of human history, in which agriculture developed. No evidence that the world is CO2 impoverished is shown.
———————–
They supported that statement by: The average CO2 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times our current amount and 2.5 times the worst case predicted by the IPCC for 2100. A support based on science and science you haven’t even attempted to refute.
Just chill out dude!
“That makes you a liar and you seem to be proudly defending that fact. So what is your complaint?”
I am expressing reasoned opinions about the validity of the CO2 Coalition as a good source for science. And I have backed up my claims with examples from their link.
Obviously Bill cannot follow the new commenting policies, and continues to attack me personally, rather than my post.
Maybe if he keeps it up, he’ll get banned.
Let’s see.
“3)CO2 levels are currently WELL ABOVE the levels existing during ALL of human history, in which agriculture developed. No evidence that the world is CO2 impoverished is shown.”
Yep I think this plainly and obviously refutes their statement that we are near record lows, and that we are in any way ‘impoverished’ for CO2.
The fact that CO2 levels have been much much higher in post geologic epochs, when no humans were around, does not imply they are too low now.
In the CO2 coalition link, they choose to fit Central England Temperature to a 300 y linear trendline, and stop in 2009.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/naturally-driven-warming-began-more-than-300-years-ago/
But that does not mean a linear trend is the best fit curve.
A different presentation of the same Central England Temperature:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/ts_meantemp_cet.png
In this case, it seems clear that in the 1690s, during the Maunder minima, there was a brief dip, followed by a 250 year flat trend.
Then sustained warming occurred since 1930 and the most significant warming in the last 3-4 decades.
And again, the big caveat that should be mentioned is that this is one region, and thus has much more variation than a global mean.
In the CO2 coalition link, they choose to show only an outlier among sea-level-rise analyses that fits their narrative.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/rising-sea-levels-confirm-modern-warming-predated-increases-of-co2/
But other analyses disagree:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CSIROData/ssh_church_extended&STATION=global_sea_level&TYPE=i&NPERYEAR=1&id=someone@somewhere
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=SiegenData/ssh_dangendorf_mo_extended&STATION=global_sea_level&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere
As do all analyses of the recent satellite altimetry data,eg
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_SerieReference.png
which shows acceleration.
So this is misrepresenting the current understanding of sea-level-rise.
Nate says:
”3)CO2 levels are currently WELL ABOVE the levels existing during ALL of human history, in which agriculture developed. No evidence that the world is CO2 impoverished is shown.”
Yep I think this plainly and obviously refutes their statement that we are near record lows, and that we are in any way impoverished for CO2.
————————–
Well now you are trying to create a strawman. Your whole spiel is looking the gift horse in the mouth. The world population is near 6.2 billion up from 1.2 billion in 1850. Before that in 1700 it was 600 million. The industrial revolution has tripled the population growth and you think that’s a bad thing. All you are doing is criticizing good science and results of that science creating a huge human boom and you want to call that a bad thing.
You are the typical case of the kettle calling the pot black as you think CO2 is a bad thing in need of regulation because its a bad thing. So you hypocritically claim the ”CO2 coalition is a political advocacy organization. Its mission is not science, but to influence policy”.
And what does the science you support suggest? Obviously that its a bad thing in need of restrictions.
By extension the industrial revolution was also a bad thing. For that you want to silence those who disagree with you by impugning their character or any other ill-begotten means you can think of. Chill out dude!
Furthermore, the CO2 coalition fits the sea-level-rise data to a linear trend with a sudden onset in 1850.
But in the source paper, the authors show a more plausible fit with a trend that accelerates smoothly since about 1800.
https://psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
So again, we see a misleading portrayal of the data, intended to support their narrative.
“Well now you are trying to create a strawman..”
Then off-topic we go…with no specific rebuttals.
Oh well, I think we are done here.
Nate says:
”In the CO2 coalition link, they choose to show only an outlier among sea-level-rise analyses that fits their narrative.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/rising-sea-levels-confirm-modern-warming-predated-increases-of-co2/
But other analyses disagree:”
The claim of the CO2 coalition you are ineffectively challenging was:
”Rising sea levels confirm modern warming predated increases of CO2” The coalition provides a graph with sea level rise from about 1857 that shows sea level is rising and provide a scientific source for that graph.
One can do a minimal amount of research and see many glaciers were retreating at rates much faster in the second half of the 19th century than they were during over the same length periods than they were in the 20th century.
You then provide two graphs that show sea level rising from 1880 and 1900 respectively that doesn’t give a source. Though they both say their graphs came from a source that they modified but in no way do they say how the graphs are modified.
So once you calm down how do you see in your mind of how any of what you provided as refuting the CO2 Coalition?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Then
Nate says:
As do all analyses of the recent satellite altimetry data,eg
which shows acceleration. So this is misrepresenting the current understanding of sea-level-rise.
———————-
This graph was 1992 to 2024. that you are comparing to the last 1/8th of the Jevrajeva graph which also shows acceleration in the segment of 1992-2011, at the end of the study.
You haven’t even shown a disagreement from these sources much less offered anything to refute the CO2 Coalition’s statement they were demonstrating.
Fact is these short term accelerations and decelerations are seen throughout the Jevrajeva graph and are to be expected from short term natural variation such as orbital forcing as discovered by Milankovic.
there is no misrepresentation it’s just you going out of your mind and not understanding anything you are looking at.
I suspect that you would be saying the same thing no matter which graph of the three (2 of yours and 1 of theirs) they chose to use.
Nate says:
Furthermore, the CO2 coalition fits the sea-level-rise data to a linear trend with a sudden onset in 1850.
But in the source paper, the authors show a more plausible fit with a trend that accelerates smoothly since about 1800.
https://psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
So again, we see a misleading portrayal of the data, intended to support their narrative.
————————-
First of all you used the wrong paper. That was Jevrajeva 2008. Not 2014.
Second, their curved fit was 1700 to 2000. If you actually were paying any attention you would see that Jevrajeva 2014 as displayed by the CO2 Coalition doesn’t have a linear fit prior to 1857.
Again Chill dude!
“First of all you used the wrong paper. That was Jevrajeva 2008. Not 2014.”
The paper I showed was the link in the Co2 coalition caption.
The two graphs I showed have links to the papers sourced.
Quote from Co2 coalition.
“sea-level rise that continues at about the same rate today as 150 years ago.”
This is refuted by the graphs I showed, as well as their own linked paper.
All show a clear acceleration in the sea-level-rise.
Oh well!
Nate says:
In the CO2 coalition link, they choose to fit Central England Temperature to a 300 y linear trendline, and stop in 2009.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/naturally-driven-warming-began-more-than-300-years-ago/
But that does not mean a linear trend is the best fit curve.
————————-
They are making the point that the warming started 300 years ago Nate. What difference does it make that the graph was done 10 years ago?
I realize that the non-independent institutions you rely on for your data keeps changing the data every few years to make it look more like the CO2 curve. My how convenient is that?
With 6 ways of building glacial isostatic rebound sealevel accelerations are you claiming your folks aren’t incentivized to throw out the most aggressive curve possible?
Exactly what do you see as the incentives of the CO2 Coalition? They are the ones stating the Emperor has no clothes.
For example, you can’t even come up with proof CO2 is still capable of warming the surface. There may well be sufficient quantities already absorbing all the CO2 bandwidth locally at surface pressures. Those curves suggest that its all absorbed in the atmosphere at the same temperature as the atmosphere as viewed optically from the surface so how does it get warmer than the surface? No evidence exists that it will. the same problem is seen in Seim and Olson experiment where the compartment temperatures are directly related to the difference in surface area of heating plate and not the quantity of CO2.
Additionally, you see 3 major accelerations and 3 decelerations throughout the history. And we know thats not CO2. There are differences in the rates of those accelerations and that alone could account for the much smaller overall acceleration one could divine in the data.
Finally, the only slight curve you can see in your most aggressive versions fits the solar brightness curve. Seen here as a running 10 year averages in sunspots. These curves can easily fit the dance of the other planets pulling on earth, changing its speed in its orbit and causing the sun to either linger for longer or shorter periods of time nearer the sun.
https://flic.kr/p/2qc9LRx
Nate says:
In this case, it seems clear that in the 1690s, during the Maunder minima, there was a brief dip, followed by a 250 year flat trend.
Then sustained warming occurred since 1930 and the most significant warming in the last 3-4 decades.
————–
Indeedy do. Looks like a regular event in the ice core and ocean bottom sediment records. So we only have a sample of one in the instrument record. Get over it.
“In this case, it seems clear that in the 1690s, during the Maunder minima, there was a brief dip, followed by a 250 year flat trend.
Then sustained warming occurred since 1930 and the most significant warming in the last 3-4 decades.
Indeedy do.’
Good, looks like you get the point that the warming trend did not begin 300 y ago. it is a much more recent phenomenon.
And all the global data sets are consistent about that, the warming happened in the last century and became more rapid in the last decades.
Even a hockey-stick shaped data set can be fit to a linear trendline. And drawing one on the data will be misleading.
So it is quite deceptive for the CO2 Coalition to portray the warming as starting 300 y ago.
“Additionally, you see 3 major accelerations and 3 decelerations throughout the history. And we know thats not CO2. ”
Where? In what T data?
“Good, looks like you get the point that the warming trend did not begin 300 y ago. it is a much more recent phenomenon.”
The little ice age was agreed to have ended in 1850, or before global glaciers were advancing, and in 1850 they started to retreat [most of them].
When the medieval warm period ended and little ice age started there wasn’t such an agreement, but most would say it lasted more than couple centuries, some say it started in 13th century, and went up and down as our current world has been having global variability- we had the pause, and the time NYT said we were heading into an Ice Age. And satellite measurement started at this dip.
“The little ice age was agreed to have ended in 1850, or before global glaciers were advancing, and in 1850 they started to retreat [most of them].”
The start and end of the little ice age is vaguely defined. Aside from the Maunder Minimum in 1690, there were some strong volcanoes in 1825 and other years.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/Volcanic_ERF&id=someone@somewhere
But I believe large scale de-forestation for farming was already raising CO2 in the 1800s.
“The little ice age was agreed to have ended in 1850, or before global glaciers were advancing, and in 1850 they started to retreat [most of them].”
The start and end of the little ice age is vaguely defined. Aside from the Maunder Minimum in 1690, there were some strong volcanoes in 1825 and other years.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/Volcanic_ERF&id=someone@somewhere
But I believe large scale de-forestation for farming was already raising CO2 in the 1800s.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/CO2_ERF&id=someone@somewhere
CO2 forcing rising in 1800s
Nate says:
Good, looks like you get the point that the warming trend did not begin 300 y ago. it is a much more recent phenomenon.
And all the global data sets are consistent about that, the warming happened in the last century and became more rapid in the last decades.
Even a hockey-stick shaped data set can be fit to a linear trendline. And drawing one on the data will be misleading.
So it is quite deceptive for the CO2 Coalition to portray the warming as starting 300 y ago.
—————-
Thats not true. Moberg 2005 has northern hemisphere warming beginning 425 years ago.
the only period that even approaches the shape of co2 increases is 1980 onward. Before that temps were going up an down and more up than down. In fact they were going down even as CO2 was accelerating for a few decades.
You are just grasping desperately for the best thread you can find and you have zero explanation for natural climate change.
Without understanding natural climate change you CO2 hypothesis is condemned to remain an unestablished hypothesis like it already has been for well over a hundred years.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-current-warming-trend-is-neither-unusual-nor-unprecedented-part-2/
Further the 300 year linear warming trend is a good fit that recognizes that natural variation is real, something your mainstream media science theory denies. Its been all mainstream media science every since “publish or die” was imposed on academia. . .with politicians and elitist foundations firmly holding on to the purse strings of the resources needed by academics to do a study.
Nate says:
August 28, 2024 at 2:03 PM
The little ice age was agreed to have ended in 1850, or before global glaciers were advancing, and in 1850 they started to retreat [most of them].
The start and end of the little ice age is vaguely defined. Aside from the Maunder Minimum in 1690, there were some strong volcanoes in 1825 and other years.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/Volcanic_ERF&id=someone@somewhere
But I believe large scale de-forestation for farming was already raising CO2 in the 1800s.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/CO2_ERF&id=someone@somewhere
CO2 forcing rising in 1800s
————————
Of course it was Nate. Its been warming since 1600 and when it warms atmospheric CO2 increases because of Henry’s law.
Deforestation from a chemical standpoint for farming reduces the release of CO2 because the fast growing new crops absorb CO2 much faster than mature forests.
But deforesting for farming and irrigation could affect temperature by evaporating more water over a wider area. That would give a boost to temperatures and would also release more oceanic CO2 and may be responsible for some unknown amount of warming beyond the known solar brightening and orbital forcing.
You cannot agree with this
“In this case, it seems clear that in the 1690s, during the Maunder minima, there was a brief dip, followed by a 250 year flat trend.
Then sustained warming occurred since 1930 and the most significant warming in the last 3-4 decades.”
as you clearly did:
“Indeedly do”
And still continue to believe this:
“Further the 300 year linear warming trend is a good fit that recognizes that natural variation is real”
That is a contradiction.
“Deforestation from a chemical standpoint for farming reduces the release of CO2 because the fast growing new crops absorb CO2 much faster than mature forests.”
FALSE!
The northern hemisphere forests are the largest reservoirs of carbon, aside from the ocean.
” Since 1850, about 30% of all CO2 emissions have come from deforestation.”
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/forests-and-climate-change
“the only period that even approaches the shape of co2 increases is 1980 onward. Before that temps were going up an down and more up than down. In fact they were going down even as CO2 was accelerating for a few decades.”
Sure. The point is CO2 alone does not determine global T variation. We need to incorporate other known factors that affect temperature.
So, for example, humans were also polluting the atmosphere with aerosols during the 20th century, as you know very well from the smog in cities when we were young. These block sunlight and produce clouds that block sunlight.
Then as the Western world reducing air pollution after 1970, China begin increasing it again in 1990s.
So this is an estimate of aerosol forcing data over that period.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/total_aerosol_ERF
It is negative, which means it acts to COOL the Earth.
Then you have the CO2 forcing which is positive, warming.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/CO2_ERF
Then combing all both:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/Anthropogenic_total_ERF
Then one can see how we could have gotten the 20th century T trend that you described above.
Nate says:
And still continue to believe this:
Further the 300 year linear warming trend is a good fit that recognizes that natural variation is real
That is a contradiction.
——————-
No its not. The temperature goes down since 1659, then the temperature goes up starting 1700, it goes down starting in the late 18th century into the Dalton Minimum. Then it goes up again starting in the early 19th century, then around 1878 it went down again until 1911, then it starting going up again until 1944, then it went down again until about 1980 then it went up again until about now.
When you have such a pattern a linear trend makes some sense. You guys pushed that linear trend for years but only after 1860. If you want to actually argue your point you need to provide a temperature reconstruction that goes back the same distance like in the case of the graph you are disputing 1659.
All you are doing is giving different periods of time, and applying an ideal curve for the period. Its perfectly clear to me there is a huge amount of uncertainty related to all the pre satellite temperature records that have been fiddled with endlessly. The coalition shows one version and you have a cow because you want to show a version with shorter time line instead and you completely fail to acknowledge the uncertainty.
Nate says:
Deforestation from a chemical standpoint for farming reduces the release of CO2 because the fast growing new crops absorb CO2 much faster than mature forests.
FALSE!
The northern hemisphere forests are the largest reservoirs of carbon, aside from the ocean.
————————–
Sure the forest reservoirs are huge and flexible. But you ignore that farming emerged with the development of towns and cities. The forests were cut down and used in construction. Most of the reservoir still exists. You are claiming a release of CO2 that you present no evidence of.
It is true though that in some remote forests in last 4 to 6 decades, big ag, has probably burnt down a lot of stuff as reported in the Amazon. But I am sure much of it has built the cities in Brazil.
But still all you are doing is throwing uncertainties that you believe to be certainties at the wall hoping something will stick while failing completely to acknowledge the uncertainties that thousands of scientists see.
“it goes down starting in the late 18th century into the Dalton Minimum. Then it goes up again starting in the early 19th century, then around 1878 it went down again until 1911, then it starting going up again until 1944”
Nope. I dont see any of that in Central England T which is what we are talking about.
And when I stated it had a 250 year flat period after the Maunder minimum, you agreed.
Anyway moving on….
“You are claiming a release of CO2 that you present no evidence of.”
False. I am not claiming. Science research has determined this. I gave you an MIT link.
What research results can you offer to contradict them?
“The forests were cut down and used in construction. Most of the reservoir still exists.”
Evidence? Without data this is pure speculation.
Lots of forests cut down for agriculture would well have been burned for heat or otherwise.
Nate says:
”Nope. I dont see any of that in Central England T which is what we are talking about.”
So you are going to resort to lying.
There are several trends in the data, even smoothed with algorithm that exceed one degree. The modern trend isn’t anymore impressive.
There are no flat lines, not one single one even after flattening the raw data via a smoothing algorithm.
Nate says:
”And when I stated it had a 250 year flat period after the Maunder minimum, you agreed.”
Indeed the data goes up and down in all time spans. Including climate length ones from 20 to 80 years in time with the direction of gravitational influences of the major gas giants.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/naturally-driven-warming-began-more-than-300-years-ago/
This effect of extended periods of a few hundred years with small spikes are followed by a much larger spike as seen in the ice core records here with the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval optimums.
Put 2 and 2 together and you know immediately there is huge uncertainties about the claims of institutionally influenced scientists being directed by people with zero accountability.
Look again and weep.
Nate says:
You are claiming a release of CO2 that you present no evidence of.
False. I am not claiming. Science research has determined this. I gave you an MIT link.
What research results can you offer to contradict them?
———————–
Simple in that its not due to deforestation. The link claims its deforestation but it has no support that it is that. If you drill down into the footnote, you will find everything related to increases in CO2 is organized into 2 categories. ”Emissions” and ”land use changes”. There is no evidence provided for the quantities subcategories of land use change. Land use change would include UHI, towns, cities, agriculture of deserts, plains, and forests and of course all their feedbacks as well.
Only in Climate 101 for Dumbbells (which is what the link is for) Is it dumbed down for all the DEI students so as to not overwhelm them with details at the beginning of their indoctrination.
Nate says:
The forests were cut down and used in construction. Most of the reservoir still exists.
Evidence? Without data this is pure speculation.
Lots of forests cut down for agriculture would well have been burned for heat or otherwise.
———————–
Thats how forestry has worked for a few hundred years. Logging companies come in saw down the trees. Sell the logs, burn the slash (leaves, needles, and small branches); then sell the land to a farmer.
Modern forestry has limited how much of that is done such that the logging companies come in saw down the trees. Sell the logs, burn the slash; then exchange the land with the forestry department, or a tree farm, so it can be dedicated to fast tree farm like regrowth.
One doesn’t need a science study to tell you what has been going on big time over at least the entire history of the US. Its well known that these fast growing forestry practices put more CO2 into wood fibers faster. Without the speed regrow, trees grow much slower. The difference in growth rate is well known by every carpenter in the nation who has been around for more than 50 years. Regrown trees have much wider grain and far less hard grain that grows much more slowly.
https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCASI22_Forest_Carbon_YoungVsOld_print.pdf
The same is true for the plains and woodlands. I lived most of my life in fire prone areas of chaparral brush.
These forests have planets that can go into hibernation for generations and only emerge from the ground after a fire, speaking to how these forests actually evolved to depend on fires to protect its biodiversity.
“The forests were cut down and used in construction. Most of “the reservoir still exists.
Evidence? Without data this is pure speculation.”
Lots of forests cut down for agriculture would well have been burned for heat or otherwise.”
Thats how forestry has worked for a few hundred years. Logging companies come in saw down the trees. Sell the logs, burn the slash (leaves, needles, and small branches); then sell the land to a farmer.”
So as usual you make a claim, and offer no evidence to back it up.
“One doesnt need a science study to tell you what has been going on big time over at least the entire history of the US.”
Sorry, but yes you do. Your anecdotes are not relevant to the 1800s.
You haven’t measured carbon or found any data.
So then we have to go with what actual science research has figured out.
“Nope. I dont see any of that in Central England T which is what we are talking about.
So you are going to resort to lying.”
Well, given that YOU agreed with me when I previously stated that there was a 250 year flat trend, then you are again in a state of contradiction!
Obviously you are unable to stay civil and deal with me having different views and opinions, without losing your sh*t.
I think we are done here.
Nate your source is wrong. I traced the footnote to the original source and that source does not say deforestation was the cause of 30% of the CO2 increases.
It simply had a catch all category of ”land use change” and it didn’t consider orbital forcing nor solar forcing at all. It just ignored it.
Thus your source simply isn’t good science.
If you want to ignorantly continue to believe otherwise be my guest.
“and that source does not say deforestation was the cause of 30% of the CO2 increases.
It simply had a catch all category of land use change and it didnt consider orbital forcing nor solar forcing at all. It just ignored it.”
Wow. Now you think ‘orbital forcing’ also produces CO2?? Odd.
I understand that you desire to be a contrarian wrt all that mainstream science has discovered.
So go ahead and look into it further. I am not really interested.
Nate says:
”Wow. Now you think orbital forcing also produces CO2?? Odd.”
No little Natty I don’t think orbital forcing ”produces” CO2. Orbital forcing changes the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere vs the ocean and it does so by heating and cooling the surface of the ocean.
“changes the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere vs the ocean and it does so by heating and cooling the surface of the ocean.”
Doesn’t work on many levels. Henrys law for water, says that such a small T change will produce a negligible change in atm CO2.
And the orbital forcing is well known to be causing the Earth to gradually cool since the Holocene Optimum 8000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Nate says:
”Doesnt work on many levels. Henrys law for water, says that such a small T change will produce a negligible change in atm CO2.”
Well thats interesting. If CO2 warms the surface according to modtran scientists that have reviewed Milankovitch would attribute enough CO2 production to account for 15% of the warming. Thats not something you should simply attempt to hand wave away without a competing computation.
The rest of milankovitch is attributed as 50% eccentricity variation (a global effect), 25% axial tilt one of the two slowly changing variables, and 10% for axial precession
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.194.4270.1121
Well thats interesting. If CO2 warms the surface according to modtran scientists that have reviewed Milankovitch would attribute enough CO2 production to account for 15% of the warming. ”
Gobbldegook.
“The rest of milankovitch is attributed as 50% eccentricity variation (a global effect), 25% axial tilt one of the two slowly changing variables, and 10% for axial precession”
And all of these are very slow 10s of thousands of year long processes.
You have yet to show their relevance to warming over the last 300 years or less which, which has been part of the very long term cooling trend.
Nate says:
Gobbldegook.
And all of these are very slow 10s of thousands of year long processes.
You have yet to show their relevance to warming over the last 300 years or less which, which has been part of the very long term cooling trend.
————————
you don’t have any credible sources to dispute my take. And the Milankovic threads of study very credibly disputes your take. . .is consistent with the co2 coalition’s assessment to which you have no credible source to claim otherwise. i gave you my sources and for sure once again you will fall short of providing sources supporting your dispute with my take. no question about that.
Eric wrote on August 17, 2024 at 12:05 PM:
” When the coolant increases, the height that it cools efficiently gets higher. ”
This is a twofold misunderstanding.
*
Firstly, neither CO2, CH4, O3, N2O let alone H2O are ‘coolants’.
They are gases absorbing terrestrial IR emissions and reemitting them in all directions – half to space, half into the atmosphere or even back to surface.
That alone makes them ‘warmants’, to use Eric’s strange language: they prevent the terrestrial infrared response to the solar shortwave energy to reach outer space.
*
Furthermore, the higher the place between surface and lower stratosphere at which infrared radiation is intercepted, the lower the reemission temperature, and hence the lower the reemitted energy compared to that emitted directly from the surface, because this energy is proportional to the fourth power of the emission’s temperature.
*
A tick lower in the thread, Ken wrote on August 17, 2024 at 8:44 AM
” Does Infrared radiation have a temperature? ”
My understanding of wave-particle is that radiation has electro-magnetic characteristics and that doesnt include a temperature.
100% correct! Why should radiation have a temperature? The inverse matters: anything having some temperature above 0 Kelvin emits radiation.
The question of course is: which radiation wavelengths matter?
According to Wien’s law, the Sun’s peak radiation wave length is at 0.48 micron, and Earth’s is at 9.7 micron.
*
In this graph:
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation.png
you see a lot of correlating info:
– IRIS (Infra Red Interferometer Spectrometer) observation over the dry, hot Sahara
– MODTRAN model of IRIS-like observation
– blackbody Planck curves at different temperatures.
Combining the three:
– satellite-borne IR observation and lab computations based on MODTRAN are quite near to each another
– the 320 K blackbody curve is an unexpectedly good approximation of TOA observations over the Sahara.
*
All these claims that a blackbody Planck curve cannot represent terrestrial reality, or that MODTRAN model outputs don’t match observations: they are no more than BS.
*
Good for us all is that within the so-called atmospheric window, between 8 and 13 micron (i.e. around Earth’s most powerful radiation frequency), outgoing radiation is only weakened a bit by ozone, and hence reaches outer space with very few loss.
IRIS observes in the 15 micron region a temperature of 220 K, what means that in this wave length spectrum, the emission takes place in the lower stratosphere, and not at the surface.
If H2O’s and CO2’s major absorp~tion and emission lines were at 10 micron instead of 15, I’m not 100% sure that we would be here and discuss the point: under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance, H2O’s absorp~tion and emission intensity is 100 times higher than CO2’s, and CO2’s is 100,000 times higher than O3’s.
Absorp~tion and emission between 5 and 40 micron
– O3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qapBf4k2gasLMDWbl-aN2Grj6zaiRW3e/view
– CO2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFU0veDw5zzFI9KfVGEVuRfdNtN_4I2V/view
– H2O: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qHmIOXwN6DTxVfVlkc4Sn31DuX5qINFK/view
Blinny,
You’re such a genius. Why don’t you explain how water isn’t a coolant?
Apparently, the 6.9 liter pickup driver is as much able to read a comment as is his friend Robertson…
Read again, and think.
I am cooking some pasta, want some?
Fall Forecast 2024: La Nia’s Advance
https://youtu.be/H2cwjthpjCY
Thw word of the day – Dindo
https://youtu.be/86_Z3Sbrxqo
Cold north Atlantic lows will cause a large drop in Atlantic surface temperatures above latitude 45N.
You can see how ozone production over the equator is responding to the recent increase in solar activity.https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
The southern polar vortex continues to be weakened.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_SH_2024.png
https://i.ibb.co/QmDmrwx/current.gif
Sorry
Ozone anomalies SH.
Is that PV weakening due to the approach of the Equinox, remnants of the HTE, or something else?
The cause is planetary waves in the upper stratosphere. Spring in the south is still a long way off.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JAS_SH_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2024.png
It can be seen that ozone is accumulating in the region of the Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly.
https://i.ibb.co/3BJxz3G/gfs-t30-sh-f00.png
Interesting.
Thanks!
About the Polar Vortex: a bit of ‘cult’ science, ha ha haah…
https://www.severe-weather.eu/long-range-2/south-pole-stratospheric-warming-winter-2024-2025-influence-forecast-united-states-canada-europe-fa/
“A strong Stratospheric Warming event is ongoing over the South Pole. It has disturbed the southern Polar Vortex and will help to create strong weather anomalies at the surface. But the latest forecast data suggests that its impact might be far more reaching, likely even into the Winter of 2024/2025, over the Northern Hemisphere.”
“Also, looking at the surface temperature forecast for next week, you can see a very strong warm anomaly over Antarctica, with the cold air displaced towards South America and the Atlantic. This is the expected result of a strong stratospheric warming and a polar vortex disruption, as the high-pressure anomalies push the cold air out of the pole.”
Due to the weakening geomagnetic field over South and North America, similar anomalies may occur in winter in the northern hemisphere. Warmer winters are not expected in North America.
Due to the Earth’s rotation, the ozone spot will move between Antarctica and Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/bJZ5Zyg/current-1.gif
It can be seen that there is more ozone over the South Pole.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2024_N20.png
In the troposphere, strong blocking is seen in the Pacific, which means an influx of cold air into South America.
https://i.ibb.co/q0N6pSD/500gz-anomalies-sh.png
Trump’s witch hunt and impeachment effort of Biden fizzles with report’s release.
New report confirms only Trump committed impeachable crimes and not Biden.
The signature investigation of the Republican-led House fizzled to a close Monday as the GOP capped a yearlong probe into President Biden with a series of allegations but no recommendation to move forward with impeachment.
It’s an unusual end for a process that took up much of the oxygen in Washington for months at a time.
The investigation started with a pledge to showcase that President Biden abused his power and was at the center of a corrupt plot to enrich his family.
But the report failed to uncover a smoking gun, instead relying on largely debunked threads, disputed testimony, and circumstantial evidence that failed to directly tie any official action from President Biden to his family’s business dealings.
Using the justice system to futter a political opponent is a travesty that we expect from tin pot dictatorships.
Keep on with the abuse of the legal system and USA will become a shit-hole nation.
I don’t get to vote in USA. My outsider viewpoint says Trump is your best choice.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time: https://youtu.be/B5-lOAvnxfs?t=20
10% for the Big Guy. Who is the Big Guy? More importantly, is the laptop Russian disinformation, or Hunters record of criminal behavior? Just asking for a friend.
looks like it is not the ending that you are painting that it is. the inquiry into the Biden family is actually continuing. They continue to uncover more criminal activity like the 20 shell companies that jumped (newly discovered)tens of millions to over 8 biden family members. Looks like there will be some ‘tax-troubles’ headed their way for non-payment.
Probably much more to come down the pike with the political/election season hitting. Maybe there will be more fake Russian collusion attempts…some groups love spreading last min mis/mal-information to try to sway last min voters. Wondering what they’ll make up this year.
‘Dont do the crime if you cant do the time:’
There wouldn’t even be a trial if Trump were to stop his bid for President.
yeah… there is much fear and whining about T….. K. H. is such a waste of human intellect .. unless you want to laugh your stoned way through life .. she has no clue on how to run an nation. she had 4.5 years to show her true intentions and in all 4 plus years she was losing . yes 4plus sad we have some that seem to agree with inflation and losing businesses. some just want radical marxist destruction like we see in Cali… I can’t wait to see Camela Harris don gloves and try to clean up her district like greasy gavin did in cali … props to him for putting in an effort sad he had to have a makeup/hair artist and two camera folks at the ready for his fake ploy / movie
.
“While former officials are not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.
Put another way, in the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office… as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations is run. He didn’t get away with anything yet.
We have a criminal justice system in this country, we have civil litigation and, former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.”
Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor, February 13, 2021.
Meanwhile, Granger (TX), Hoeven (ND), Kennedy (LA), Johnson (WI), Moran (KS), Shelby (AL), Daines (MT), and Thune (SD) spent their 4th of July in Moscow.
And no, not in Idaho.
I approve and just hope it works Dr Spencer! Maybe the comments section becomes more of a critical review of the post and of ideas and less critical of the people commenting.
Republican Serial Liar George Santos aka Anthony Devolder aka Kitara Revache Pleads Guilty to Fraud.
George Santos, who was expelled from Congress as he faced nearly two dozen criminal charges, reached a plea deal Monday with federal prosecutors in New York on two federal counts.
Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
“A short time ago, after years of telling lies, former Congressman George Santos stood in the courthouse behind me and finally, under oath, told the truth. And that truth is that he is a criminal,” U.S. Attorney Breon Peace said. “Santos pled guilty to serious crimes involving fraud and identity theft. He also admitted to committing all other crimes he was charged with in the superseding indictment. As a result, he will finally be held to account for his actions.”
Peace said under the deal Santos will go to prison for at least two years, though the judge said the plea deal may come with an estimated sentencing range between 6-8 years. He’s set for sentencing Feb. 7 at federal court in Central Islip.
Under the agreement, Santos will have to repay at least $373,000.
“So today, for what may seem like the first time since he started his campaign for Congress, Mr. Santos told the truth about his criminal schemes. He admitted that he lied, he stole, and that he conned people. Santos’ countless lies and audacious misrepresentations catapulted him to Congress,” Peace said. “But for the victims of Santos’ various financial crimes and the community whose falsehoods and fabrications deprived them of honest representation in Congress, he is worthy only of infamy.”
Santos spoke in court, acknowledging a series of crimes. He spoke so quickly the judge had to tell him to slow down, CBS News New York’s Alice Gainer reported.
Santos had previously called the investigation a “witch hunt” while maintaining his innocence.
When asked whether he was afraid of going to jail, he said: “I think everybody should be afraid of going to jail. It’s not a pretty place. I definitely want to work very hard to avoid that as best as possible.”
Santos noted in that interview that a plea deal was “not off the table.” Prosecutors said in a Dec. 11 court filing that they were in plea negotiations with Santos “with the goal of resolving this matter without the need for a trial.”
Jury selection was supposed to begin Sept. 9 in his trial on 23 felony charges, which included wire fraud, theft of public funds, money laundering, aggravated identity theft and making false statement to the Federal Election Commission.
Yeah good to see that weird guy booted out of Congress by the republicans…. they seemed to be able to do the right thing (that was clearly obvious right thing to do) too bad the democrats could not muster the moral strength to have done the same to Mr. Gold bars in his shoes Menendez…they let that one fester and embarrass honest politicians ( all 12 of them ). This is why it is important to have and hold primaries and candidates must address questions…hiding candidates from a primary and just deeming them as the winner ( aka K.Harris) was pretty un-democratic…
> Menendez
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/timeline-rise-fall-senator-bob-menendez-new-jersey/5624639/
Compare and contrast:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/timeline-rep-george-santos-fabrications-controversy-rcna66367
“Kamala and I are committed to strengthening illegal immigration”.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-C_Ya_lq1s8
Right Willard you are making my point more clearly than i did .. the fact that the dems let that rat stay on and infect the pool…is just sad. the dems should of taken a moral stand and booted him. you ‘compare and contrast’ is perfect but you forgot .. dems accepted and allowed their corruption (as a whole since there were some demanding he leave) and the repubs kicked out their rat before any trials. …but sometimes rats stick together eh?
I rather refuted your point, Martin, and don’t mind refuting more of them:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/21/trump-putin-hr-mcmaster-memoir
Referencing the Guardian as a source of truth is laughable. It is very bias, as can be seen with their frequent climate scare stories without any balance.
More interesting quotes:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/h-r-mcmaster-at-war-with-ourselves-my-tour-of-duty-in-the-trump-white-house/
For some being conservative still means acting like an adult.
Anon for a reason
“Balance”
I record a chat show in which a scientist was “balanced” by a sceptic. The scientist had data, but all the sceptic could offer was rhetoric.
Balance was mentioned and the host brought in 32 white coated “scientists” to illustrate the balance between consensus and sceptic scientists on climate change.
A story reported by swamp creatures, from swamp creatures about a man who despises their leftist swamp ideology. So, what’s your point?
Science is based upon gathering evidence and trying to falsify it. Skepticism is an essential part of it. Trying to browbeat scientists who are skeptical is political propaganda, not science.
Martin says:
“weird guy booted out of Congress by the republicans…. too bad the democrats could not muster the moral strength to have done the same… they let that one fester and embarrass honest politicians…
You have a very short memory.
You’ve already forgotten that on December 28, 2022, George Santos, the New York Republican, had already admitted to fabricating much of his personal and professional biography and was set to be sworn into Congress the same day the House would start voting for a new speaker.
But House GOP leader McCarthy, with only four party votes to spare, needed all the support he could get – even if it came from a member-elect steeped in scandal.
So, McCarthy and other members of leadership remained silent about Santos’ admitted fabrications. As of that date, only Democrats were calling for Santos to resign from the post.
Martin says:
“This is why it is important to have and hold primaries and candidates must address questions… hiding candidates from a primary and just deeming them as the winner ( aka K.Harris) was pretty un-democratic…”
Your grasp of American politics is flimsy.
Harris was vetted during the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries in a field of 29 candidates. Biden won the nomination and picked Harris to be his running mate; and the rest is history.
Skepticism is an essential part of science. People who try to label themselves “skeptics” are trying to exclude scientists to their own political ends. It is propaganda, not disinterestedness.
Arch- you make a great statement:
“Harris was vetted during the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries in a field of 29 candidates. Biden won the nomination and picked Harris to be his running mate; and the rest is history.”
And as recorded in history is that she was of the first to drop out and got 0 votes …. that is what proper vetting does… and was ranked the most liberal in congress for the 2019 year by govtrack. Biden picking Harris has little to do with the lack of public support for her.
Hmm, I thought Rich Ojeda was the first to drop out on January 25, 2019. Harris didn’t drop out ’till December 2, 2019 after receiving 844 votes and having raised $ 40 million.
But, why would you lie, right?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cp81zl43ppgo
I find this amusing.
Donald Trump was shot by a registered Republican and now hides behind bulletproof glass from his own supporters.
Climate “sceptics” are inconsistent.
They demand equal time for a position held by a small minority.
Yet the same people reject the principle of equal time for all presidential candidates.
In alphabetical order they are
Kamala Harris
Robert J Kennedy Jr
Chase Oliver
Jill Stein
Donald Trump
Cornel West
Why are they not each given 17% of media coverage? Giving 99% of the coverage to Harris and Trump give those two an unfair advantage.
Eman,
Being a leftist Brit, you wouldn’t understand this but the US is still based upon meritocracy, especially in Presidential elections. None of those others have earned equal time or equity. However, they at least gave those candidates to earn their chance. Can we say the same for the Democrats? You don’t need to answer.
Stephen
Americans set the political centre a lot further to the right than the rest of the world. By European standards the Democrats are right of centre and the Republicans are further right.
I’m from the European political centre, in the gap between our Conservative party and Labour party.
Kamala Harris is to myrighg, with a political position like a moderate Conservative Member of Parliament. Calling her a Marxist is rofl funny.
As for electing Presidents on merit, your record is very uneven. For every Roosevelt or Kennedy there is a Nixon, a George Bush Jr or a Trump.
The political compass classifies people from Left to Right on their economic policies and Libertarian to Authoritarian on their social policies.
This is how they classify the candidates for the 2024 Presidential election.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2024
Archie,
I’ll put my understanding of American politics up against yours any day… so lets just use facts K. Harris was awarded 0 (that is a zero) delegates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
she is horrible on the economy a disaster as leading the boarder ( as her job) and now she wants to sell the US voters that on day one she will fix what she supported for years… too dang funny…
And yes what i stated was factual she was indeed of the first to drop out not THE first .. but OF the first..seems my command of English is also good (so far)
Willard thank you for making my point so clearly .. the dems just allow the swamp to fester… (aka moron Menendez) the dems could not even voice enough morals to oust him…while the Repubs actually did finally oust the jerk Santos… (hopefully they both see time behind bars) but good work there little buddy… you are smarter than you probably give yourself credit for. and nobody… nobody here is able to refute that fact … and the fact that K. H was voted by govtrack as the most far left of the 100 they ranked… Comrade Bernie was 99th…so that should tell folks a bit about harris. educating the left is fun
I appreciate your efforts to try to agree and amplify, Martin, but perhaps you’d need to write comments that are factually true before dancing on your line of 20:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684471
Either you missed Archie’s refutation or you operate using an even shorter memory than he presumed.
Duly noted.
Ent,
Britain is far left. The Tories are closer to our traditional Democrat Party which almost doesn’t exist anymore. The Democrat Party has lurched far left with Bernie Sanders and The Squad, Maxine Waters,Tim Walz, Obama, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco, LA, setting the agenda.
Thanks again Willard for proving my point. Time to type things a bit more slowly so you get it but Santos was expelled…. the republican party booted him out. the dems allowed their cancer to fester when they all knew he was guilty. https://apnews.com/article/george-santos-expulsion-vote-ethics-investigation-fd0f1524065883c6b2fe3e6f9afd84db
No need to thank me, dearest Martin.
It’s Archie who refuted you.
I am back from Canada. In terms of Hurricane season, my side has 3, with Hurricane, Gilma, and two chance of cyclone formations, one 80% and other 40% and all more about Hawaii, than my region {the hottest place in the world}.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
The weather guesses for me, is it might get a bit warmer in about a week, but only vaguely warmer, and currently “nicely warm, and next couple days has cloudy and windy condition.
Current weather in the Pacific reminds of the situation prior to Maui fire last year.
Gilma and Home, Gilma is a slowly moving hurricane and Hone is tropical storm much closer to Hawaii, moving faster, and effecting it, by Saturday. Gilma will take longer to get there, and be tropical Storm by Monday and may fade before it gets close to Hawaii,
And far behind this, is a 60% chance of cyclone formation.
And Atlantic has nothing, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 329.4 km/sec
density: 4.12 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 176
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 230 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.69×10^10 W Hot
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
11 numbered sunspots. 2 leaving and 2 are going to numbered.
gbaikie
A comparison which might interest you.
Monthly values of SSN, F10.7 solar flux (absolute), Bremen MgII index and inverted Oulu neutron count for the solar cycle SC 25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oLwc2SSUqAxeJBCO8lVmjMbLIXUbRB8Y/view
Since a comparison of such different value ranges does not make much sense, they were all scaled uniformly to percentage values of their respective maximum.
*
Interestingly, the inverted Oulu NC shows the steepest increase. I did not expect this at all.
Sources
SSN
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-SSN-monthly
F10.7
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/solar_flux_data/monthly_averages/solflux_monthly_average.txt
MgII composite
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
Oulu
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Bindidon
Yes, I am interested in the Neutron Counts and our Thermosphere and I am hoping to be able to draw some kinds of
conclusions about them.
Broadly, I will say, the Thermosphere Climate Index can seen as short term “effects” from solar activity and Neutron Counts are more about long term effects from solar activity.
Solar wind
speed: 372.8 km/sec
density: 5.08 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Aug 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 175
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 230 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.69×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
10 numbered sunspots
Solar wind
speed: 392.7 km/sec
density: 5.23 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 180
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 242 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.89×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
9 numbered sunspots.
None coming or going.
Solar wind
speed: 368.5 km/sec
density: 4.80 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 172
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 232 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.98×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.1% Low
9 numbered sunspot. Again, none coming or
going
Solar wind
speed: 303.9 km/sec
density: 3.17 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 178
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 233 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 30.00×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
10 numbered spots. 2 coming from farside, 1 leaving to farside,
Solar wind
speed: 252.5 km/sec
density: 1.51 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 202
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 232 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 30.07×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.9% Low
11 numbered sunspots
Solar wind
speed: 312.1 km/sec
density: 3.62 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 170
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 221 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 30.20×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.2% Low
10 numbered spots
Solar wind
speed: 274.2 km/sec
density: 1.83 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 163
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 212 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.75×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.2% Low
Solar wind
speed: 373.1 km/sec
density: 0.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 124
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 204 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 30.09×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
8 numbered spots
Solar wind
speed: 331.7 km/sec
density: 0.16 protons/cm3;
Daily Sun: 31 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 143
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.87×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
9 numbered sunspots
There is natural variability in the equatorial Pacific. As you can see, currently ENSO is neutral and will remain so, as the southern polar vortex and atmospheric circulation in the South Pacific are weakened.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2024&month=08
SOI values for 21 Aug, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days -0.96
Average SOI for last 90 days -2.59
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 18.57
Monthly average SOI values
May 3.93
Jun -4.89
Jul -5.83
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
Showers will persist after the passage of the first front, then re-intensify as the second approaches, with temps dropping a few degrees on Saturday in cooler air behind that second front.
If you’re sick of the winter rain by now, that’s understandable, but bear in mind that the BoM’s long-range forecast for September through November shows that drier than average conditions are likely for large parts of the western half of Australia.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/another-southwest-wa-rainy-spell/1889777?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240822_news_another-southwest-wa-rainy-spell&fbclid=IwY2xjawEzsa1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbP7cxs_Hn8Ipxf38K2bVS8J4qnuvlHYNClpETOqcPb5uJyJR8Q8-G6iyw_aem_2Id97QryBW1md16LNYo-Tg
Who the heck is this Martin guy?
Does he, like the driver of the 6.9-liter pickup, believe that Roy Spencer’s blog is some kind of Fox News channel?
Isn’t it?
No.
Many of the “sceptics” here will recognise themselves somewhere in this taxonomy of climate change denial.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Using Wikipedia as an objective source of political, yes political content is a mistake. Using stereotypes to enforce political beliefs is fundamentally dishonest. When exactly did Kevin Trenberth become the sole source expert on the career achievements of his opponents?
From your link:
[American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.[226] He describes in his memoirs his “close encounters with deniers and skeptics”with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists. These included Richard Lindzen (“he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers”; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.[227]), Roy Spencer (who has “repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present”), John Christy (“his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion”), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels (“long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident”).]
This is character assassination in its purist form, but it is typical of Wikipedia not making any attempt to be objective, or include different points of view. If Kevin is to be believed, one need not seek any other source. Wikipedia says that Kevin Trenberth has provided everything you need to know about Dr Spencer’s views on climate science and climate change.
> of political, yes political […] dishonest […] sole source expert […] typical of Wikipedia […]
That is a political commentary. It may not have everything, but it has a lot:
Empty assertion. Yes, empty assertion. Where is the first claim supported? It’s not. It only rests on the bias of the audience.
Mind probing. Yes, another empty assertion, but with a special twist. The usual accusation that is being repeated in the anglosphere controlled by Newscorp or worse.
Caricature. Yes, caricature. Who the hell will ever says that Kevin is the ultimate autority on this or anything else? This caricature sidesteps a whole area of research showing how the contrarian matrix operates.
And hasty generalization. Yes, hasty. And yes, a generalization. Has TS really studied the question? Of course not. He’s just soapboxing.
We definitely need better contrarians.
This reminds me of that famous quote from Dirty Harry. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5? How many strawman attempts did Willard make? Did he address any of the points I made about stereotypes, or the problem with using someone’s opponent to characterize their achievements? Is he effectively claiming that stereotypes are useful? It is difficult to tell what he trying to do.
The adults in the room should address whether this type of response belongs in a science forum. Maybe some people actually like this kind of thing.
> how many strawman?
That’s easy to answer.
It’s zero.
TS is merely posturing right now.
Ent, Willard,
Can you find one American leftist who is characterized as Far Left Wing on Wiki? I can find you several who are characterized as Far Right Wing. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar,Joy Reid, Cenk Uygur, etc. etc. None are characterized as Far Left Wing. So, my point is Wiki, Guardian, Atlantic on all the left Wing rags are extremely biased and therefore untrustworthy.
“> how many strawman?
That’s easy to answer.
It’s zero”
There is never zero strawmen in Willard’s answers.
There’s no such thing as a “leftist” except in the weirdest areas on the Internet.
For free I’ll name Noam Chomsky, who’s not even that radical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
He’d call himself a “libertarian” if that word hasn’t been corrupted by ancap freaks.
I could name at least 100 other names. But that service does not belong to the free tier.
No such thing as a leftist. Look in the mirror. You’re beyond delusional.
> Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as “conservative” or “libertarian”, but which could be more accurately described as “bigoted narcissism”. His aggressive posturing often frightens off weaker, more timid Warriors. In pitched battle, however, Troglodyte easily loses control and his attack quickly degenerates into a rant.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
Entropy-loss man: You like to cite two of the most inaccurate, sloppy and biased sources on the planet, The Guardian and Wikipedia, particularly on topics such as energy, the environment and climate change. These sources have been discredited so many times, even by high-school teachers, that one wonders why you would even mention them for fear of embarrassment, yet you plough ahead unwittingly. The result is that no one ever pays the slightest attention to your claims. The mockery you receive is richly reserved. Meanwhile, up here in the subzero Arctic, we’re having a “bumper crop” of ice, almost too much in fact — it can hinder hauling out on one’s favourite island.
” Meanwhile, up here in the subzero Arctic, we’re having a ‘bumper crop’ of ice, almost too much in fact it can hinder hauling out on one’s favourite island. ”
*
Where exactly is that ‘bumper crop’ located?
If it was visible everywhere above 55N, would then not the charts below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nOrvaaJWBr6LFV2YJXWvkITwsMRfgpvG/view
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
both look differing quite a lot?
*
And by the way, were all the people in the Arctic lying when they claimed years ago that they had lost their permafrost freezer?
Were their videos showing lots of boxes of spoiled reindeer meat all fake?
Really?
As usual there is quite a bit of interesting points made in the Wikipedia page. And anyone can edit it. And lots of references linked.
They make the point that the evidence for warming trends, and their anthropogenic origin, have only grown,and thus many science skeptics have come to accept that this is happening but are still skeptical of the amount.
Then one could ask why the conservative-leaning public has only become LESS accepting that climate change is due to human activities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#/media/File%3A202303_Global_warming_caused_by_human_activities_-_Gallup_survey.svg
So how is it that conservative-leaning public is getting different information than the climate science skeptics?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#/media/File%3AFalse_balance_in_climate_science.png
That and what theyre hearing from their political leaders and industry lobbyists.
Nate, this problem of public perception is rather simple. Climate science is extremely complex and difficult to understand even for science educated people. Some of the comments and conclusions expressed on this very web site give evidence to that. That problem is made worse because the politicians are involved in making public policy decisions to “solve the climate crisis”.
The public receives this politically charged science from politically biased reporters who typically know zero science. The climate reporter at CNN, Bill Weir, has a college degree in journalism and creative writing. Bill Nye is a comedy act.
The bottom line is that people who think the government should control everything, and like the idea of the government telling them how they should live, think that climate is the perfect emergency. These people really want to believe that the government is saving the planet from destruction.
On the other hand, people who are self-reliant and want the government out of their lives as much as possible, resist being told how to live, and can clearly see the hype coming from the liberal media. They really want to believe the whole thing is a vast left wing conspiracy.
Ultimately, most people live in their comfort silos. Liberals watch the liberal media and conservatives watch conservative media. People looking for accurate and unbiased science have a difficult task, and will not find it from any of the public media on either side.
Tim S
Actually private industry is doing far more on the Climate Crisis than any governmental body.
They are building lots of solar and wind energy with some battery backup with little to no incentive from governments.
“That problem is made worse because the politicians are involved in making public policy decisions to solve the climate crisis.”
Or or, the problem is made worse when politicians tell the public that there is no human-caused climate change, so there is nothing to be done about it.
Whereas the science shows that there is human caused climate change. And even the science skeptics get that.
Politicians are not scientists, so they need science advice from experts to make policy, and not just from a cherry-picked few. But one party has chosen, almost uniformly, to ignore the advice of scientists, such as the National Academy of Science, which was created specifically to advice and inform government.
Look, even Elon Musk while chatting with his new buddy Trump, admitted that we need to move to more renewable energy, and that within a few decades most of our energy will be from solar. But that the transition will take time, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Nate, you came very close to the correct answer. CO2 does contribute to global warming in some qualitative way. It cannot be quantitatively defined accurately. Climate change is the next step and that is even more difficult to predict or even estimate. Changes in seasonal weather from year to year are not evidence of climate change. Temperature records partially measure the heat island effect.
The fun part is when they say the USA is responsible, and only “we” can solve the problem. Mentioning China and the rest of the world is considered by many to be “climate change denial”.
Should China and the rest of the world be part of the conversation? Is RCP 6 the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions? What should the USA do? Should we panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles?
“The fun part is when they say the USA is responsible, and only we can solve the problem. Mentioning China and the rest of the world is considered by many to be climate change denial
I was just travelling in the UK, a much smaller country, and they are even more determined to shift to renewables. As are the rest of Europe.
Everyone serious understands it requires a global effort, thus meetings like Paris, and COP keep happening.
China has picked up the pace in moving to renewables, which has been more difficult, given their intense industrial economic base. They make all our stuff, including most of the solar panels.
“What should the USA do? Should we panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles?”
Who is panicking and rushing headlong?
Personally I have a 40 mile plug-in/hybrid vehicle, which works well for us. The charging infrastructure isnt ready for all EV.
There is a gradual move in the car market to electric vehicles. It is market driven with some govt incentives, which is consistent with previous government support for energy/transportation infrastructure development.
These transitions in the past have typically happened over 30 y. The railroads, interstate highways, electric grid, hydroelectric, Nuclear, fossil fuel pipeline network, offshore oil wells, fracking, with govt support.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
“How China Became the Worlds Leader on Renewable Energy”
How China remains the leader in NEW coal fired power plants, and why massive increases in renewables, with the exception of hydroelectric, which has a large effect, otherwise have only a small effect:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53959
“Should China and the rest of the world be part of the conversation?”
Yes. And they are.
“In 2020, for example, China pledged to reach 1,200 gigawatts of renewables capacity by 2030, more than double its capacity at that time. At its present pace, it will meet that target by 2025”
Any media source is as good as its own sources.
I find both the Guardian and Wikipedia useful as long as you check back to the original paper or to the reference list.
I have the good fortune to be widely read in science, so anything dodgy stands out. I also had evidence based reasoning metaphorically beaten into me with a big stick, so my scepticism kicks in when some eejit tells me that global warming is due to geological heating or that “It’s the Sun, stupid!” Such assertions do not stand up to scrutiny.
Your mention of sea ice is interesting. Where are you based?The National Snow and Ice Data Centre daily ice extent map shows some ice in the Southern route of the NW Passage but most of Northern Canada shows relatively ice free.
I would give you the link, but it suffers from the dreaded d-c problem. It should be easy to find.
Entropic man
Why don’t you enter the link into
https://tinyurl.com/
and post the result in the blog’s edit field?
I did the same above with a SILSO link because it contains ‘d c’ too:
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-SSN-monthly
Past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow.
Effective propaganda is not about being dishonest directly. It is about telling only half the story, and purposefully leaving out details or raw facts that put perspective and clarity to the story. Wikipedia knows full well that Dr Spencer is a very distinguished scientist with more good work coming from such an energetic and engaged person. Instead, they let the likes of Trenberth define his legacy. That is shameful.
It would be impolite to discuss Dr. Spencer’s record on his own website.
” Effective propaganda is not about being dishonest directly. It is about telling only half the story, and purposefully leaving out details or raw facts that put perspective and clarity to the story. ”
Maybe you tell that Anthony Watts.
In comparison to the unbelievable WUWT trash, Wiki is a honest corner.
I would agree with you about selective reporting.
A recent example was one of a series of “sceptical” leaflets published by Donald Trump’s staff on the warming effect of increasing CO2. The author correctly worked out the direct warming effect of doubling CO2 as, I think, 4W/m^2 and a warming of 1C.
He neglected to mention that feedbacks such as increased water vapour would treble the forcing and lead to 3C warming.
Dr. Happer’s paper only shows a sensitivity of 2.2. Other papers show much less, some less than 1. No one really knows what GHE is, but a lot of guesses. There’s your science.
A news item in this week’s New Scientist estimates present warming at 1.28C above pre-industrial.
5.35ln(421/280)=2.18W/m^2
That would produce warming of 2.18/4= 0.55C.
Neglecting lag that gives a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.28/0.55 = 2.33.
I never quite know how to regard Dr Happer. His calculations agree with conventional physics,(witness his 2.2 climate sensitivity) but he tends to present disingenuously optimistic conclusions by leaving out crucial details such as the effect of lag or feedback effects.
Kyoto and Paris have both failed. The same New Scientist item reckoned that we are committed to at least 1.6C warming.
My own calculations suggest that we have already released enough CO2 to reach 1.7C. Until recently this was regarded as pessimistic, but the consensus is now moving towards me.
Much of the confusion arises from the fact that no one can provide a viable definition of the bogus GHE. So when Happen mentions climate “sensitivity”, is he talking about H2O or CO2? There’s a BIG difference.
Spellcheck gets me again —
Should be “Happer”
Clint R
In this context Dr Happer, Stephen and I are all discussing the effect of forcing due to increasing CO2.
Increasing water vapour and the increase in H2O greenhouse effect are feedbacks amplifying the effect of extra CO2 (cf climate sensitivity). Dr Happer did not take this into account.
That’s why you’re wrong, Ent.
CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface. So the “sensitivity” from CO2 is ZERO.
Thanks for clarifying.
Incidentally a climate sensitivity less than 1 would mean that increasing CO2 cooled the climate. Given the 1.28C warming since 1880 and the lack of a credible alternate forcing to CO2 this seems unlikely.
Look here.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Infrared-spectra-of-mineral-surfaces-before-and-after-the-action-of-different-agents-a_fig6_361790658
Note that silicates, abundant on Earth/s land surface happily absorb 680 wavenumber, 15 micrometre, photons from a laboratory source.
Similarly water absorbs about 10% of the 15 micrometres photons falling on its surface and all of it at depth.
Why should they not absorb identical 15 micrometres photons from a CO2 molecule, whatever it’s temperature?
Ent, remember that even the measly 15&mu photon removes energy from Earth. That photon can not raise surface temperatures, but it can transfer energy to space.
Ent, you keep claiming an understanding of science, yet you keep falling flat on your face.
Do you STILL not understand the difference between “absorp.tion” and “raising the temperature”?
Clint R
Absor*btion is the prelude to raising the temperature in most cases.
The only real exception is latent heat.
But you’ve dodged the question. If you are correct, what mechanism allows materials to absorb 15 micrometre photons from most sources and be warned by them? How does the same mechanism identify photons from cold CO2 molecules and stop their absor*btion?
See how you attempt to twist reality, Ent?
Photon absorp.tion vs. “raising the temperature” has been explained numerous times. You want to believe that all infrared is “heat”. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
You can’t learn, and I know why….
Clint R,
How about some textbook physics instead of that frequency malarky you are trying to pass off on us.
“You want to believe that all infrared is heat.’
It is plainly energy. And when abs.orbed in a material it is converted into thermal energy.
As discussed numerous times, whether the material warms depends on its NET input and emitted.
This is just not that hard to understand.
Nate says:
You want to believe that all infrared is heat.
It is plainly energy. And when abs.orbed in a material it is converted into thermal energy.
——————
Nate botches the definition of thermal energy. IR is thermal energy it doesn’t convert to thermal energy when its absorbed.
But thermal energy when absorbed can be converted into work via an adiabatic process which is know to accelerate the efficiencies of a thermodynamic system. The impacts of this increase in efficiency is completely ignored by the likes of Nate with regards to the potential impact of that on the temperature of the surface.
this is Roy’s roof. At least Roy correctly argues that the roof may or may not be well insulated as he continues to look for the correct efficiency numbers.
The range as near as I can tell for CO2 still exists somewhere between approximately or materially zero and uh whatever the IPCC says.
I am convinced now that our temperature records since 1980 all suggest way too high of a number for greenhouse effect changes.
This is at least in very significant part due to an astronomical effect that well could have been predicted as such probably more than 50 years ago with the advancement of computing power.
Work done on that? Hardly any. There are a few scraos and drabs is all I have found so far, nearly all heavily polluted by the emerging hysteria of modtran.
At least our space program has been leveraging the effects. the Grand Tour of Voyager 2 incorporated the major elements of what I am talking about. Quite an impressive achievement and fantastic for science.
SpaceX finishes second Starship launch tower at Starbase
https://spaceexplored.com/2024/08/22/spacex-finishes-second-starship-launch-tower-at-starbase/
“SpaceX finished construction of its second launch tower down at Starbase, Texas for its Starship rocket. This comes hopefully a few weeks out from the next launch of the companys next generation rocket.
Over the last few months SpaceX has cleared land and constructed a new launch tower at its research, development, and launch facilities down at Starbase, Texas. This now gives the company three towers total for Starship, two at Starbase and one more over in Florida at LC-39A.
There is still plenty of work to be done at the pad, it still needs the launch table, chopsticks, plumbing for propellent, etc. However, the biggest and most prominent feature is now complete.
The end goal of Starship is to launch hundreds of these rockets in a matter of days to support a colony on Mars. However, it currently needs to work up to a few handful of launches in a couple of days to support NASAs Artemis mission as the lunar lander.
Right now SpaceX is limited to single digit launches a year from the site per its current environmental review. The company requested an increase to 25, this would help the company attempt orbital refueling missions that need more than one launch in a row, then do that multiple times a year.”
Maybe, it’s time to get serious and build some ocean launch platforms?
It seems to me, ocean launch platforms could be cheaper than these land launch platforms.
Though the first one, will take more time and money than the other ones.
Problem with building ocean launch platform is weather, ocean currents and waves, and corrosive effect of salt water. None of which are conducive to launching rockets.
The main problem is ocean waves.
Anyhow, Musk knows he must launch from the ocean. And the question is
when. And I would say, now.
–and corrosive effect of salt water–
https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/capabilities-and-testing/testing-and-labs/corrosion-engineering-lab/
“”Kennedy Space Centers launch facilities are located within 1000 feet of the Atlantic Ocean. Salt from the ocean combined with the heavy lift launch vehicles acidic rocket exhaust make corrosion protection a high priority.”
“Beachside Atmospheric Exposure
900 linear feet of beach front space along the Atlantic Ocean, documented as having higher atmospheric corrosion rates than other known test sites in the United States”
One could say they have “sort of” being dealing with it for many decades.
And the Texas launch site, doesn’t seem any better.
A dinky start-up/experimental floating breakwater:
2 meter diameter thin walled pipe which 4 meters tall, made of stainless steel. Almost 1/2 of top is filled with freshwater, and bottom has open end [and is filled with seawater} separated with stainless steel floor. The top has bit of air in to make it float about 6″ above waterline.
And sort of picket fence, spacer 1 meter wide join two pipes together. And 10 of pipe plus spacer are 30 meter wide.
And cost about $20,000 in material. Could make for about $50,000.
The daily geopotential height anomalies at 14 pressure levels are shown for the previous 120 days as indicated, and they are normalized by standard deviation using 1979-2000 base period. The anomalies are calculated by subtracting 1979-2000 daily climatology, and then averaged over the polar cap poleward of 65S.
The blue (red) colors represent a strong (weak) polar vortex. The black solid lines show the zero anomalies.
https://i.ibb.co/ckPnKLG/hgt-aao-cdas.png
A leftist cloaks their ideas in the most noble intentions. “We just want to save the planet.” “You deniers want to kill people.”
A leftist believes they are the keepers of virtue and morality so their deeds, however seemingly bad, are for the common good.
Leftists are the Masterminds who plan. And, if their plan doesn’t achieve the objective, which they never do, they blame their opponents for interfering with their plan, and they produce a newer and better plan.
But, leftists never want to give up or share their stuff. They want you to give up your stuff.
What has politics to do with climate?
Have you heard of the Green New Deal?
Have you heard of the Kyoto Treaty or the Paris Accord?
See ICLEI
https://iclei.org
A better question is what has science to do with the climate change narrative
Climate IS politics. The UN is a political organization. The IPCC is a conclusion looking for justification.
The Heartland Institute IS a political organization.
Perhaps we should leave it there.
“A leftist believes they are the keepers of virtue and morality so their deeds, however seemingly bad, are for the common good.”
What then about the people on the Right, who dictate that the Bible be taught in every class in public schools in Oklahoma, or that the 10 Commandments be displayed in every class in Lousiana?
Or those who want to control what medical care doctors can provide to a pregnant women in a health crisis, or restrict the freedom of women to seek medical care in a different state?
Or those who want to restrict the freedoms of LBGT people?
How is that those people are not being ‘keepers of virtue and morality’?
A lot of Christians profess to be conservatives and typically vote Republican but they’re not really conservatives. Conservatives believe in small, limited government. Forcing bibles into the classroom is not small, limited government. I grew up in Tennessee which is a conservative Christian influenced state but we never had Bible taught in the classroom. We did have a pastor who made his rounds around the county and visited each school once a month. Students weren’t required to attend his lessons.
Controlling what medical care doctors about is about protecting the baby. Who speaks for the baby if the mother wants an abortion? What about the baby’s right to choose?
LBGTQ had pride day in our conservative county. No one bothered them. Of course they were on the courtyard lawn, sprawling out into the street, shoving their agenda into every passerby’s face. We still left them alone. The problem with LBGTQ is they want more rights than everyone else.
> Conservatives believe in small, limited government
They believe it so much that they never succeeded to reduce its size in more than 200 years.
Besides, clinging to an utopia is far from being a conservative value:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Perhaps our in-house political theorist has more affinities with Noam Chomsky than he advertises.
Here’s one description of the far left and far right.
https://thisvsthat.io/far-left-vs-far-right
I once read an alternative definition.
The far Left want to redistribute the wealth until it’s all gone. The far Right don’t want to redistribute the wealth at all.
Under a far Left regime it is a bad idea to be rich. Under a far Right regime it is a bad idea to be poor.
This is probably why the rich tend to vote further to the Right than the poor.
Interestingly, Trump, a born rich guy, has sought and gotten the support of many blue-collar workers, even though his Tax cuts largely went to rich people and corporations.
Once in awhile, he accidentally reveals who he is, that he despises these people, and celebrates when other rich guys fire them if they try to unionize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywa81ltQpzk
Why these people vote against their interests is unclear.
You do understand why? US Corporations had the highest tax rates in the world. Many of those corporations moved their money off shore. Trump lowered their taxes so they would repatriate their money. It worked.
The Democrat Party is the party of the rope. The Republican Party is the party of the ladder. The Party of the rope will pull you up, you only have to hold on. The Party of the ladder provide the ladder, but you have to climb.
You do understand why? US Corporations had the highest tax rates in the world. ”
False. This ignores the many loopholes that rich people and corporations take advantage of.
For a troglodyte, anyone at the left of Ayn Rand is a leftist:
And even about her he has doubts.
“Right” is right, and “Left” is wrong.
It’s just that simple. All of the media definitions fail to recognize the perversions promoted by the Left. When someone is advocating Tampons for boys, you know he’s a Leftist.
I just heard a commercial. It said the Covid virus was mutating into deadlier forms. It said this season Covid would be worse than ever. The commercial was by Phizer!
The Left fully supports the Covid hoax. Big Pharma could care less about the politics, for them it’s “show me the money”.
“When someone is advocating Tampons for boys, you know hes a Leftist.”
When someone THINKS this is what happened, you know is is not actually paying attention to reliable sources and is not interested in the truth.
Great! Here comes Folkerts to play semantics, as usual.
Snopes does the same:
Tim Walz signed a bill in 2023 that required Minnesota schools to stock free menstrual products in restrooms regularly used by students in grades four through 12. The language of the statute was gender neutral and therefore compelled schools to make menstrual products available to transmasculine (trans boys and male-presenting) students, although that would not necessarily entail stocking them in boys’ bathrooms.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-walz-tampons-boys-bathrooms/
Nate
A lot of your examples are more related to Authoritarian attitudes than Left vs Right.
There is a strong urge to control, banning activities which disagree with one’s own opinions. This can happen in the Left or the Right. Fascism and Communism can look almost identical to the citizens underneath.
Plot a graph of Left vs Right on the x axis and individual freedom on the Y axis. You get a bell curve with maximum individual freedom in the centre and minimum freedom/maximum state control at the extremes.
In the US you see this in conservative states, usually Republican. Laws are passed restricting the freedoms of anyone who is not a rich WASP male or near equivalent. Bad news if you are poor, gay, coloured, hispanic, female, non-Christian or otherwise do not fit the stereotype.
Curiously there is no far Left in the US. The Right have become dominant and electorates have a choice between Right and far Right. Note that Cornel West and Liz Stein might be classified as medium Left and are getting negligible support.
That makes some sense but what I can see there are clearly differences in a democrat run party and republic one…. more regulations and higher taxes on the left is the norm. Look no further than in the US where the states that had the harshest ‘lock downs’ they locked up the religious locations but kept open the bars and strip clubs
There is in fact a far left in the US Antifa-arm of the dem party that they help fund… the far-left dems are anti Jew and look no further than the top 10 cities and how poorly they are run.
To be fair yeah there is a extreme right that is just as horrible.
> That makes some sense but
Have you watched Games of Thrones, Martin?
Norman
“My” airliner is moving over the ground below it at 600mph. It is also moving Eastwards due to Earth’s rotation at 1000mph, orbiting around the Sun at 30km/second and moving towards Vela along with the solar system at 300km/second.
All of these are valid reference frames. There are parochial reasons to prefer the local reference frame, but science should have larger horizons.
Ent is making up crap, again.
He’s the one that claims passenger jets fly backward.
If we wanted passenger jets to fly backwards then we’d build passenger jets that fly backwards. There is no physical reason to not build aircraft that can fly backwards; it can be done if there were but a reason
I vote Clint R off the island.
Ken, the reason you’re always so bitter and angry is because you don’t understand any of this.
It just makes you frustrated.
Clint R
Ken is neither bitter nor angry.
You, Clint R., annoy us all with your pseudo-scientific nonsense – except for a few people who are just as ignorant, opinionated and egomaniacal as you.
Ken
Clint Rs reference to airliners flying backwards refers to an earlier discussion about reference frames.
An airliner flying East along the Equator may be flying forwards at 600mph while being carried backwards at 1000mph by the Earth’s rotation.
Depending on the reference frame you use, the airliner may be described as flying forwards at 600mph or backwards at 400mph.
” I vote Clint R off the island. ”
How many don’t?
Entropic man
On the airline issue I had to side with Clint R.
When the airline is on the ground it is moving at the same rate as the Earth’s rotation. It does not stop this motion just because it takes off. It is already moving in direction of Earth rotation at 1000 mph at the Equator. So if it goes 600 mph in either east or west direction it will only move 600 mph with respect to the ground.
Ken and Bindi, why not follow Ent’s example. He’s not bitter and angry. He’s content in his make-believe world.
For example, he conveniently forgets what the “passenger jet flying backward” is all about. It’s his failed attempt to come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
He gets caught in his blatant perversion of reality and he just keeps going, and going and goin — kinda like the Energizer bunny….
Curses.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684619
Clint R constantly urges to be the last poster in every discussion.
But… that doesn’t do him any good, as the content of his posts never has the slightest relevance: he always distorts what others write and discredits any science.
Bindi, your false accusations only remind me that you have NO science. You’ve got NOTHING.
But, keep stalking me. It makes Nate jealous that I get so much attention.
I have not watched Game of Thrones.
I suppose you have some ‘clever’ quip about ‘makes sense’ I would love to confirm my thinking about your interpretation of ‘makes sense’…or you were just going to tell us about your favorite GoT episode? either will be entertaining .
Thank you for all the love that you share, loveliest Martin.
For your eyes only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yzL7BgIrI
In return, pray share with us your vast knowledge of the history of the GOP: how many months elapsed between December 2022 and the end of the McCarthy reign as Leader of the House Republican Conference?
GOT was good until about the last 5 episodes. Ruined the whole series. THOD was good the first season but the second season was terrible. They need to create a board of loyal fans who advise on the scripts. The scripts are very inconsistent.
Agreed. It should have ended with the war against the North.
The Democrat Party has lurched far left. They are Marxist Islamists. The Party is controlled by The Squad and their acolytes. They believe in late term abortions, child sex change without parents consent, tampons in boys bathrooms, men competing in women’s sports and changing Title 9 rules, open borders, defunding the police, giving money to terrorist nations, providing tax payer assistance to illegal non citizens, paying for soldier’s sex change, price controls, gun confiscation, controlling corporate profits,etc.etc. Now who are the Fascists? Or the Marxists? Take your pick. Same ideology.
Fascist? Marxist? More like anti-Christian. The old labels have no real meaning anymore.
Meanwhile, in the Land of the Freedom Fighters:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgVipFHzoD4
Christian values at their very best.
Willard, You wouldn’t recognize Christian values if you were slapped in the face by them. You’re so far around the bend sinister that you can’t see the difference of right and wrong anymore.
Ken,
I’m closer to the Church than you ever will be. The first socialist zombie just ain’t on your side of history. If he did not come here to bring peace, I’m not either.
Big difference between being Christian and being close to a church.
The pews are full of unbelievers.
Faith has little to do with belief, it is almost its opposite. And to profess it outside baptism is more often than not mere pride. Talk is cheap, as cheap as your apple muncher.
“The Party is controlled by The Squad and their acolytes.”
Nah. They are the far left wing and don’t control the agenda.
But with the Republicans, the extremists are the leaders of the party and controlling the agenda.
No, Kamala believes government should regulate outcome. She believes government should control corporate profits, guarantee reproductive rights, promote freedom (except the Bill of Rights or the freedom of the unborn),and supports the notion that there are many genders.
Nate,
How many genders are there?
Kamala won’t answer any questions. That’s what Marxists do. She wants to control the narrative, the propaganda. Trump goes everywhere and answers all questions. The only questions she answers is from her VP candidate Walz.
Why does she support destroying women’s sports.
Why does she oppose parental rights?
Why does she demand a wealth tax?
Why does she want to eliminate the oil industry?
Why does she want to eliminate the Electoral College?
Why does she want to eliminate the filibuster?
Why does she oppose secure borders?
Why does she support gender mutilation for our kids?
Why does she support price controls?
Why does she support Government run health care?
Why does she want to take away drug companies patents?
What does she want to give illegal immigrants the right to vote?
She needs to answer these questions.
How does it help American citizens by giving illegal immigrants the right to vote? What is the point of being a US citizen? It would have zero value. Then, where would we have citizenship? If anyone could vote in American elections then why even have elections? This is what Kamala is espousing.
“Why does she demand a wealth tax?”
First you need to answer why the wealthy, such as D. Trump, often pay almost no taxes?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-tax-returns-released-house-committee-years-legal-battles-rcna62408
“believes government should control corporate profits”
Quote her saying such.
“guarantee reproductive rights”
Rights shouldn’t be protected?
“promote freedom”
Yep!
“supports the notion that there are many genders.”
I dont know what that means, but you are showing that your side wants to restrict people’s freedom of ‘pursuit of happiness’ in ways that offend you.
Hurricane update
As we enter peak hurricane season, there is no activity in the Atlantic and Gilma is forecast to weaken in the Pacific.
Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
200 PM EDT Fri Aug 23 2024
For the North Atlantic…Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico:
Tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 7 days.
On my side, have 80% of cyclone formation.
Tropical Storm Hone will get close to Hawaii late Saturday and Gilma will decrease to a tropical depression before it gets anywhere close to Hawaii by Wednesday.
So far, not a very active season.
Hurricane Hone sweeps past Hawaii, dumping enough rain to ease wildfire fears
https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-hurricane-hone-gilma-15b6b817303b4abbf23aeb83b71e1f8e
{no one seems concerned about mud slide concerns]
“HONOLULU (AP) Hurricane Hone passed just south of Hawaii on Sunday, dumping enough rain for the National Weather Service to call off its red flag warnings that strong winds could lead to wildfires on the drier sides of islands in the archipelago.
Hone (pronounced hoe-NEH) had top winds of 85 mph (140 kph) Sunday morning as it moved westward, centered about 45 miles (72 kilometers) off the southernmost point of the Big Island, according to Jon Jelsema, a senior forecaster at the Central Pacific Hurricane Center in Honolulu. He said tropical storm force winds were blowing across the islands southeast-facing slopes, carrying up to a foot (30 centimeters) or more of rain.
…
Hurricane Gilma, meanwhile, increased to a Category 4 hurricane Saturday night, but it was still far east of Hawaii and forecast to weaken into a depression before it reaches the islands.”
Now that the discussion has gone completely off the rails, I have some questions about public perception. This is partly from a response to Nate above.
CO2 does contribute to global warming in some qualitative way. It cannot be quantitatively defined accurately. Climate change is the next step and that is even more difficult to predict or even estimate. Changes in seasonal weather from year to year are not evidence of climate change. Temperature records partially measure the heat island effect.
The liberal media and their partners in climate hysteria like to say the USA is responsible, and only we can solve the problem. Mentioning China and the rest of the world is considered by many to be climate change denial.
Should China and the rest of the world be part of the conversation? Is RCP 6 the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions? What should the USA do? Should we panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles?
“CO2 does contribute to global warming in some qualitative way. It cannot be quantitatively defined accurately. ”
Could you be more specific.
For example, what do you think the 95% confidence limits are for solar insolation, albedo, ASR, DWLR, OLR and EEI?
What 95% confidence limits would you regard as sufficient?
That is a very clever dodge there. I count 6 strawman questions. That is one more than Willard on his best try. Meanwhile, you did not answer any of my questions. Why not? They seem pretty straightforward.
Should China and the rest of the world be part of the conversation? Is RCP 6 the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions? What should the USA do? Should we panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles?
I prefer to stick to one topic at a time. Perhaps we can finish discussing uncertainties and then consider China.
I’ll simplify. Please give me what you think the 95% confidence limits are for EEI and suggest what 95% confidence limits you would find acceptable.
I agree. One topic at a time. Here is the opening line of my topic:
“Now that the discussion has gone completely off the rails, I have some questions about public perception.”
This will now be the second time you have tried to hijack my topic with your questions while failing to even attempt my questions that are fully on topic.
> I count 6 strawman questions.
TS might need to revise his concept of strawman.
Tim S
You’ll be familiar with the tactic of the Gish Gallop. You put up a number of points at once and then complain however your opponent responds.
If you genuinely want to debate, choose one topic and we can then squeeze the juice out of it.
Out of your Gish Gallop the point I’ve chosen to debate is your CO2 does contribute to global warming in some qualitative way. It cannot be quantitatively defined accurately.
IPCC AR6 Chapter 7 gives a figure for EEI of 0.79 +/- 0.27 W m2 for the period 20062018.
Why do you regard this as too inaccurate and what accuracy do you think we should aim for?
Ent, the “EEI” is bogus.
Reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do not need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m² at its base will be emitting 180 W/m² at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m² does NOT equal 180 W/m². Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy in MUST be compared to energy out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
Clint R
Not s problem.
In a year the Earth absorbs 10^25 Joules and radiates 10^25 – 10^22 Joules.
Which makes the bogus EEI even more useless, especially after considering the error margins.
The latest strawman attempt from Entropic man is his “Gish Gallop”. I have no idea what that is, and no, I was not a member of the high school debate team.
I know that many of you like to discuss data, calculations, measurement details, etc. I also understand the concept of winning the argument, but that really does not interest me. Most who are paying attention will notice that I am mostly about ideas and concepts rather than debating small details.
Some also seem to fail in reading comprehension. When I state that temperature and climate cannot be measured “accurately”, that is what I mean. References to “confidence levels” would seem to support that assertion. I fully understand that there are estimates and calculations that many believe are accurate. My sense is that they lack both precision and accuracy, and no amount of “winning the argument” is going to change my perception. If I am wrong, I will have to live with that. I will not lose any sleep over losing the argument to the more skillful internet technicians who have a strong interest in that sort of thing.
For reference, this link to an official source shows that The famed shift in China to renewables has little effect on their coal burning ways:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53959
Nobody wants to say yes, China should be included in the conversation. Sadly, I can see why. The science deniers do not want to admit there is a conversation, and the folks who like the idea of having the government tell people how to live, do not want to acknowledge the obvious fact that emissions will increase despite the efforts of the guilt ridden industrial countries.
In a sense, any effort to reduce carbon emissions is doomed for many decades to come. The producer countries do not want to see their assets go to waste. They are more than willing to drop the price if needed to maintain their market share.
Everybody knows that China is already included:
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/pledges-and-targets/
Just as everybody knows that no genuine question has been asked.
“Nobody wants to say yes, China should be included in the conversation”
False premise, Tim.
The two issues are, one, the consuming world wants someone, such as China, to manufacture all the stuff. That requires energy, and growth. And two, the conversion to renewables is not instantaneous, nor should it be, for any country.
It is a ramping up. And China appears to be doing its part.
” Changes in seasonal weather from year to year are not evidence of climate change. ”
Of course.
But, as even 360-degree denier Swen~son aka Mike Flynn aka Amazed has often proudly told us: The climate is the average of the weather over the last 30 years.
That’s exactly what I can tell you about Germoney, a small piece of the world that has seen drastic changes in 30 years.
*
“Temperature records partially measure the heat island effect.”
Yes, but only partially, as you yourself admit.
And… climate change is by no means limited to temperature rise, even if it reaches nowadays levels unimaginable here 30 years ago.
Decrease in precipitation along with extreme rainfall and increase in westerly winds play an equally important role in the changing pattern.
*
In the European Alps, the situation becomes even worse, as extreme rainfall is now added to what has been observed for some time: the increasing loss of permafrost, leading to an increase in sudden rock and mudslides from the mountains, which have recently swallowed up half of villages.
*
Alarmism? Pffff.
“Decrease in precipitation along with extreme rainfall”
Both ways now is it?
Is there something you can’t grasp here, Blindsley H00d?
According to the UK, Summer and Winter have different profiles. As do North and South.
So Blindsley H00d can’t understand that while the precipitation average decreases over the years, the amount of singular extreme rainfall events increases during the same period.
OMG.
So Blinny doesn’t understand that one season (and locale) may be different to another.
Is that ‘average’ a mean?
” Is that ‘average’ a mean? ”
It’s time to stop answering intentionally diverting claims and questions.
Of course I understand that one season (and locale) may be different to another. But exactly this is not the point.
The point was and keeps on the collateral decrease of precipitation over many years (and hence, seasons) with the increase of singular extreme rainfall.
But apparently, Blindsley H00d has NO interest in a fair discussion; all what matters to him is to push his personal views, regardless how much they matter in the discussion.
Talk with yourself, Blindsely H00d, and start working on your cascaded triple running median failure.
Blinny takes no note of the fact that according to the UK, Summer and Winter have different profiles. As do North and South.
It is the same everywhere. Blue states in New England fight against each other all the time over various issues. We are a Republic. That’s how Republics work. You don’t have a right to
another state’s resources. You can trade or buy.
I will see your 30 year climate change and raise you 1,100 years. This rather old article was published before reality in climate studies was disallowed. You will not find this kind of thing in the NYT anymore:
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-california.html
BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years…. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.
This method identified droughts lasting from A.D. 892 to A.D. 1112 and from A.D. 1209 to A.D. 1350…. Dr. Stine concluded that the droughts were not only much longer, they were far more severe than either the drought of 1928 to 1934, California’s worst in modern times, or the more recent severe dry spell of 1987 to 1992.
Here is another link:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140214-drought-california-prehistory-science-climate-san-francisco-2
The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.””
So why are the Republican Party not pressuring California to prepare for more severe droughts?
Why has Donald Trump not made an election pledge to provide funds to help California prepare for the next megadrought?
–Why has Donald Trump not made an election pledge to provide funds to help California prepare for the next megadrought?–
If Donald wins New York, it’s a landslide. If he wins California, it’s a massive slaughter.
Dem machine owns California and as well many other states which doing very poorly.
Is this how American politics works?
Do nothing for any state with a majority for the other party?
Ent,
Georgia has been growing in population around the metro Atlanta area to the point they are running out of water. The Tennessee River passes through Chattanooga, misses Georgia and then goes into Alabama before it goes back up through Tennessee and connects with the Ohio that feeds into the Mississippi. Georgia wanted to tap into the Tennessee River for about 30 million gallons per day. I guessed about 6-8 billion gallons pass through Chattanooga. Tennessee said, hell no. Georgia threatened all kinds of legal action and also claimed the state line had been drawn incorrectly. Tennessee said, eat crap. There was nothing Georgia could do about it.
If Dems controlled Texas, they would have different immigration/border policy {and take action, rather than non-action}.
New York sang different tune, when a small number were bussed to New York.
Ah.
I notice that Tennessee is a red state and Georgia is, at least recently, a blue state.
Perhaps you should change the name of your country. Would Disunited States be more appropriate?
China Melville wrote a novel in which two cities coexisted rather like Cold War East and West Berlin.
The two cities overlapped. Some districts, and sometimes even blocks, belonged to a modern rich city and some to a poorer, tattier city. You could tell which city you were “in” by clothing and building styles, dilapidation etc.
The two cities had completely different governments. Apart from a few things like avoiding traffic accidents the citizens of each city ignored each other to the extent of pretending that the other lot did not exist.
Perhaps the Disunited States could do the same. All the Red States could form one country and the Blue States another. You could then ignore each other.
Georgia is a Red State. They have a RINO governor. Also, a lot of election fraud going on in a couple of the metro counties. In 2016, Texas and Georgia went for Donald Trump almost the same percentage. In 2020, GA had a mass mailing of ballots. Texas did not. The governor and their pathetic SOS let it happen. You cannot verify the veracity of ballots when they are mass mailed. In 2020 Texas went for Donald Trump almost the same percentage as 2016, but Trump lost Georgia by 12K votes. On the night of the election Trump had a commanding lead in Georgia. The Democrats saw how many votes they were behind and over the next few days started counting the mailed ballots, mostly in Fulton County. They counted a little more than they needed, 12K more.
From my friend, Entropic man, who seems really interested in my topics:
[Perhaps the Disunited States could do the same. All the Red States could form one country and the Blue States another. You could then ignore each other.]
I am not an expert on European history, but I think the EU is the perfect model for what you describe. Each European country has its own language or variation, its own culture, Monarchy in some cases, and snobbish attitude towards their neighbors and foreigners — especially people from the USA.
Many visitors from the USA, who are often treated rudely in Europe, are direct descendants or family members of those brave men who liberated a whole continent 80 years ago. They fought and died for the freedom of others. I am proud that my father was a veteran and a member of our Greatest Generation. He had some really sad stories to tell about being treated rudely as an American visiting Paris.
Stephen
“Georgia is a Red State. They have a RINO governor.”
Forgive me. I was under the impression that red Tennessee was refusing to allow Georgia to take water because it was a blue state.
Instead one red state is refusing help to another red state, which is even more petty and absurd.
I have long suspected that Benjamin Franklin designed the United States to be dysfunctional, and nothing I hear here seems likely to change my mind.
Tim S
In Northern Ireland Americans are welcome, though they can occasionally make life harder for themselves.
I work in a museum of Irish emigration. Occasionally an American will hear my English accent and accuse me personally of killing 1 million Irishmen. I have so far refrained from asking about the 70 million native Americans they killed.
“They have a RINO governor.’
Gee if Kemp isn’t a real Republican, who knows what that is?
Anybody declaring that they stand for the long-held pre-2016 values of the R party is now considered a RINO.
Any Republican who dares to criticize the actions of the Dear Leader is considered a traitor, and thus a RINO, it seems.
Why are people unable to recognize this is a serious problem for your party and the country?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are 78 to 81 Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, its not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made Wests comment – right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s – so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.
Its not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the countrys challenges.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/
Vintage 2012.
For the record, Pat Michaels never paid the $250 he lost in this bet with me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/pat-michaels-bets-on-25-years-of-no-warming/
When I called his office, he told his secretary to tell me he would never talk about it again. And then he died, the welcher.
If any of the deniers in here want to make a bet that you can’t welch on, there are plenty of climate markets at Kalshi:
kalshi.com/sign-up/?referral=04a2e4eb-8a04-46a0-89f4-db8db7017fcb
“And then he died, the welcher.” Classy touch. -Roy
Thanks, Scott. I added it to the list:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/
Classic Pat.
SpaceX Unveils Surprising New Starship Upgrade, and preps for Booster Catch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0bUJP2qDo
News from the Musk corner
https://i.postimg.cc/pdRBf9Yy/Tesla-cybertruck-Kadirow.jpg
Ramsan Kadirow (Putin’s butt-kisser in Chechnya) is now Musk’s newest fan…
The police, like them, also.
Almost bullet proof, is better than not bullet proof.
And it can get going, fast. And pull a raptor engine.
Another strong planetary wave in the southern polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JAS_SH_2024.png
All out war in the Middle East have been averted for now. I predict a stock market rally on Monday. Iran through their proxies is claiming complete success in launching hundreds of missiles at Israel. Israel is claiming preemptive counter strikes. Both sides can claim victory.
I suspect this was a negotiated solution involving many interested parties and obviously no direct talk. It all seems very convenient and almost like an orchestrated outcome.
“It all seems very convenient and almost like an orchestrated outcome.”
Yep. Reminds me of the old Star Trek episode about the planet with an endless war. Eventually battles were simulated, and randomly selected people were told to report to death chambers. It was less disruptive.
For the past two years, there has been a reported drop in upper stratospheric temperatures in the tropics, which may indicate a decline in ozone production. The temperature at this level of the atmosphere can only increase due to photolysis of the O2 molecule by UV with a wavelength shorter than 242 nm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone%E2%80%93oxygen_cycle
https://i.ibb.co/DbWkTLd/05mb2525.png
Matt Devitt WINK Weather
RARE SUMMER SNOW! ❄️ At least 4″ of snow and counting in the California mountains with with even more this evening. It’s a winter wonderland…in August!
Cuz it never snows in the mountains in August …
Recently in the mountains of California apparently quite a while ago.
It’s suppose to drop to 54 F [12 C] tonight and that pretty cold for summer time.
The highest daytime high this week is forecast is 99 F, but highest low is 66 F.
Which means there is no reason for me to use the air conditioner this week.
Unless I keep my windows and/or doors open {negating the house’s insulation}. Though if I left windows open at night, it would be too cold at night.
gbaikie
Tell us on the blog the position where you live, with 0.5 degree precision in latitude and longitude: that’s anonymous enough, isn’t it?
I’ll then look at the daily TMIN and TMAX temperatures in your corner.
–Bindidon says:
August 25, 2024 at 4:58 PM
gbaikie
Tell us on the blog the position where you live, with 0.5 degree precision in latitude and longitude: thats anonymous enough, isnt it?
Ill then look at the daily TMIN and TMAX temperatures in your corner.–
Hottest. Not a place with highest average temperature.
India has average of +25 C. And my average is about 17 C, being in desert and having low water vapor. India is has high humidity.
We in in Ice Age, or Earth is drier. And in glaciation period, it’s even drier, and it some places in could be hotter, than it is now.
But lower average global temperature.
Even though linked to Berkeley Earth, quite a few times.
India:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/india
List of countries:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-country-list/
Cities:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-city-list/
Lancaster, US:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-location/34.56N-118.70W
Oh, look, it gave, coordinate location- I didn’t know that before.
California Delusional Dreaming gone awry.
Californias Plastic Bag Ban BACKFIRES, Leading to MASSIVE Increase in Waste
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYNN6BRPqo
Ken
” Californias Plastic Bag Ban BACKFIRES, Leading to MASSIVE Increase in Waste ”
Ha ha ha haah.
Apparently, Ken never visited in the 1980s places in southern Europe – Andalusia, the Provence, Italy from the Toscana till Reggio Calabria, the Greek Peloponnese.
If he had ever done so, he would certainly remember the incredible amount of plastic bags that the local residents thoughtlessly threw into the countryside at a time when no one had even thought for a second about banning them.
Third world solutions to garbage management leads to third world nations people throwing their garbage wherever it may lay.
I’ve seen it too. Mexico the verges of the roads are paved in broken beer bottles. The cactus in the deserts are festooned with plastic bags. Sad to see. However, Banning plastic isn’t the solution.
Stephen P Anderson says:
August 17, 2024 at 7:18 PM
Christos,
Not sure if Ive asked you this before. If the Moon spun once every 24 hours, what would its temperature be?
–
–
………………………………………….
2. Moons Mean Surface Temperature calculation.
For N =1 rot/day (once every 24 hours)
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m^2 [150* (1)*0,19]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 5.799.815.183,2 )∕ ⁴ = 276 K
So, if the Moon spun once every 24 hours, its mean surface temperature would be
Tmean.moon = 276 Κ
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks Christos. Makes sense.
Since the number of air particles in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere is very small, it is difficult to explain how the temperature rises in these levels. In my opinion, UVC radiation before hitting an O2 particle is a wave that becomes a photon only when an O2 particle is in its path.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
The high temperature of the thermosphere is mostly due to the interaction of air molecules with the rapidly moving particles of the solar wind. Density or otherwise is not a factor.
Within the mesosphere, temperature decreases with increasing height. This is a result of decreasing absorption of solar radiation by the rarefied atmosphere having a diminishing relative ozone concentration as altitude increases (ozone being the main absorber in the UV wavelengths that survived absorption by the thermosphere).[
Within the mesosphere, temperature decreases with increasing height. This is a result of decreasing absorption of solar radiation by the rarefied atmosphere having a diminishing relative ozone concentration as altitude increases (ozone being the main absorber in the UV wavelengths that survived absorption by the thermosphere).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesosphere
https://apollo.nvu.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/vert_temp_therm.html
Blue Origin sets a date for its next suborbital space trip
https://cosmiclog.com/
“Jeff Bezos Blue Origin space venture says its next suborbital spaceflight is set for Aug. 29, with a space researcher and a college senior among the missions six spacefliers.
Next weeks launch of a reusable New Shepard rocket ship from Blue Origins Launch Site One in West Texas will mark the companys eighth crewed mission, and boost its roll call of suborbital space travelers to 43. The launch window will open at 8 a.m. CT (6 a.m. PT) on the appointed day, and live coverage of the mission will be streamed via Blue Origins website starting at T-minus-40 minutes.
New Shepards crewed flights resumed in May, more than a year and a half after the failure of an uncrewed mission in 2022 led to a months-long investigation of the incident and a redesign of spacecraft components.”
It make me wonder, when are we going to get suborbital travel. And going up and down, isn’t what I mean by suborbital travel. I mean going 500 miles or more.
Going half of world’s distant is roughly the same as going to orbit. The Starship testing is doing this- it doesn’t want to go to orbit {it might get stuck there, and the suborbital flight it’s doing is very similar to landing on Earth from LEO- and they are testing that].
So, could say once Starship successful recovers the first stage and second stage, then you the have suborbital travel. Or going only say, 5000 km {3100 miles], is easier than 1/2 the world.
So, 1/2 world is competing with airline travel- we go a lot faster with a rocket. And 3000 to 5000 km is competing with the longer available supersonic air travel. It could a bit faster and could even be safer, but not a lot cheaper than 1/2 of the world. If it was a Starship, rather than rocket designed for shorter hops.
For instance, rocket fuel is cheap, for the shorter 3000 to 5000 km trips you use more rocket fuel than the 1/2 world trip, to make it more comfortable for passengers.
“How many G’s are on Blue Origin?
The peak acceleration is between 5 and 9g, for between 0.5 and 0.11s. For comparison the re entry peaks at 5.5g according to blue.”
So might have goal of less than 4 gees- still much more than airplane travel.
Hmm, don’t know how many gees starship got. Google:
How many G’s does the Starship pull?
During ascent you will experience more g-forces (4.1g) when powered by Stage-2 (closer to approaching escape velocity) than powered on from Stage-1 (3.2g – just before stage separation). On Stage-1 you will experience maximum g-force (-4.5g) at descent (just when engines fire back again to slow the descent).”
So, it seems existing Starship if doing a shorter hop, could do less than 4, if use rocket fuel less efficiently and not go as fast.
It seems that the temperature in the upper stratosphere in the tropics should be more constant on an annual basis. However, this is not the case, and this is due to the angle of the Earth’s axis to the plane of orbit.
https://i.ibb.co/DbWkTLd/05mb2525.png
Full text: RFK, Jr.s address to the nation
https://www.worldtribune.com/full-text-rfk-jr-s-address-to-the-nation/
…Three great causes drove me to enter this race in the first place, primarily. And these are the principal causes that persuaded me to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent, and now to throw my support to President Trump. The causes were: free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children.
Ive already described some of my personal experiences and struggles with the governments censorship-industrial complex. I want to say a word about the Ukraine war. The military-industrial complex has provided us with that familiar comic book justification like they do on every war. And this one is a noble effort to stop a supervillain, Vladimir Putin, invading the Ukraine and to thwart his Hitler-like march across Europe.
In fact, tiny Ukraine is a proxy in a geopolitical struggle initiated by the ambitions of the US neocons for American global hegemony. Im not excusing Putin for invading Ukraine. He had other options, but the war is Russias predictable response. The reckless neocon project of extending NATO to encircle Russia is a hostile act. The credulous media rarely explain to Americans that we unilaterally walked away from two intermediate nuclear weapons treaties with Russia and then put nuclear missile systems in Romania and Poland.
This is a hostile act, and the Biden White House repeatedly spurned Russias offer to settle this war peacefully. The Ukraine war began in 2014, when U.S. agencies overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installed a handpicked pro-Western government. They launched a deadly civil war against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. In 2019, America walked away from a peace treaty, the Minsk Agreement, that had been negotiated between Russia and Ukraine by European nations. And then in April of 2022, we wanted the war. In April 2022, President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force President Zelenskyy to tear up a peace agreement that he and the Russians had already signed.
…”
Hmm, the war on children, particularly girls, seems the most important.
” … particularly girls, … ” ?
Why do you write such nonsense, gbaikie? Nowhere did Kennedy mention that.
With ‘kids’, a 70-year old man means certainly ‘young soldiers’.
Kennedy is taking on the fight against the gender ‘dysphoria’ where children are being convinced to ‘change’ gender. The children getting the worst of it is the girls. This is one of Kennedy’s issues, one that any rational person would agree is a monstrous assault on our children.
–Bindidon says:
August 25, 2024 at 4:52 PM
particularly girls, ?
Why do you write such nonsense, gbaikie? Nowhere did Kennedy mention that.
With kids, a 70-year old man means certainly young soldiers.–
Well, Kennedy is mostly looking at children’s health which falling like a rock. And assigns his reasons for this fact. And I don’t disagree, but I have other reasons younger woman are more likely to consider and/or commit suicide, then ever before- or I don’t think it’s largely due environmental degradation and/or processed food.
Though I am perfectly aware there superfund waste areas caused by US govt. Or US govt has been certainly involved with making a lot pollution. And there misuse of land is well known about.
Ken
” Kennedy is taking on the fight against the gender dysphoria where children are being convinced to change gender. ”
So, BEING CONVINCED?
This is a pure lie. Instead of propagating this monstrous republican manipulation, you should talk with young people who can’t live with their born-gender.
*
” This is one of Kennedys issues, one that any rational person would agree is a monstrous assault on our children. ”
Same BS, Ken.
Alone in Germany, about 3% of the children ARE since beginning convinced that they live in the wrong body, what mostly is due to attacks by other children – or even parents – who endlessly discriminate them.
RFK, Jr.’s reference to “war on our children” is explained further down in the full text transcript you posted. Maybe you missed it? He specifically is calling out childhood obesity, mitochondrial disease, and diabetes citing ultra-processed foods and toxic additives in food, medicine, and environment. He suggests three solutions: 1) oust corruption in health agencies, 2) repair the incentives in healthcare, and 3) incentivize Americans to be more healthful.
For some reason Jr forgot to mention:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/robert-f-kennedy-trump
Hmmm. Big hmmm.
And:
At 2018 event, (RF) Kennedy (Jr) suggested Trumps leadership had damaged American attempts to spread democracy worldwide.
“If you live in China today, and youre looking at whats happening in the United States, why would you ever say, we wanna switch our system for that system, which can produce that kind of buffoonery at a high level, added Kennedy. I think President Trump is purposefully and systematically encouraging tyrannical governments around the world.”
In August 2016, during an interview with Larry King he said of Trump:
“The easiest thing for a political leader to do is to appeal to our bigotry and our hatred and xenophobia and prejudice, and point to people who are unlike us and say theyre the ones who are damaging our country,”
In April on CNN, he said:
“Despite rhetoric to the contrary, President Trump has a weakness for swamp creatures, especially corporate monopolies, their lobbyists, and their money”
he tweeted in June.
“After promising to drain the swamp, instead, he hired swamp creatures to regulate their own industries. Operation Warp Speed and the lockdowns were the most devastating impact of President Trumps weakness, but not the only one.”
And speaking in an interview on Breaking Points in July this year, Kennedy stated;
“I think Donald Trump was a terrible president, I think a lot of the rhetoric that he talks about, I agree with, I think we need to wind down you know, the swamp. But he wasnt doing that. I dont think hes capable of governing of meeting the expectations and fulfilling the promises that he raises with his rhetoric.”
“Hmmm. Big hmmm.”
A big issue with Robert F Kennedy Jr is US intel, Trump has been “forced” to regard it as a major “problem”.
Or “recent events” have caused them to come together, but Robert F Kennedy Jr still wants to be US president or at least change US policy, and aligning with Trump, as pathway to do either.
Nate,
That was 2018. This is now. RFKr. opened his eyes. What’s your point?
Either being tapped for teh Donald transition team is a stronger drug than TRT or that brain worm ate more than Jr suggested.
Nate,
That was 2018. This is now. RFKr. opened his eyes. Whats your point?”
Nope. Some of the quotes are from this year.
He is selling his soul to the highest bidder.
” As many as 600,000 Ukrainian kids and over 100,000 Russian kids, all of whom we should be mourning, have died. ”
Russian kids?
Kennedy is one more guy in a long list of those ignorants who should search for those regime-near Russians who really lost their kid(s).
He won’t find many because the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin managed since beginning to keep their kids off that war.
At least 90% of the Russians who were sent to Ukraine (without any training before) came from regions as far from Moscow and St Petersburg as possible, namely mainly from Siberia.
*
Putin and his henchmen moreover not only had the nerve to promise Russians sentenced to long prison terms or even death that they would be released after their mission in Ukraine.
After they found no more in prison, they even ‘invited’ people from India and even Nepal (!) to take part in the ‘liberation of our oppressed Russian citizens’.
*
” And Ukraines infrastructure is destroyed. ”
Kennedy is also one more guy in a long list of those ignorants who should spend one or two months in Ukraine, and have a look at what really happened there.
Nearly 11,000 civil Ukrainians died since February 24, 2022: because the Russians intentionally attacked civil targets everywhere in the Ukraine since beginning, destroying an incredible amount of houses, shops, markets and residential blocks, and killing by the way so many civilians.
*
Kennedy: a guy at the mental level of poster ‘Robertson’.
Kennedy: a guy at the mental level of poster Robertson.
Well he might remind you of Robertson but I think he has better clue, than Robertson.
And I would say, pretty good for politician/activist/Lawyer.
Oh, should have said, a leftist/politician/activist/lawyer.
Or he is a “serious lefty”, vast numbers aren’t.
But he not true lefty like me.
Dennis Prager
Latest fireside chat.
[I am having problems posting]
Hmm, won’t let me give the link,
Anyhow he interviewed him, before, also mentioned it, in Dennis last fireside chat.
It always amazing to look at temperature graphs coming from a pseudo-skeptic corner (this time from a site in Germoney):
https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/hausteingfsprognosenta2mglobal1808bis25082024neuerjahrestiefstand-e1723967181485.jpg
Firstly, such people love to display snapshots of the current situation, and intentionally hide the temporal context around.
But while posting an alarmistic ‘Global temperatures fall at a record low for this year’, they themselves overlook the major point in Karsten Haustein’s NCEP GFS presentation, namely that the gray plot depicting the 90N-60S average is nearly all the time higher then the black Global plot.
In other words, the current situation is mainly due to extremely low temperatures below 60S, i.e. at the south Pole. If there was a plot for 60S-90S, it would very probably be way lower than the blue SH plot.
*
Such brazen people probably would view the sudden sea ice extent recovery in the South (1 M km^2 in only 2 weeks, from Jul 30 till Aug 14) as a sign of ‘global cooling ahead’ as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
*
By the way, for those who know the year 2012 only as the one with the ‘lowest sea ice extent evah’ in the Arctic: have a look at the 2012 (indigo) plot showing the Antarctic sea ice extent in that same year, all the time above the 30 year average.
Such ‘yin yang’ effects between Arctic and Antarctic appear sometimes.
*
Karsten Haustein’s web site, which the German Coolistas pasted into their blog:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php
tell us how nice warm weather is bad for us and how we need more frozen ground and ice
Dachshund: you are the one here who always and exclusively posts hints on the Grand Cooling coming soon, as if you would deny the existence of any warming.
Currently we enjoy warm August days after somewhat cool months in May, June and July, due to excessive westerly winds.
“due to excessive westerly winds”
Which latitude?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-pays-kamala-harris-another-accidental-compliment-everyones-calling-him-on-it/ar-AA1pmBTU
First, Donald Trump complimented Kamala Harris’ looks, and now he’s pining for the days when she helped make San Francisco a city he admired. So, did he fall out of a coconut tree head-first and forget that he’s supposed to be running against the vice president or what?
Stephen P. Anderson,
Why do you keep asking this question:
“How many genders are there?
wrong place.
John W,
How many genders are there? It is a science question.
Gender isn’t a scientific concept.
Stephen,
Is your problem with transgender people that its not what God intended? Or what?
I will simply point out that lots of medical advancements allow many things that God previously had not intended.
Like frozen embryos in test tubes. My 30 y old son was one. And I’m very thankful for it.
Do you have some special insight into what medical interventions God would approve?
The Polar Vortex suffered another disruption days ago, but has now recovered. Max wind speed is back to 290 mph.
https://postimg.cc/mPkkVPfx
Does rising air cause the PV, or does the PV cause rising air?
Credit where credit is due. The S&P indeed opened up higher. So that prediction came true for at least an hour or so.
As a token of appreciation, a Gentle Introduction to GDAL:
https://medium.com/@robsimmon/a-gentle-introduction-to-gdal-part-8-reading-scientific-data-formats-1a1f70d5388c
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Tim S
Gish gallop.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I don’t know your education and experience, but I’d like to discuss three terms; precision, accuracy and uncertainty.
Precision is the minimum change a measuring instruments can detect. A ruler can measure to a precision of 0.5mm. A vernier gauge can measure to 0.01mm.
A mercury thermometer has a precision of 0.5C. An electronic thermometer can achieve 0.001C.
Accuracy is the difference between the measured value and the actual value. I once built a sextant to measure the angle of the Sun above the horizon. The accuracy was 0.5 degrees because I put the scale in the wrong place and all measurements were 0.5C too low.
Thermometers are calibrated by comparing them with standard temperatures. The aim is for the accuracy to be at least as good as the precision.
Uncertainty becomes important when you take multiple measurements. There are three reasons why individual measurements vary. There are the limits of precision and accuracy and variation in what you measure.
If I take measurements of the UK temperature one day using different stations they form a bell curve with the most frequent values in the middle and fewer values as you move further out to the sides.
The mean ( one type of average) is calculated by dividing the sum of all measurements by the number of measurements.
The width of the bell curve is measured in standard deviations. 95% of measurements will be within two standard deviations of the mean.
To measure the uncertainty of the mean you calculate two standard deviations divided by the square foot of the sample size.Bigger samples have less uncertainty. When published by the scientists it is normal to include the uncertainty. e.g. “the mean temperature of the UK on Tuesday was 17 +/- 0.06C”.
(Just to make things interesting people tend to leave off the uncertainty. Always go back to the original source if possible)
The big question is whether the uncertainty is small enough that the changes in temperature we observe are real. The scientists say yes, and produce numbers in support. Sceptics believe that the uncertainties are too large, but cannot supply supporting data
Sorry, this should be a gone in upgrading its past my bedtime.
First, I have an important comment about why I choose to respond to some comments and not others. As an avid tennis player, my uncle, who claimed that a good match was like going to war, also made a very interesting comment about friendly competition: Never play with anyone you would not have a beer with afterwards.
This comment above is a technique called projection, and is used a lot in politics. Accuse someone of what you are doing, and then force them to defend what they are not doing. So I looked it up and found something interesting. This is a special case of projection to invent a strawman accusation, and then use the classic defense against the accusation.
Gallop along my friend. From the link:
[British journalist Mehdi Hasan suggests using three steps to beat the Gish gallop:[5]
Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that the galloper has presented and tear that argument to shreds (“the weak point rebuttal”).
Do not budge from the issue or move on until having decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made the counter point.
Call out the strategy by name, saying: “This is a strategy called the ‘Gish Gallop’ do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard.”
Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than a free-form one.[6] If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by pre-empting and refuting the opponent’s commonly used arguments before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.]
Here is my original comment about public perception which has only really been answered by my friend, Nate, and then only partially. All of the questions relate to public perception:
Now that the discussion has gone completely off the rails, I have some questions about public perception. This is partly from a response to Nate above.
CO2 does contribute to global warming in some qualitative way. It cannot be quantitatively defined accurately. Climate change is the next step and that is even more difficult to predict or even estimate. Changes in seasonal weather from year to year are not evidence of climate change. Temperature records partially measure the heat island effect.
The liberal media and their partners in climate hysteria like to say the USA is responsible, and only we can solve the problem. Mentioning China and the rest of the world is considered by many to be climate change denial.
Should China and the rest of the world be part of the conversation? Is RCP 6 the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions? What should the USA do? Should we panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles?
No, we should not panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles.
Instead, we should examine RCP6 using our critical thinking skills.
Try starting with self education on topics such as Carbon Dioxide, Atmospheric Radiation Transfer, Greenhouse Effect, and salient climate data.
We’d quickly come to the realization that China and the rest of the world is part of the conversation. See Chicken Little and pay attention to the conversation of Chicken Little, et al, with the Fox for details.
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of Carbon Dioxide emissions in any salient data.
Continued
The precision of the surface data mean is +/_ 0.06C. To detect a statistically significant trend requires about 20 years of data.
Now I have to correct the mistake you made, in haste I presume, while mansplaining precision. Precision has to do with fine definition, but more importantly, it has to do with repeatably, which is the primary issue for instrumentation. Having once been responsible for the calibration program in a government regulated facility, I know a few things about the topic.
So just for fun, and asking for a friend, what is the most important information in a calibration report?
> asking for a friend,
And now Just Asking Questions or, alternatively, Make me a Sammich.
Splendid.
No peanut butter so no sammich for you.
Have you noticed how your very experienced friend did not really contradict what EM said regarding precision and that its main function was to advertise the vast and superior knowledge without really showcasing it? It’s far from being the first time he does that. To take one random example, here he is, one year ago, on the very same topic, thumbing his nose at the same commenter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1527773
The topic being himself once again. *That* your friend understands and thinks is all well and good. But *what* does he understand and think exactly?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Good. You’ve worked with instrumentation; I was a lab scientist. We can stop bickering about definitions and get down to business.
In climate terms precision and accuracy are only significant when individual measurements are involved. When the Botanic Gardens in Cambridge set a new national record the Met Office only accepted it after they had checked the calibration of the station.
Most climate measures such as the global average are the result of repeated measurements using multiple stations. Most precision and accuracy variations cancel out.
For a single measurement the main parameters are the precision and accuracy. For larger samples the most important remaining parameter is the precision of the mean, which is 2 standard deviations/square root sample size.
For old station data a single measurement is to the nearest 1C. For n=100 the precision of the mean is 1/sqr rt 100 =0.1C. For n=10,000 it is 0.01C and so on.
For practical purposes you need a precision perhaps 1 or two magnitudes smaller than the trend you are trying to measure.
For example, surface temperatures are warming about 0.2C/decade and the precision of the global mean is
It is interesting that people with an agenda or bias can claim their argument is objective. Here we have a good example. The precision and accuracy of the instrument does not in any way assure the precision or accuracy of the measurement. When point source temperature measurements are applied to regional trends, changes in the local environment become very important.
Over the long run, there are numerous changes that can take place at the local level to affect temperature measurement trends. Simple changes such as a road being repaved with fresh black asphalt, or a new parking lot can have an affect. There are potential changes with a major affect such as a new buildings or that new runway and taxiways at the local airport. The heat island effect is real. To some extent, if the datasets need “adjustment”, then record temperature records should have an asterisk, or perhaps those should be adjusted.
Once again, all of the folks who criticize the satellite record while they push their obviously flawed surface datasets should go to work publishing their version of a correct satellite dataset. The raw data is available to anyone or any group willing to give it a try.
> It is interesting that people with an agenda or bias can claim their argument is objective.
Sometimes, TS is being honest about himself.
Bias? Are you kidding? I have just as much bias as anyone else.
I have a bias against getting killed in a traffic accident, so I am very careful.
I have a bias in favor of free speech. Let the marketplace of ideas sort out the truth.
I have a bias against people who are dishonest in any way or use stereotypes to make a point. The claim that “you’re one of those” is always wrong in any discussion.
I have a bias against people who use partial quotes out of context to try to make a point.
I have a bias against people who purposely misstate science to make some kind of claim.
I have a bias in favor of correcting obvious errors in basic science.
I have a bias against people who obtain science information from the public media and then claim to be an expert.
I have a lot of biases and they are on full display. Just ask.
TS forgot that he has a humility bias.
And a politeness bias.
He never ever ever hurls ad homs around.
They’re just objective observations.
Oftentimes under a veal of questions.
Real questions.
That way he can show his humility bias.
Observations about indefinite people.
People who recognize themselves, because you know, if the shoe fits.
How he must have hit a nerve!
That’s how good he is.
Not that he makes anyone feel about how important he is.
His comments are never about himself.
Or his vastly superior knowledge.
He’s not here to brag.
He merely observes.
When he doesn’t offer riddles.
Very pedagogical riddles.
We should consider ourselves lucky to have him around.
Not because he contributes anything, just because of his biases.
And we should all be happy that the new kinder and gentler Willard is generous with his compliments.
Is it enough to make the cut?
Is TS playing the ref?
Perhaps he could prove himself useful for a change and teach us the distinction between the precision and accuracy of an instrument and the precision or accuracy of its measurement.
A metrologist friend would like to know.
The ruling on the field is Delay of Game.
5 yard penalty. Repeat 3rd down.
Roy is the ref. Here is “playing the ref,” incidentally a story invoking a familiar trope:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/16/attacking-bbc-uk-general-election-media
Nigel’s rendition of a contrarian who has “concerns” about the media is uncanny.
My metrologist friend is still waiting for TS’ crucial “distinction.”
Not only does the Emperor have no clothes, but he no sense of humor either. Relax dude. Your best play here is to just be nice, even if that is difficult. I keep giving people advice, and they keep rejecting it.
My metrologist friend is still waiting. He might have to wait for a while. TS obviously was out over his skis. Let us hope it is just another random error. It would be a shame if it was systematic. We all have so much to learn from him.
“Simple changes such as a road being repaved with fresh black asphalt, or a new parking lot can have an affect.”
Sure. But unless these changes are replicated in many other localities around the world, it will make little difference.
And Tim, Entropic explained the effect of averaging on uncertainly, which you cannot ignore.
One can believe strongly in the idea of the satellite measurements, but in reality they have systematic errors that are not reduced by averaging (as the surface measurements are) and are still not very well understood.
Thus there remains a large disagreement on trend between various teams analyzing the satellite data.
If one is concerned about UHI and other local effects, I suggest using Reanalysis Temperature data. Because they use all weather variables, measured all over the world and put into a self-consistent weather model, to determine the T anywhere on any date back to 1950 so far. Even Roy Spencer has praised this approach.
Here is the global mean T trend from the ERA Reanalysis:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=ERA5/era5_t2m_gl&STATION=ERA_global_t2m
See anomalies graph.
Congratulations Nate, and welcome to the party. Now that I have been successfully drawn into the Fish Gallop (sic) defense even though I did not make a gallop, it is time for people to answer the real questions I asked about public perception. This does not go away with a clever debating tactic. These are real concerns. My preamble was for the purpose of demonstrating the amount of misdirection used in public media reports. Here you go:
Should China and the rest of the world be part of the conversation? Is RCP 6 the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions? What should the USA do? Should we panic and rush headlong into electric vehicles?
I’ve answered your questions. Twice already. You seem to have no interest in getting answers.
And no response to my post. You’re doing your own thing I guess.
Nate does get partial credit for claiming that China already is in the discussion. To be fair, the question pertains to public discussion in the media and I have never seen it. Maybe there is a link somewhere to a news story about China’s massive emissions from burn coal of all things.
This one has not been answered by anyone and it is a loaded question:
Is RCP 6 the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions?
If the answer is yes, then the conclusion has to be that there is nothing at all the USA can do to lower world emissions by ourselves. Any and every effort is doomed to be just a waste of time and money. If the follow on answer is that green energy pays for itself, then there is no need for mandates on electric vehicles or subsidies for solar panels.
> This one has not been answered by anyone
Vintage 2020:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
And back then it already was an old tack.
I will have a Pastrami on Rye with Swiss. Hold the mayo.
I point at
(Denial) I did not make a gallop
And I point at
(Gallop) it is time for people to answer the real questions
That is all.
“Nate does get partial credit for claiming that China already is in the discussion.”
And don’t forget about me showing evidence that they are leading the world in ramping up renewables.
Looks to me like you want to hold onto your narrative regardless of the facts!
“If the answer is yes, then the conclusion has to be that there is nothing at all the USA can do to lower world emissions by ourselves. Any and every effort is doomed to be just a waste of time and money.”
Again with the strawman that anyone serious thinks the US must do it by ourselves!
This book is for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD0apYFz5gg
Nate is doing what Nate does best. He makes a good argument for China “leading the way” in renewable, but leaves out the fact that renewables are still a small percentage of their total electric generation. They also lead the way in growth, yes growth of coal fired power plants. Here is the link:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53959
The renewables are growing faster than coal in China, but coal is still growing. I do not have a good link, and this is from a biased source, but Mike Wirth, chairman and CEO of Chevron Corporation, claims that fossil fuels still make up over 80% of world energy production and that is only down a few percent from the time when solar panels use became widespread.
Now, I have to congratulate Nate for identifying and taking advantage of a poorly worded sentence on my part, that is subject to different interpretations. This statement is better:
If the answer is yes [that RCP 6 is the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions], then the conclusion has to be that there is nothing at all the USA can do to lower emissions by ourselves, on our own, and have any impact on the growth that is projected world-wide. Any and every effort is doomed to be just a waste of time and money as the rest of the world just keeps increasing their rate of fossil burning.
Finally, where is my Pastrami sammich. I am getting hungry.
Another strawman. You’re becoming an expert.
You seem seem to think ramping up renewables faster than anyone else isn’t fast enough in China. More, faster, please!
But in the US less, slower please.
And if China needs more energy to meet their demand so they can keep manufacturing all the stuff we want, they should….what? Just stop?
Nate, for a clever guy you are missing the point. Or, are you?
China is not the only country increasing use of fossil fuel. They are just the good example where there is data and an easy target.
The point very clearly, (I think!) is whether the claims made by many climate scientist and just about every liberal media outlet, that reducing fossil usage will lead to world-wide reduction in CO2 and save us from climate change, is true or not. The official IPCC projections say it will not.
There is a more humorous narrative that I have not mentioned in this string. There is a perception with most of the public that an electric car is “carbon free”. For the most part, they are not. Most of the electric power in this country comes from natural gas power plants. Instead of burning gasoline or diesel on the road, we are burning more natural gas at the power plant. It has an official title as the bridge fuel.
I am in a humorous mood, so here you go: I have a bridge to sell you!
“climate scientist and just about every liberal media outlet”
Nah. Why do you care about what some imagined ‘liberal media outlet’ says?
“If the answer is yes [that RCP 6 is the correct standard for governments to use for future predictions], then the conclusion has to be that there is nothing at all the USA can do to lower emissions by ourselves, on our own, and have any impact on the growth that is projected world-wide.”
You seem to suggest our emissions in the future are pre-ordained! And there is nothing we can do to change them.
Weird, Tim.
Nate the politician is making good arguments that will convince many people. I prefer to work with the science. As I stated somewhere in this blog, I put out my thoughts and ideas, and let others decide for themselves. I am mostly a student of climate science, but from what I know, I am amazed at how much certainty some express about the ability to predict the future.
Yes, uncertainty can be dismissed as just a nuisance that goes away with analysis, or it may be real. Let’s say we measure temperature in a city at 5 different places with accurate and calibrated instruments in validated and certified measuring stations. For discussion, let’s say they vary by as much as 5C. Could that mean that the heat island effect is not only real, but widely different in different parts of the city due to various factors associated with the location? Now let’s say that very talented scientists analyze this situation and come to the conclusion that the variation is okay for long term data analysis because the error is consistent over time. Is that conclusion valid if the reason for the initial variation is not known? Could there be systematic error that depends on time of day or other uncontrolled factors?
I have an idea. Maybe we should use satellite data to predict the rate of warming over decades of time. Maybe the calibration drift and satellite replacement issue is manageable. What exactly is the reason that there are so many surface datasets but very few satellite data sets? If the satellite data is wrong, then maybe some of these folks doing the surface analysis could spend time trying sort out the satellite data.
> uncertainty can be dismissed as just a nuisance that goes away with analysis
Like here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1527948
Precision at work. And accuracy. Period.
Porque no los dos?
Crickets.
Tim S
Sorry, I’ve been busy.
“Lets say we measure temperature in a city at 5 different places with accurate and calibrated instruments in validated and certified measuring stations. For discussion, lets say they vary by as much as 5C. ”
I’m not a very talented scientist but the analysis is not too difficult.
If the range is 6C then the standard deviation would be about 6/4 = 1.5C.
5 stations recording twice a day gives a sample size per year of
n=5*2*365 =3650
Uncertainty of the mean is 2*1.5/sq rt 3650 = 0.05C
The UHI effect is generally regarded as 2C. If that were so for your city your measurements would confirm that as a mean of 2 +/- 0.05C above the surrounding countryside.
Incidentally, don’t get too excited about UHI as an alternative to CO2. Urban areas occupy 3% of the land surface, so their contribution to land warming raises temperatures by 2*0.03 = 0.06 +/- 0.002C.
They make up 0.9% of the total surface area so their contribution to global average temperature is less than 0.02C.
Thank you Entropic man for some more mansplaining, but you are actually helping to make my point and address my concern that the public is informed by a media that have zero science knowledge or experience. My original concern was and is public perception.
I have seen language in peer reviewed scientific papers to the effect of “these result emphasis the need for society to take drastic action to reduce heat trapping gas emissions”. The media then take that and amplify the hype.
The reality is that the accuracy of climate predictions is almost not relevant. The real question is what if anything can be done about it? If the future growth in fossil burning by the “developing” world exceeds the reductions in the industrial world, then nothing has been accomplished except a lot of hype. If RCP 6 is a reasonable guide and CO2 in the year 2050 is on the order of 450 to 500 ppm and the industrial world has achieved “carbon zero”, what was actually accomplished?
If someone else is pissing in the drinking water does that make it OK for you to do the same?
The developing world hopes to have what the developed world has. If the developed world has successfully charted a renewable energy path, one can assume that the developing world will adopt it as they further develop, particularly as solar has already become cost competitive with several fossil fuels.
looks like they already are adopting it.
“The International Energy Agency forecasts that renewable energy will provide the majority of energy supply growth through 2030 in Africa and Central and South America, and 42% of supply growth in China.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_developing_countries
I guess it is my turn to do some mansplaining. Industrial power in the early days was mainly windmills (they are making a comeback with hi-tech parts) and water mills. The steam engine was a major advance and a big increase in the use of coal. Along the way there have been many advances including electric motors for direct power and steam turbines to generate that power. Together the turbine and motor are the most common form of industrial power.
The new scheme proposed for green energy involves wind generators, solar panels, and batteries — many batteries which will also provide power for transportation. It is an amazingly intelligent scheme in many ways. With massive battery storage we can transfer energy back and forth from one battery to another.
In fact some dreamers think we can use hydrogen in some way despite the various hazards and high energy cost (and money) to produce and then compress or condense the hydrogen for storage (it is a very light gas in its natural form). But I digress.
The practical problem is that none of those items grow on trees. They have to be produced and it costs money. The schemers say we have a crisis that is now an emergency. There is almost a sense of desperation to convince the public that there is an emergency. Data to demonstrate the crisis must be hyped to the maximum extent, because public awareness is low.
In this scheme, you will need a new electric car and an expensive battery in your garage. Meanwhile, the most talented and gifted scientists in the world who all work for the IPCC think that emissions will actually increase and most of that increase will come from regions of the world that are poor.
To date, with a massive effort already underway, credible estimates put the increase in renewable power at just a few percent of the total energy consumption world-wide. The efforts of the rich countries to solve the crisis will have almost no practical payback for many decades. Massive amounts of money will be spent while emissions increase anyway.
Some say we should also have an intelligent project plan to implement this very important project to change the way we produce and use energy. Maybe we should go slowly and carefully with a long term plan. Maybe we actually need better battery technologies.
The ordained experts who know better say those concerns are the result of climate change deniers who are allowed to speak on the subject. The concern from the experts is a desire to control the narrative, and refute the claims of the deniers. They seem to be successful.
I need to comment on this very clever statement:
[The International Energy Agency forecasts that renewable energy will provide the majority of energy supply growth through 2030 in Africa and Central and South America, and 42% of supply growth in China.]
For those who are paying attention, growth, yes growth in fossil burning will also increase, and existing uses will probably continue. What is the useful life of a coal fired power plant? 30 years maybe before a major overhaul?
Just when you thought Africa was going to electric cars, we have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangote_Refinery
[The Dangote Refinery is an oil refinery owned by Dangote Group that was inaugurated on 22 May 2023[1] in Lekki, Nigeria. When fully operational, it is expected to have the capacity to process about 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day, making it the largest single-train refinery in the world. The investment is over US$19 billion.]
For those who might dismiss this effort, it is not only the newest refinery and largest, but it also has all of the most modern refinery processes including Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracking.
> But I digress.
In a way that would put Duane Gish to shame.
“The lunar south pole is the southernmost point on the Moon. It is of interest to scientists because of the occurrence of water ice in permanently shadowed areas around it. The lunar south pole region features craters that are unique in that the near-constant sunlight does not reach their interior. Such craters are cold traps that contain fossil records of hydrogen, water ice, and other volatiles dating from the early Solar System.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_south_pole
…”The lunar south pole is located on the center of the polar Antarctic Circle (80S to 90S).”
…”The south pole region features many craters and basins such as the South PoleAitken basin, which appears to be one of the most fundamental features of the Moon, and mountains, such as Epsilon Peak at 9.050 km, taller than any mountain found on Earth.”
And, I was wondering about polar region of planet Mars, moon,
Phobos. [Though also other bigger Moon, Deimos]
With Phobos it’s got average diameter of 22 km.
And the north or south polar region could be considered 80 to 90 degrees.
And use circumference of 22 x pi and get about 69 km and divide 360 degree and .1919 km per degree. Or 10 degrees from either of it’s poles is about 1.9 km
Also south polar region of our Moon, 3475 km x pi is about 10917 circumference / 360 degrees is 30.375 km
Or lunar polar circle is 303.75 km from it’s pole.
Though tend to think within 5 degrees of lunar pole is more interesting, or 303.75 / 2 is 151.625 km from pole and same goes with Phobos: 1.9 / 2 = .95 km for it’s pole or 950 meters from it’s pole,
When 150 km or less from lunar pole even a sunlit area is pretty cold. And even shallow crater could easily be in permanent shadow. Though if you tilt your solar panel to face at the sunlight, you get full sunlight,
So, you are about 1 km from Phobos north pole. And you are on the farside of moon, and unless you have “terrain advantages”, you don’t see Mars, but you orbiting Mars about every 7 1/2 hours, so on average you see sun 1/2 that time. Or get less than 4 hours of night and less than 4 hours of day. Though depends your elevation {or terrain advantages}.
On another side- 2 km away. one would always see Mars, but depending terrain you might see a full Mars. And you would get Mars shine. And when see part of Mars at night one could see red halo caused the sunlight passing thru Atmosphere.
And if directly facing Mars, you are zero longitude, farside is 180, halfway along circle is 90 or going other way 270, within them can see Mars, and get Mars shine. Following circle
it’s about 6.2 km before return to where you start or about 1.5 km to get to 90 or 270 degree, or cut across {not follow circle] and be shorter distance. And 180 straight across is 2 km. Nearside has advantage of Mars shine, farside, never has Mars blocking the sunlight. And getting solar energy from all 4 points, gets less time when aren’t getting solar power.
Or in terms solar power the moons can give more solar energy than Earth or Mars. But terrain in one spot in moon polar region, [rather than the 4 spots] do better and any one spot on Mars {and obviously better any spot on Earth surface}.
Over half of the Sahara desert receives less than 25mm (1 inch) of rainfall per year. Occasionally, more rainfall is found along the southern portions as the ITCZ shifts up and down. But a full on rainfall event across most of the desert is not something we see every year, or perhaps even every decade.
Below is the latest GFS model forecast for total rainfall in the next 16 days. What you see is rainfall covering a large part of the Saharan desert. The amounts might not look high, but if we consider the total yearly amount, many regions have a few years worth of rain in a few days.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/andrej-news/weather-forecast-rainfall-anomaly-sahara-event-extended-range-30-day-totals.png
“Over half of the Sahara desert receives less than 25mm (1 inch) of rainfall per year.”
Deserts do that.
Lake Tahoe sees first August snow in 20 years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2newg9g89o
In a few days, snow will fall in the mountains in southern Sweden and Norway where there will be a loop of the cold spot jet stream.
Propagation of infos
https://tinyurl.com/zrre7rma
I see one of the links is the url I posted.
People with an egomaniacal view of things only see what is related to themselves and overlook the rest.
You of course did not understand why I posted this Google search. But I won’t explain this as it is useless.
Blinny explains nothing as usual.
I explain things all the time – except to those like Blindsley H00d who intentionally misrepresent what I write and above all: never admit being wrong.
So you explain nothing as usual.
California Forecast Shows Snow in August for First Time in 20 Years
https://www.newsweek.com/california-forecast-snow-august-first-time-20-years-1942139
Indeed parts of the world are cooler than average, and other parts are warmer than average. Overall, most are warmer.
Why do you find that noteworthy?
Alarmists (of all directions of course, but especially coolistas exclusively cherry-picking cold temperatures or associated data) always urge in showing singular, exceptional events.
I prefer to show the context of such events, in this case surface (i.e. not mass) snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere:
1. Some superposed, recent seasons with the 1981-2010 average
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3Uy377a89yXvDV1k91I38UtaMquwlTX/view
2. Anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R5CSSdlMh2SiqMcntu5mTL1lcooYLOLv/view
Draw your own conclusions.
*
Mine is that the probability of singular events a la ‘Lake Tahoe sees first August snow in 20 years’ having the least effect on these two overall pictures, is equal to zero dot zero.
The BBC posted that, not me.
https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684990
Palmowski never ends to manipulate the blog with his posts showing snow water equivalents (mass or volume) instead of surface snow cover.
Snow water equivalents aka mass only tell you how wet the snow is on average.
The BBC posted that (see url), not me.
I’m sure it is wet around Lake Tahoe!
https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_sce.png
Aaah.
Now finally Palmowski shows us the correct data but we see nothing else than a couple of days with snow cover higher than the norm.
This is, of course, further clear evidence that global cooling is underway, isn’t it?
Why does Palmowski not show us E3C’s 2023/2024 season?
This indicates that the high temperature of the troposphere is an anomaly whose causes are unknown.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_NH_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-Ttrop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
What is happening in the satellite data is exactly what happened in 1998. Except 1998 was significantly higher than the mean temperatures of the time than 2024 is above the mean temperature of recent years.
Sorry Ant, but you’re forgetting the HTE.
Hunga-Tonga Effect has been lingering since January 2022. It may be lessening, as the Polar Vortex can quickly recover from disruptions now. Here, it’s already back to a max wind speed of 300 mph!
https://postimg.cc/w3Pq13Gz
But it definitely affected global temperatures, maybe as much as a full degree C!
Sorry Clint, but you’re forgetting that you made that up.
Sorry Ant, but reality isn’t made up.
You’re grasping at straws, again.
If it is “reality” then you won’t have a problem linking to a number of peer-reviewed papers outlining the mechanism.
“If it is reality then you wont have a problem linking to a number of peer-reviewed papers outlining the mechanism.”
Well said.
The problem Ant, is we’ve been here before. I’ve linked to the different theories as to how the HTE works. At least one was from NASA. But, you don’t accept reality.
The HTE has upset your false beliefs. It has done what your bogus CO2 cannot do. It’s as if Nature said to your cult “So you think CO2 can warm the planet, huh? Hold my beer….”
(But seeing JW snuggling up to you is part of the fun.)
No Clint, you haven’t. Your only link to NASA said that there MIGHT be a warming effect, that if so it would be caused due to an elevated greenhouse effect due to elevated CO2 levels, that it would take at least 2 years to take hold, and that there was a high chance it wouldn’t be noticeable above natural variability. YOU say it can’t be the greenhouse effect, so that article was irrelevant to your claim.
In any case, that was NOT a peer-reviewed paper, and you have linked to nothing else which remotely approximates one.
Honesty and Clint are two words which belong together only in sentences like the one I am writing right now.
Edit: Elevated H2O levels.
Yes Ant, you don’t know the difference between CO2 and H2O. You don’t know why one can raise surface temperatures while the other can’t, even though I’ve explained it to you.
There’s no evidence you understand any of this. That’s why I’ve learned not to waste too much time with you. You’re ignorant and you can’t learn.
So now you’ve flip-flopped back to your “HTE” being caused by water vapour. Please make up your mind.
Wrong again, Ant. There’s no flip-flopping from me. That’s a false accusation.
Water vapor is only one of the ways the HTE causes an increase in temperature.
Theres no evidence you understand any of this. That’s why I’ve learned not to waste too much time with you. You’re ignorant and you can’t learn. All you’ve got are your childish antics.
What will you try next?
Clint R
Aug 2 2023
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518022
“The warming effect is NOT due to water vapor.”
FLIP FLOP
That’s correct, Ant. The HTE is due to more than than one thing.
I’m not sure we even know them all.
What we know for certain is the HTE can raise surface temperatures, but CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.
Let me repeat:
August 2023:
“The warming effect is NOT due to water vapor.”
An unequivocal unambiguous NOT, with no qualification.
And when I point this out you come up with the nonsensical “Thats correct, Ant. The HTE is due to more than than one thing.”
The exact OPPOSITE of your words that I was quoting.
August 2024:
“Water vapor is only one of the ways the HTE causes an increase in temperature.”
Suddenly its back in.
FLIP FLOP
That’s correct, Ant. The HTE is due to more than than one thing.
I’m not sure we even know them all. There’s also the ozone and chlorine theories.
What we know for certain is the HTE can raise surface temperatures, but CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.
HAHAHA – you don’t even have the balls to directly address your flip-flopping. If you don’t have anything new to add then don’t speak.
Wrong again, Ant.
Adding or clarifying information is NOT flip-flopping.
You seem desperately stuck-in-a-rut on this. That’s likely because you have NOTHING.
What will you try next?
You have caught this conversation in that rut Clint by not addressing the issue I have raised.
Which statement is incorrect? Your 2023 statement or your 2024 statement. And why are you pretending now that those statements are not contradictory?
When you answer those questions, this conversation can leave the rut that you have caught us in.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685299
Thanks for admitting you like your arguments to be circular.
“Repetition” is a proper teaching technique, especially for those that are slow-learners.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685258
‘Repetition’ is an example of you being ‘stuck-in-a-rut’.
And a means of avoiding the issue of your flip-flopping on water vapour.
And more generally of having nothing new to say.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685421
And also an attempt to terminate a conversation while ensuring you have the last “word”.
Winter is beginning at the North Pole.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The calculation starts with measurements of current total ozone amounts over the entire globe, obtained via two satellites operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These data are used to produce a forecast of stratospheric ozone levels for the next day at many points across the country. A computer model uses the ozone forecast and the incident angle of sunlight at each point to calculate the strength of UV radiation at ground level. Sunlight angle is determined by latitude, day of year, and time of day (solar noon). The strength of UV radiation is calculated for several wavelengths between 280 and 400 nm, the full spectrum of UVB (280-314 nm) and UVA (315-400 nm) radiation.
https://i.ibb.co/M6BKPRH/uvi-map.png
NOAA’s T2M forecast for the next 6 months in North America…
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/usT2me3Mon.html
… and for Europe till the Ural mountains
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
We could see how much of it was wrong by saving the pictures on disk or on the Web Archive. I’m too lazy.
“I’m too lazy”
No surprise there.
Says the arrogant twat (the name he gave me 3 years ago) who is not even able to correct his median cascade evaluations.
*
And he is not at all too lazy to spend 2 years in an evaluation of PSMSL sea level tide gauge data together with GPS-based vertical land movement data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Or0jeeNG9Or1dPvxzb48QtrsUgeNE8GJ/view
*
And I still await his courageous contradiction of the amazing similarity between min/max middle and median when processing USCRN data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_F00TcPvlRBk4NQ8GR_Q6cdhUtQ4CUIQ/view
*
No surprise there indeed, coolista Blindsley H00d.
“the name he gave me 3 years ago”
Are you saying that is not true.
Blindsley H00d
So, not true?
Why don’t you look back in the blog’s 2021 thread sequence by using the Web Archive?
You will find the place.
Are you saying that the name is not true?
I say it suits you sissyish boy way, way, way better than it ever could suit me, Blindsley H00d.
You would be wrong, as usual.
RLH
Interesting that you have chosen to address only the part about an insult you came up with, and have no interest in address the bulk of the post addressing your stats.
Why is that? Too arrogant to believe your claims need defending?
Unlike Blinny I don’t alter facts.
For example, your claim that standard deviation or variance is only meaningful for normally distributed data?
Or that the mean of n consecutive data points is not actually the mean of those n points, due to high frequency interference?
Or … your claim that you don’t alter facts?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-27.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-27.gif
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/climate-forecast-system-reanalysis-cfsr
bobdroege says:
August 12, 2024 at 2:46 PM
“VC is working backwards, thats not how to apply the scientific method, reverse engineering maybe, and conjuring up constants to fit the curve.”
(emphasis added)
Please, bobdroege, “and conjuring up constants to fit the curve”.
All planets and moons are inevitably subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON
because (everything else equals),
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
The Rotational Warming is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have discovered is that
for all planets and moons the average surface temperatures, measured by satellites (Tsat)
RELATE,
(everything else equals),
as their respective (N*cp) product
in SIXTEENTH ROOT.
Where:
Tsat – Kelvin, is the planet’s average surface temperature.
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
–
Link to the site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–Where:
Tsat Kelvin, is the planets average surface temperature.
N rotations/day, is the planets axial spin.
cp cal/gr*oC, is the planets average surface specific heat.–
What is Mars, Earth, and our moon’s “average surface specific heat.”
And what/where is the surface of Venus and how much is average surface specific heat?
Where does the distance from the Sun, and the energy from the Sun fit into your calculations?
Thank you, bobdroege, for your response.
“Where does the distance from the Sun, and the energy from the Sun fit into your calculations?”
It is a good question. The distance from the Sun, and, therefore, the energy from the Sun is the only source of energy that is used in my calculations.
A planet surface responses to the (interacts with), responses to the incident solar energy, and because of that there is an average surface temperature.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon what it does is to modulate (to rise) the planet average surface temperature. Because the higher the planet’s (N*cp) product – the higher the planet average surface (Tmean) temperature.
The EM energy comes from sun. There is the
energy in =energy out the equilibrium energy balance axiom to be met.
So, there is the Solar flux (S), surface Albedo (a), the solar irradiation accepting factor (the spherical shape and roughness coefficient (Φ) ), and also, there is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Therefore, we have formulated the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Theoretical Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
Equation is building in the actual Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Phenomenon correlates spin (N) and average surface specific heat (cp) with average surface temperature (Tmean).
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why is the surface of Venus hotter than the surface of Mercury.
“Why is the surface of Venus hotter than the surface of Mercury.”
Venus’ Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation.
R = 0,723 AU, is the Venus distance from the sun in astronomical units
1/R = 1,9130
Venus albedo: avenus = 0,76 Bond
Venus is a gases planet, Venus solar irradiation accepting factor Φvenus = 1
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
1/243 rotations /per day, is the planet’s Venus sidereal rotation spin.
On the Venus atmosphere winds are 60 times faster than the planet’s Venus sidereal rotation spin. Since Venus has very thick atmosphere and being considered a gases planet, the Venus’ rotation spin will be calculated as
N = 60* 1/243 = 60/243 = 0,24691 rotations per day
cp.venus = 0,19 cal/gr*oC, it is because the surface is regolith dry soil
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant So = 1.362 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Venus Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.venus is:
.
Tmean.venus = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.venus = [ 1(1-0,76)1.362 W/m 1,9130*(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *0,24691rotations/day*0,19 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.venus = [ 0,24*1.362 W/m1,9130*(150*0,24691*0,19)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,24*1.362 W/m1,9130*(1,6287) /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.venus = ( 4.490.620.150,82 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.venus = 258,87 K
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.venus = 735 K, measured by satellites.
What we see here is that planet Venus has a strong greenhouse warming effect due to the greenhouse gas CO2 96,5 % high content in the Venus’ atmosphere.
Venus’ atmosphere composition:
96,5 % CO2 carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
3,5 % N2
and, also
at ground level Venus’ atmospheric density is
D = 65 kg/m.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, Venus doesn’t fit your equation because it is NOT warmed by Sun. It is warmed by its own internal molten lava/magma.
The surface of Venus is like the crater of a semi-active volcano.
Re:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684534
Wiki:
Sea Launch
“Sea Launch was a multinationalNorway, Russia, Ukraine, United Statesspacecraft launch company founded in 1995 that provided orbital launch services from 1999 to 2014. The company used a mobile maritime launch platform for equatorial launches of commercial payloads on specialized Zenit-3SL rockets from a former mobile/floating oil drilling rig renamed Odyssey.
By 2014, it had assembled and launched thirty-two rockets, with an additional three failures and one partial failure. All commercial payloads were communications satellites intended for geostationary transfer orbit with such customers as EchoStar, DirecTV, XM Satellite Radio, PanAmSat, and Thuraya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch
“On March 17, 2006, it was announced that Jim Maser, the President and General Manager of Sea Launch, would leave the company to join SpaceX as President and Chief Operating Officer.
In June 2009, the provider of the Sea Launch service, Sea Launch Co. LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.Sea Launch asserted that it would “continue to maintain all normal business operations after the filing for reorganization.”[11] On August 6, 2010, Energia, which already owned 25% of Sea Launch, announced it planned to acquire a controlling interest of 85% in the company. As a result, the company planned to begin land-based launches from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in early 2011, while sea-based launches to be resumed in September 2011”
Etc.
Observations indicate that the global sea surface temperature is stable and increases during El Nio and decreases during La Nia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Wow – temperatures increase during El Nino and decrease during La Nina! Such insight ren!! You really should publish your finding … scientists will be shocked!
But I hope you have more than that 3-month graph of sea surface temperatures as evidence. 13 weeks of data from an ENSO-neutral period hardly supports your claim. On the contrary, it gives the impression that you link to random irrelevant graphs hoping you can con people into thinking you know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should link us to these “observations” you are referring to.
We insert the
Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient).
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons.
Φ =1 for heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons.
Φ – it is not a constant.
Φ may have all the values from the Φ =0,47 to the Φ =1.
When planetary surface is smooth enough, the coefficient Φ =0,47
Because no matter how much smoother the surface may be, the light will not be reflected more strongly.
And, when planetary surface is rough enough (heavy cratered enough), the coefficient Φ =1.
Because no matter how much rougher the surface may be, the light will not be captured more strongly.
Also, there are values of Φ in between the 0,47 and 1.
In solar system only Triton appears to have its surface’s coefficient Φ somewhere in between of 0,47 and 1.
Because a planetary surface is either smooth enough (Φ =0,47),
or it is rough enough (heavy cratered enough), (Φ =1).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Φ it is not a constant.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Indeed, it is not a constant.
But regardless whether constant or not: it is no more than your invention, lacking any scientific evidence let alone proof.
You have been explained this since quite a while: here, and even at Climate etc. You never were able to backup your allegation at any time.
“…lacking any scientific evidence let alone proof.”
That’s your CO2 nonsense, Bindi.
And your bogus Moon spin nonsense….
Neither
– did I mention CO2 in any comment these years, except with links to the excellent article written in 2011 by Dufresne & Treiner, who know about CO2 at least 1,000,000 times more than the antiscience specialist nicknamed ‘Clint R’
nor
– did I mention the lunar spin, proven by hundreds of real science (wo)men who all knew/know also at least 1,000,000 times more than the very same antiscience specialist nicknamed ‘Clint R’.
The probability that the antiscience specialist nicknamed ‘Clint R’ will respond to this with no scientific argument at all is equal to 100%.
Bindidon,
“Indeed, it is not a constant.
But regardless whether constant or not: it is no more than your invention, lacking any scientific evidence let alone proof.”
Bindidon, you are agreeing that Φ is not a constant, aren’t you?
“Indeed, it is not a constant.”
Why “regardless whether constant or not” ?
The ‘Φ’ is a planetary surface’s feature, the ‘Φ’ is the surface’s property, and it is a physical variable.
And, Bindidon, what scientific evidence or proof is needed for something that is so much obvious?
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes Bindi, you don’t have “any scientific evidence let alone proof” of the CO2, or lunar spin, nonsense.
Thanks for admitting that.
Nothing is ‘obvious’ in your scientifically unsupported allegation concerning:
” Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient). ”
Nothing, Vournas.
*
Only people who lack real scientific education and hence discredit the basic principles of scientific work can think and write an arrogant nonsense like
” … what scientific evidence or proof is needed for something that is so much obvious? “
I wrote above:
” The probability that the antiscience specialist nicknamed Clint R will respond to this with no scientific argument at all is equal to 100%. ”
J’avais parfaitement raison:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685423
I wrote above:
Yes Bindi, you don’t have “any scientific evidence let alone proof” of the CO2, or lunar spin, nonsense.
Bindi continues to prove me right.
I have not had enough coffee, yet, today.
But how could this be related to terraforming Mars.
It seems many Mars fans tend to think one needs to terraform Mars.
[My opinion is humans don’t need to terraform Mars.]
It seems generally what is wanted as far as Mars fans in regards to Mars, is warming Mars.
And they tend to want cause a greenhouse effect in order to do this.
And it seems, one could “say”, a greenhouse effect wouldn’t warm or wouldn’t warm enough.
Now, I don’t think Mars needs to be warmed or made colder, but issue is Mars fans tend to think Mars needs to be terraformed and thereby warm Mars.
Therefore in that context, of this broad desire to improve Mars by terraforming and increasing it’s average global temperature, what could Christos Vournas, say about it?
So, I have obtained more coffee and I am drinking it.
So I think think what Mars lacks is air pressure, to breath human need more air pressure. And water gives pressure which could allow humans to have more air pressure.
Humans can live in very high air pressure, some regard it as a possible therapy. And many human have adapted to quite low air pressure- as the thousands of manics who want to climb Mt Everest, can assisted by.
So people drawing pictures humans living on Mars, have large domes to provide enough air pressure.
Now, one thing about Mars thin atmosphere, is small impactors aren’t slowed down much by Mars atmosphere. And the hundred of tons per year of small impactors, might hit these nice big domes.
If argument is to add more atmosphere to stop small impactors, impacting, this could have some merit to it.
Or maybe one could find some, big and deep caves, which could also help with this.
But my view of Mars is more related to economic matters, I think one needs a lot water, because humans use a lot water.
And it seems that something which has great worth on the Mars surface, would be finding and/or making a lake. Which if found, would tend to be mostly a frozen lake. And instead of a natural lake, one might instead find something you would call a glacier.
It seems quite possible to find caves and glaciers on Mars, and Mars needs to be explored, a bit, before creating some kind of settlement on Mars. Just as our Moon needs some exploration, before one mine lunar water. {or mine anything}.
In terms of economics, in regards to Mars, one could have a prize, for someone, who finds the “right” lake/glacier or for someone who makes a Mars lake. And rather than a prize, one could simply offer to buy a lake. People could bid for a Mars lake [which is found or built]. A person might offer 1 billion dollars for a “start up lake”.
And people bid higher for a better lake.
A better lake could related to location and how big it is, and/or how big of a lake, it could become. So rather than a mere 1 billion dollars, a high bidder might pay 5 billion dollar for a better lake.
The advantage of owning a lake [which requires occupation in terms normal customs] is selling estate around the lake. So it’s possible that some fool who buys a 5 billion dollar lake on Mars, might “make” 10 billion dollars or more.
But there could advantage of finding a cave, also. And cave could have a lake in it’s deeper depths,
Nobody is going to MARS
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/08/1920/1080/Cartoon082924.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin is suppose to send a couple robotic missions to Mars in a few months.
Nobody is very confident it will happen, and the next launch window to Mars will be 2.1 years later.
Musk’s Starship is suppose to start making gas stations in orbit, soon- as in, sometime in 2025.
Of course in couple weeks, SpaceX is going to attempt to catch the first stage of Starship at Boca Chica.
I think SpaceX should make a cheap floating platform, and tow it out in ocean, and try to catch it. And make it, roughly unsinkable, but if it sinks, make cheap enough that it doesn’t matter, much.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your invitation.
“Therefore in that context, of this broad desire to improve Mars by terraforming and increasing it’s average global temperature, what could Christos Vournas, say about it?”
–
In the very distant past planet Mars had oceans of water. Therefore it is possible Mars had a warm climate as Earth has, but most of the surface being covered with snowy ice-fields of oceanic water.
Unfortunately, because of its low gravity Mars has lost its oceans, because at places of liquid water, the water evaporated and eventually little-by-little the Mars’ water vanished in outer space..
There is nothing we can do about bringing the oceans of water on Mars’ surface.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There is nothing we can do about bringing the oceans of water on Mars surface.”
Of course there is, but it seem one bring oceans of water to the Moon, as it’s easier, to make the hydro electrical power from doing so {drop water from Earth/Moon L-1 to lunar surface]. Dropping water from Mars orbit, to make hydropower is a lot harder. And if you just want water on Mars, you can merely impact Mars surface with space rock with high water content. Of course Mars has impacted to space rock with a high water content, for billions of years, already.
And it’s thought that a lot water Earth has was brought to Earth from impactors. The argument against it, is Earth mantle is extremely dry, and drying out of this vast amount rock, is said to cause most water on Earth. Or plate tectonic was main cause of oceans on Earth, than a relative small amount from later impactors from Space. But the argument continues.
We know very little about Earth, we know a lot more, because the cold war game of landing crew on the Moon.
And we will know vast amount more, if we ever, actually explore the Moon {and Mars}.
Clint R
It is not at all nonsense. I am sorry your brain is not able to comprehend how a radiant barrier works. You are lacking in understanding. No amount of logic or evidece will help you. I have provided you with extensive evidence. You just reject it all because you lack understanding. No light goes off in your head.
Norman is one of my most consistent stalkers. He’s always full of insults and false accusations, but seriously lacking in science.
At least he’s consistent….
Norman is right; you have a mental block to comprehend anything that doesn’t agree with your severely limited world view.
I will add that I am fed up with your poor attitude and insults. I would that Roy removes you from the access list.
Ken, you have all that hatred and bitterness after all I’ve done to educate you?
It’s likely you hate reality more than me. That’s evident because you can’t show any time I’ve got physics wrong, or any time I’ve insulted someone that hasn’t insulted me first.
Feel free to show this to your therapist….
You haven’t done anything to educate me or anyone else on this thread. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Braindead
Ken, me educating you requires you absorbing info. I can transmit to you, but I can’t receive for you.
“Check out the heavy snow in Glacier National Park! ‘Going to the sun road’ is closed today due to a half a foot of snow that fell last night.
The locals even talked about how they love when it’s hot because it doesn’t last long and winter can come back fast. They weren’t kidding…didn’t even make it to September and already a big snow.”
Is it not interesting that poster Palmowski never tells us about nice corners as this one:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240907&daytime=day&iid=IQ
and therein, especially
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=40689&gid=40689&month=09&year=2024&metparaid=TXLD&period=4&ireq=true
*
The reason for this is, of course, that Palmowski wants to avoid us getting a completely wrong view of the world through such extreme reports and therefore starting to be afraid of the alleged warming.
We should actually be grateful to him for that, shouldn’t we?
Why would the desert be anything other than hot during the day?
Earth’s Φ =0,47
So, Bindidon, you have already agreed, Earth’s Φ =0,47
it is not a constant.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So, Vournas, you just confirmed being an antiscientific pseudoskeptic like Clint R, Robertson and a few others.
Thanks for making this clear to everyone on the blog.
Interesting.
Doesn’t “everyone on the blog” include Vournas, Clint R, Robertson and a few others?
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Now that SPY is skyrocketing through the stratosphere, has anyone bought some DJT? Looks like a bargain:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DJT/
Teh Donald will soon dump it tho. He never said no to free money.
Scientists discover a long-sought global electric field on Earth
“Using observations from a NASA suborbital rocket, an international team of scientists, for the first time, has successfully measured a planet-wide electric field thought to be as fundamental to Earth as its gravity and magnetic fields.”
[I always thought we needed to use more suborbital rockets, and I imagine they much cheaper these days. We should get more satellites measuring global temperature [that could very cheap also]].
“Known as the ambipolar electric field, scientists first hypothesized over 60 years ago that it drove how our planet’s atmosphere can escape above Earth’s North and South Poles. Measurements from the rocket, NASA’s Endurance mission, have confirmed the existence of the ambipolar field and quantified its strength, revealing its role in driving atmospheric escape and shaping our ionospherea layer of the upper atmospheremore broadly.”
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-scientists-sought-global-electric-field.html
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
The vast majority (99.99% ?) of people reading this nonsense will not understand NASA is confusing magnetic fields with electric fields.
It just sounds “science-y”, and keeps the funding coming in.
99.99% of people reading this know that anything measured in VOLTS relates to an ELECTRIC field. Then there are “special” people without ANY education in science who believe they have the knowledge to enable them to challenge anything new.
Sorry Ant, but an electric field has units of “Volts/meter”.
I don’t expect you to understand….
Apparently you don’t understand “relates to”.
“Relates to” has little value in science.
But, you can have the last word on this. Otherwise you’ll be here for days, as usual.
If you actually allow me the last word, it will be the exception not the rule. You are describing yourself.
Science IS about finding relationships between concepts.
Let’s emphasize for one of the dumbest pseudo-skeptics:
” Using observations from a NASA suborbital rocket, an international team of scientists, for the first time, has successfully measured a planet-wide ELECTRIC field thought to be as fundamental to Earth as its GRAVITY and MAGNETIC fields. ”
You must be fundamentally brainwashed if you read here that anyone confused magnetic fields with electric fields.
Bindi, prove you’re NOT one of the 99.99% —
How do you quickly recognize the difference between an electric and a magnetic field?
Just type in your primitive question into Google and look at the documents Google found for you.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you reject 99.99% of these documents because in your scienceless mind they were produced by what you stubbornly and conveniently misname ‘the cult’.
Bindi, you can’t answer the simple question even using the Internet.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Clint, How do you know they meant magnetic field?
Sorry Nate, but your question makes no sense.
The title of the article under discussion is “Scientists discover a long-sought global electric field on Earth”
My point is that cultists will willingly swallow anything from NASA, demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
Stephen P. Anderson,
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children
“The American Medical Association (AMA) today urged governors to oppose state legislation that would prohibit medically necessary gender transition-related care for minor patients, calling such efforts a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine. In a letter to the National Governors Association (NGA), the AMA cited evidence that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression, and that forgoing gender-affirming care can have tragic health consequences, both mental and physical.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/atlantic-nina-verge-developing-heres-why-we-should-pay-attention
“Atlantic Nina on the verge of developing.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/august-2024-outlook-la-nina-watch-dog-days-summer
“August 2024 Outlook: A La Nina Watch in the dog days of summer”
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
La Nina is coming. Soon.
And some time thereafter it will be going.
Over what period will we see temperatures rise? And to what level?
Why do you always ask deliberately ambiguous questions?
What resolution of measurement is your question based on?
Monthly? Annual? Decadal? The 30-year running average climate standard?
ie. Are you referring to short to medium term natural variation, or are you referring to long term averages that transcend natural variation? (Or are you going to make it irrelevant to the present situation by making it about much longer term variation such as glacial/interglacial periods?)
Antonin Qwerty
No idea why these people exclusively talk about La Nina and discard El Nino.
Probably it’s due to their impression that La Nina creates something like ‘global cooling’, what of course it doesn’t.
Of course El Nino causes global warming.
/sarc (in case anyone didn’t notice).
Of course no one claims that El Nino causes long-term global warming.
(No sarcasm, in case anyone thinks otherwise.)
Just the same with La Nina.
“The relationship between climate change and stronger El Nino is a topic of ongoing scientific research. While there is no definitive agreement in the scientific community, recent studies suggest that global heating may be leading to stronger El Nino events.”
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/climate-change-faqs/what-is-el-nino/
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/climate-change-faqs/what-is-el-nino/
Gateway timeout (504) exception.
It is a British .ac. account. Works for me.
“Welcome to Imperial, a worldleading university for science, technology, engineering, medicine and business (STEMB).”
RLH
Do you have any concept of the arrow of causation?
I said no one claims El Nino causes global warming.
In reponse, you produced a claim that global warming might cause stronger El Ninos.
Are you being deliberately deceptive, or are you genuinely lacking in comprehension and understanding?
Whichever it is, it clearly illustrates what we are up against with you lot.
“I said no one claims El Nino causes global warming.”
Just makes it worse! See url.
By the way, the upcoming La Nina will make global temperatures lower than today.
Which way do you think the green line is going to go going forward (365 day running mean)?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-29.gif
What URL?
In any case … no.
YOU explain instead of pretending there is something hidden somewhere.
The url in question is https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/climate-change-faqs/what-is-el-nino/
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents.
That means ENSO is going to have an effect on climate, a lot more than CO2 does.
No, it will have an effect on short term variation.
That is not climate.
So this is just short term variation?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-29.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-29.gif
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/climate-forecast-system-reanalysis-cfsr
The only way ocean warms up is from direct sunlight. That means variation in clouds.
Back radiation from CO2 doesn’t because ocean is opaque to CO2 IR frequencies.
My skin is opaque to sunlight, yet sunlight warms me.
I see no reason why being opaque to IR should stop the ocean absorbing back radiation and being warmed by it.
If back radiation is not absorbed, what happens to the energy and where does it end up?
Exactly. He is confused about the difference between opaqueness and reflectivity. We should get him to stand bare foot on a bitumen road on a 100 degree day and see if he makes the same claim.
Antonin Qwerty
” We should get him to stand bare foot on a bitumen road on a 100 degree day and see if he makes the same claim. ”
Excellent!
I’m afraid however that this ‘100 degree day’ might not happen very soon on Ken’s beloved Vancouver Island :–)
Are Ken and Gordon bum buddies?
How dark is the cosmos? Probe provides a far-out answer
https://cosmiclog.com/2024/08/28/how-dark-is-the-cosmos-probe-provides-a-far-out-answer/#more-32650
–We know that deep space is dark, but just how dark is it? Or, put another way, how bright is it? And how much of that brightness comes from galaxies? Astronomers have gotten a clearer answer to those questions, thanks to observations sent back from billions of miles away.”
Nine years after its history-making flyby of Pluto, NASAs New Horizons spacecraft measured the brightness of the distant universe from a vantage point in deep, dark space.
If you hold up your hand in deep space, how much light does the universe shine on it? Marc Postman, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, asked today in a news release. We now have a good idea of just how dark space really is.–
…
If you want to get geeky about it, the figures from the New Horizons team work out to 11.16 nanowatts per square meter per steradian at a wavelength of 0.608 microns. Thats actually a little higher than the estimated integrated intensity from background galaxies. However, when the margins of error are taken into account, the anomalous gap is not significantly different from zero, the researchers reported.”
…
A year ago, Stern and other planetary scientists worried that NASA might disband the original New Horizons science team but last September, the space agency announced that the mission could continue studying its environs in the Kuiper Belt, a broad ring of icy objects on the solar systems edge.
Its extended operations will continue until the spacecraft exits the Kuiper Belt, expected in 2028-2029, Nicola Fox, NASAs associate administrator for science
Just wondering why I have not seen any reference in recent times to “the red line” in relation to the solar cycle.
It seemed to be a big thing amongst a couple of people here a few months ago.
Antonin Qwerty
The ‘red line’ is only of interest when SC 25’s SSN is very low.
Currently it is not quite the case:
https://tinyurl.com/Geosphere-Austria
Compared to SC 23 (let alone to McIntosh’s prediction), SC 25’s SSN however is not so terribly high either:
https://tinyurl.com/3mc79v5a
According to a recent statement of yours, its 13-month smooth might eventually not go much over 150.
Psst … I know the answer … don’t tell anyone … shhh.
(Just trying to draw them out of their silence.)
If we get another surge into the high 200s I might increase my prediction. If on the other hand the next couple of months average 150, I don’t think the cycle will have enough steam left to expect it to get anywhere near McIntosh.
BTW, McIntosh’s prediction is pretty much exactly the same as SC23.
“If we get another surge into the high 200s I might increase my prediction. If on the other hand the next couple of months average 150, I dont think the cycle will have enough steam left to expect it to get anywhere near McIntosh.”
I think we at NOAA orginal and NOAA experimental, and experimental at moment is very much alive, and seems down right frisky, and will only limp along if averages 150 or less over next couple of months.
If September roughly repeats August, it’s going make NOAA experimental appear like quite accurate guess.
Right now we got last day, at 143, spot number, and I am going to wait for them to total the August month number.
“Just wondering why I have not seen any reference in recent times to the red line in relation to the solar cycle.”
Right, so it’s kind of like before- we will see what Nov is like, if crosses red line before Nov, Valentina Zharkova gets back in the game. And obviously what it did, last fall, is still effecting current blue line.
Or as it turns out, it had to do as I predicted, or she had, and has, no chance.
Or in few months, I get the final answer.
Her prediction at this point doesn’t look good to me, one might say, dead, but I will know whether the space weather will have bad effect on missions to Mars.
Pretty soon, relatively speaking.
But it seems at this point, we can rule out a double peak.
Yes?
If NOAA experimental is accurate?
Right?
It seems only player, predicting double peak, is Zharkova.
Though a very weak one.
Oh, I quess, the original NOAA, also “allows” for a double peak- and it’s still in the game.
But it seems the NOAA experimental is winning right now.
The North peaked in April 23, so we are having a double peak.
It’s just that it looks more like a plateau.
“The North peaked in April 23, so we are having a double peak.
Its just that it looks more like a plateau.”
So are there any past solar max which didn’t have a double peak?
Does, 19,20,and 21 have a double peak? For instance?
Of course, I could say, I am not a sunspot watcher, nor is Zharkova.
And all of us, might agree than spot numbers don’t seem to matter much, and they are simply been, something which have watched for a fairly long time.
Part of it, is idea of solar grand Max and Solar grand min, and it seems they might matter somehow.
And what significant about Zharkova, is related idea that one can predict solar grand Max and solar grand min, which has to do with a measurement of sun, not about counting sunspots.
And I have no clue, if the predicted measurement, is following the prediction.
I don’t represent Zharkova, I am simply watching a long boring baseball game. And I am guessing how the game, goes.
And as far this game goes, it seems the more interesting part may not the solar max peak part, but the solar minimum part.
Or I have said, in solar grand min, it’s the min part which seems more important. Whereas in a solar grand max, it’s perhaps the solar max peak part.
And certainly in terms sending crew to Mars, you do have the solar flares {in which crew go in solar flare shelter- important, but other part is the constant level of the cosmic radiation {the solar min part of cycle] or you want to go went during flares, to not have to have as much cosmic rays. But with the Moon, it’s all about the solar flares, and cosmic rays, aren’t a issue, due the short duration of going and leaving from the lunar surface.
Or flares will kill you minutes, GCR takes years to kill you [perhaps, no one has, yet]. And this can be mitigated which radiation shielding. Or all this can solved simply by bringing more water. Or it seems 50 tons of water shields all of it.
On August 28, 2024 at 3:00 PM you asked Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ a few questions about his strange UAH charts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1685213
*
I tried to answer your questions there as good as possible.
Do you agree with the answers?
I forgot to add ‘Antonin Qwerty’ in front of the comment.
No – I’m not sure what ‘cascaded’ averages or medians are.
When you look at the cascaded running median
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kA1AusJboS2RB1yAt97W9MYgsxTSuFEV/view
you see in column 3 the UAH Globe anomaly source and in column 4 its simple 12 month running median.
In column 5 you see the simple 10 month running median of column 4 and in column 6 the simple 8 month running median of column 5, which is finally the cacaded 12/10/8 running median.
C’est tout.
“I’m not sure what cascaded averages or medians are.”
See Vaughan Pratt comments on
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
It’s a bit late right now here at UTC+2, more tomorrow about
” Vaughan Pratt | December 2, 2013 at 4:02 am |
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.
The frequency response starts to look more reasonable as you cascade filters because the side lobes die down. “
Today was the first time in my 60 years that I have gone outside at 9pm in winter in shorts and a t-shirt, and comfortably so.
Still sitting inside at 11:30 pm in shorts with the back door open.
Don’t write that at WUWT!
A pack of bloodthirsty wild dogs led by the brazen, permanently aggressive bnice2000 boy would immediately tell you that this is nothing unusual and that it was much warmer in the Holocene.
Isn’t he an Aussie, a tropical land of no rain or tons of rain.
And an question is, with or without a rain jacket?
gbaikie
Sydney is nowhere near tropical. We haven’t had rain for a week, but had a lot of rain a couple of months ago. It comes and goes just like most places.
If I say shorts and a T-shirt, I MEAN shorts and a T-shirt. And do you understand the concept of first time in 60 years?
bindidon
bnice eh? Sounds like our Clint, who has convinced himself he is the nicest person ever and that it is everyone else who is abusive.
Sydney is a bit south of tropical zone, and coastal.
The ocean surface temperature is higher than global land temperature, and moderatea your climate.
I would imagine it somewhat similar to San Diego in California, coastal with higher moderate average yearly temperature. And I would guess you could have no problem growing a lemon tree.
An interesting question is how much Urban Heat island effect Sydney has. It could a small or large effect depending various factors.
Try 1200 km south.
Sydney’s August average is 2C below San Diego’s February average.
The UHI grows over about a 20 year period as the city grows, and then stops growing. For areas near the city that happened in the 1920s and 1930s, before there was any significant global temperature change, and can be clearly seen in the temperature record. For suburbs further west it will have happened at later times as the city spread, and the newest suburbs in the far west of Sydney will be experiencing that rise right now. I am in an area not all that far from the city that has been fully developed for a long time.
“Like many urban areas, San Diego is facing the effects of climate change. While the annual mean temperature is only 63 F (17 C), the city is still subject to extreme heat events (EHE) with temperatures exceeding 104 F (40 C), particularly in late summer. Furthermore, climate projection models indicate that coastal areas like San Diego can expect 2-3C (3.5-5.5 F) increases in temperature by mid-century which would expose an additional 1-2 million people to heat waves (Vahmani et al., 2019).
Heat Island Effect
Rising temperatures from climate change further exacerbates the urban heat island effect. The heat island effect is where urban regions are significantly warmer than the surrounding undeveloped areas. Land surface temperature is a common way to measure the magnitude of urban heat islands remotely since it provides an approximation for the air temperature. Urban heat islands are caused by many factors such as urban infrastructure, lack of green space, human activity, etc. (US EPA, 2014). Click on the shapes on the image to learn more.”
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d79916f065424f1a91c3663cb486a126
They seem to think it’s future problem.
As I dimly recall, decade some Assie, they are painting roofs white, down there. Seems it could be quite ugly looking, and it seemed people would give up on the idea.
Not exactly a scientific source. They say the UHI effect is more prominent at night, but that depends on the season.
When they say “exacerbates” they mean only that the UHI increase is added onto a greater baseline temperature, not that the UHI effect itself is rising. If A exacerbates B, it doesn’t mean B increases. It means the EFFECTS of B are made more pronounced due to being combined with A.
“As I dimly recall, decade some Assie …”
I have NO idea what that is supposed to say.
aq…”If I say shorts and a T-shirt, I MEAN shorts and a T-shirt. And do you understand the concept of first time in 60 years?”
***
You must be living a sheltered life. I lived in Auckland for a year and it is significantly south of Sydney. Auckland is classified as sub-tropical and although it can get really cold on a winter’s night, by noon the following day it can be 60F (15.5C). Many people would wear shorts at 15C, which BTW way, is rated as the average temperature of the planet.
February is normally pretty cold here in Vancouver but I recall a February a while back where people were wearing T-shirts outdoors. Mind you, that was during the day.
Oh boy … you think I’m talking about 15C.
And people might wear shorts at 15C on a STILL day IN THE SUN.
Not at night.
” bnice eh? Sounds like our Clint, who has convinced himself he is the nicest person ever and that it is everyone else who is abusive. ”
No, it’s not Clint R.
1. bnice2000 is extremely aggressive, what Clint R definitely is not.
2. bnice2000 posts lots of climate data and charts; partly self-made, what Clint R – like Robertson by the way – never would be able to do.
I’ve read a lot of comments written by that user. He used to go by ‘fred250’ a couple of years ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-3238426
I have been told that Mr. Nice was an Aussie;
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/01/16/how-to-cavil-like-cranks/#comment-221964
Like Puffman, he used many sock puppets over the years.
bnice2000 and ClintR do have one thing in common. They both call the 1LOT nonsense.
John W
” He used to go by fred250 a couple of years ago… ”
Exactly, I also found the similarity between the two to be astonishing.
bdgwx, where did I ever call 1LoT “nonsense”?
But, I guess if you’re going to stalk me, you need to use false accusations.
You did it in this blog post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684735
WRONG bdgwx. That’s not me stating 1LoT is “nonsense”.
Maybe you’re just confused, again.
Large drop in surface temperature in the central equatorial Pacific leading to La Nia conditions.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
The eye of a tropical storm in the Bahamas can be seen.
But can it see?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=nwatl&product=ir
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=nwatl&product=vis_swir
Maybe this will clear up some of the discussions above about ENSO.
While we observe warming from an El Niño, it is actually a “cooling” process. The thermal energy from the Pacific moves to the atmosphere (even shows up in UAH data) and on to space. We feel the temporary increase in temperature, but the ocean cools.
La Niña is the opposite. The ocean is collecting solar energy, even though we experience cooling.
Ocean oscillations are a huge factor in climate, as some can last for many decades. ENSO is one of the best known shorter-term oscillations, but there are over a dozen lesser known ones. Some may even last many times longer than ENSO. A small ocean oscillation may not be noticeable, but if added to another oscillation, the effect could move measurements above/below averages.
For example, if an oscillation that can raise surface temperature 0.2C combines with another such oscillation, it could produce an increase even higher. Or, if negative phases combine, significant decrease in global temperatures could occur.
If the Argo float program continues for a couple of centuries, we should have a pretty good handle on understanding Earth’s climate, maybe even be able to accurately predict months ahead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
Wow. I actually got useful information from something you posted.
Keep doing that.
He doesn’t realise he’s just explained the real reason that temperatures were unusually high in the past year. A positive IOD piggybacked onto a strong El Nino. No need for a “HTE”.
Yes Ant, this warming trend is likely largely due to ocean oscillations, with HTE adding in the last two years.
You did get it right that CO2 is not a factor.
That’s right Clint, CO2 is only responsible for an average 0.015C increase over the previous year. Variation about the increasing trend is not caused by CO2. Glad that is finally settled.
Pretty hard to justify your +1 “HTE” when the annual trend value (current climate centre) is about +0.3, when a strong El Nino adds about 0.2, a positive IOD adds about 0.1, and this year will probably end up around +0.8. That only leaves about 0.2 unaccounted for, which could easily be explained by random annual variation. 0.2 would leave the realm of randomness only if it was sustained for a few years.
The actual contributions from ocean oscillations and HTE are only estimates, at this point. But we know such contributions are possible from both physics and observations.
The only certainty is that CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
Please explain why photons, specifically 15μ ones, can’t raise the earth’s temperature. I assume you can do that without asserting or implying that a photon has a memory of where it came from.
Ant as much as you stalk me, are you claiming you didn’t see, or can’t find, my numerous explanations of how temperature increase works?
Maybe you’re not only a stalker but you’re also a denier of reality.
SpaceX Massively Updates Starship! Ready For Flight 5!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms76ZR6Qax0
Felix Schlang talks about massive amount of water on Mars in polar regions
Well I talked about polar region on moons, and Mars is not much different than moons. Mainly a short difference between time zones in regards to solar power.
Earth of course has a very large distance between time zones, and it’s polar region get hardly any sunlight.
A human settlement on Mars will live where the water is most available, and it could be in the polar regions.
But if talking of oceans of water, one is talking about more water than a dinky human settlement Mars could use, of cheapness of water, flatten as you approach hundreds of billions of tons of water {per year], and tend to think at most, Mars will only export at most about 10% of water mined, into space {ie, Venus orbit}. Or if 1 billion tons of water is mined, at most, 100 million tons would launched into orbit.
And once tens of million of tons of water is sold in space, that market will support getting far more water from the rest of solar system.
Or the reason, I think mining water on the Moon, is significant is it will start water mining in rest of the system system. Or a problem mining 1 million tons of water from a space rock, how would you develop the market for it, in space. Which is solved if market already exists.
Or if going to mine Ceres, you have sell a lot of water, and you also need the enormous amount electrical power to split large amount of water into rocket fuel.
Or with lunar water mining, the Moon can get a lot solar energy, but you need a lot solar solar panels, to make 1000 or more tons of rocket fuel from water.
But with Mars the large amount of water, is not about making rocket fuel on Mars surface, it’s related to living on Mars- making food, etc.
And with Moon, if there is a lot mineable water, you will split a large amount of it, in lunar orbit.
Anyways, Mars has no shortage of rocket fuel, it’s sky is rocket fuel {CO2 split makes a rocket fuel- not good one, but a cheap one on Mars}.
Anyways Hellas basin seems a good place to get solar power, and it’s close to south pole of Mars.
Tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=gom&product=vis_swir
Typhoon in Japan.
I love how these people like to save us the effort of providing evidence for a warming climate.
LA NINA AUGUST 2024 UPDATE!
https://youtu.be/QiTmd0yTatg
Waiting for your update on “the red line”.
Anyone going to guess August global air temperature?
Not really any point given that the lower tropospheric temperature clearly bears little relation to the surface temperature.
The various surface records have us at about +0.65 to +0.7 with 4-7 days to go, up slightly on last month.
That’s after converting to the UAH baseline.
In regards to ocean, I don’t think much difference, and global temperature with planet mostly ocean, is about the ocean surface temperature.
(1) We don’t live in the ocean.
(2) The global temperature is weighted 70-30 in favour of the ocean to account for the greater ocean area.
(3) With regard to TREND, yes there is not much difference between UAH and NOAA with regard to the ocean. But when making NEXT MONTH’S prediction, it is not trend that is important but VARIANCE. NOAA has the higher variance for land, UAH has the higher variance for oceans. It is the OCEANS which have made UAH read so much higher than NOAA over the past 12 months, not the land.
(4) And think about it:
UAH vs NOAA for land is air temperature vs air temperature.
UAH vs NOAA for oceans is air temperature vs water temperature.
UAH are not only at the wrong altitude … they are not even measuring the same thing as NOAA.
(5) There is no separate daily record of land or ocean temperature that I am aware of anyway.
–Antonin Qwerty says:
August 30, 2024 at 9:21 PM
(1) We dont live in the ocean.–
But we should and will live on the ocean- and not because we have too much population [which is currently starting to crash in many places in our world].
The Ocean can be cheaper than living on Mars. But exploring and then possibly having human settlements on Mars, should cause there to be ocean settlement on Earth.
And if ever get to point of spacefaring, and just having some people on Mars, doesn’t cut it, we will have ocean settlements on Earth’s ocean, a lot to them in the tropics.
So tropical island type living, and good surfing.
And suborbital travel. And India will be world’s superpower.
And suborbital travel will very useful for that superpower.
You certainly live in a dream world.
Dreamers don’t consider practicalities. Thank christ we have scientists.
–Antonin Qwerty says:
August 31, 2024 at 5:08 PM
You certainly live in a dream world.
Dreamers dont consider practicalities. Thank christ we have scientists.–
Right.
Certainly Christ did do a lot to actually start it.
Some might say mostly, the Torah, and all great early scientists were bible centered {Christian and Old Testament [Torah]}.
Scientific advance has accelerated by orders of magnitude since scientists dumped the buy-bull.
How do rabbis begin their secret discussions about their encounters with a teenage girl?
“Torah, hi man!”
Can you name a few atheists who has caused any significant scientific advance?
Why is there so few atheists, other than in China?
Ten-year comparison – Rise from Aug04-Jul14 to Aug14-Jul24:
NOAA: up 0.32
UAH: up 0.32
.
.
Five-year comparison – Rise from Aug14-Jul19 to Aug19-Jul24:
NOAA: up 0.10
UAH: up 0.16
Mark Twain…there are three kinds of lies: lies., damned lies, and statistics.
Comparing NOAA to UAH is akin to comparing apples to oranges.
Yet you did it all the time when the situation was reversed.
Not so, I claimed NOAA and NASA GISS are cheating. Both are fudging data to achieve exaggerated warming.
GISS was caught by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit trying to swap 1998 with 1934 as the hottest year. Then both NOAA and GISS claimed 2014 as he hottest year ever based on a 51% and 38% probability respectfully. How can any serious outfit claim a year as the ‘hottest ever’ based on likelihoods? The year either is or it isn’t and the UAH record reveals 2014 was an ordinary year.
GISS gets its data from NOAA and the NOAAs record is so fudged it is hardly recognizable. They have retroactively changed measured temperatures to suit their alarmist narrative. They have dropped 90% of the original data from the GHCN record since 1990 and they have admitted to slashing the number of REPORTING surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Binny and Barry go ballistic when I post the NOAA link in which NOAA reveals that. Neither can prove it is no longer valid, they simply wave their arms and claim the link is old.
Oh dear – the same tired nonsense.
As always, Robertson can’t refrain from posting his ‘90% / 1500’ nonsense.
But who can blame him when his friend Blindsley H00d constantly spouts his ‘simple running mean distortion’ blah blah – despite the regular, obvious contradiction?
–THE NEW SPACE RACE: Galactic Energy launches six satellites with third sea launch. Chinas Galactic Energy conducted its third Ceres-1 solid rocket sea launch Thursday, successfully sending six satellites into orbit. . . . Three of the satellites were Yunyao-1 spacecraft, equipped with GNSS occultation (GNSS-RO) and infrared imaging payloads, intended to provide meteorological data for commercial firm Yunyao Yuhang. Also aboard was Jitian-A03, the first satellite for Suzhou Jitian Xingzhou Space Technology Co. Ltd. The satellite is equipped with a hyperspectral remote sensing payload for high-resolution optical remote sensing technology verification. Hyperspectral sensors capture data across hundreds of narrow, contiguous spectral bands, allowing these sensors to distinguish between materials, making these useful for applications including mineral exploration, agriculture, and environmental monitoring.–
Posted at 9:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://instapundit.com/
aq…”UAH vs NOAA for oceans is air temperature vs water temperature.
UAH are not only at the wrong altitude they are not even measuring the same thing as NOAA”.
***
NOAA measures both. Their buoys submerge and measure water temperature then they bob to the surface and measure air temperature. Think about that one. What is it they are measuring at the surface, super-saturated air, with the thermometers dripping with water. Plus the fact, there are only 4000 buoys measure the entire ocean. No one can convince me the buoys are not hit regularly with waves that will roll them over…an inadequate means of measuring air temperature.
UAH, on the other hand, covers the entire ocean. They don’t measure right to the surface due to contamination from spurious microwave radiation. They are capable of measuring right to the surface if necessary.
UAH measures partly from 4000 metres, about halfway up Everest. Technically, that is the surface. NOAA does not provide much in the way of temperatures from that altitude, most of it, as in California, are stations near the warmer ocean.
Welcome back Gordon. Looks like your allegiance to Flynn was not as strong as your compulsion for BSing.
The park in which Everest lies comprises 0.00025% of the surface of the earth, so not even worth considering.
I want to measure the temperature in Vancouver. To do that, I will combine 30% of Vancouver’s temperature with 70% of Miami’s. Do you think that would give me a good indication of Vancouver’s temperature?
What would you know about allegiance?
Your comparison of Vancouver and Miami is exactly what NOAA and other alarmists do. They take cities up to 1200 km apart and use them to interpolate a third location. Then they homogenize everything in a climate model.
Of course, that sort of chicanery is beyond the understanding of alarmists and that’s why their authority figures get away with it.
By the park in which Everest is located, do you mean the Himalaya? a chain of mountains? The chain extends for some 1550 miles. Some park!!!
Is that the best you’ve got as a comeback?
Yet you are supporting something much worse:
Taking 30% of A and 70% of B, where B is of no interest to us, and attributing the result to A.
No I did not mean the Himalayas. That is not a “park”. Is that how it works Gordon … attribute some nonsense to me then use it to attack me, rather than using Google?
I have met some good Aussies in my life but some of you seem to be direct descendants from the criminal element who first populated Oz. You have a certain attitude about you wherein you will claim black to be white just to be spiteful.
You are arguing essentially, that UAH sats are sensing the atmosphere too high to determine surface temperatures. If they can accurately determine the temperatures at 4000 metres, halfway up Everest, they are in the ballpark. All it takes from there is to interpolate temps to the surface since the metric used, O2 temperatures, is linear to the surface.
UAH has verified their theories re interpolation against radiosonde data and found a good match.
I don’t need Google, I have climbed every mountain in the Himalaya, albeit from my armchair via books. One of the more fascinating adventures was by Tilman and Shipton when they found their way into the Nada Devi Sanctuary via an impossible gorge. Tilman came back circa 1935 and climbed the mountain with Noel Odell, better known as the last person to see George Mallory and Sandy Irvine before both disappeared on Everest.
Tilman was a proper lad. He fought in WW I then relocated to Kenya where he operated a coffee bean plantation. When he decided to leave, he rode a bicycle across Africa to the West coast to catch a ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipton%E2%80%93Tilman_Nanda_Devi_expeditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Tilman
79% of the earth’s surface is below an altitude of 500 metres.
92% is below an altitude of 1 km.
98% is below an altitude of 3 km.
3 km is the median altitude of the satellite’s readings.
In other words, half of its readings are taken below 3 km and half above.
In other words, you are happy that 98% of the earth’s surface contributes to half of the global average temperature, and 2% contributes to the other half.
So no Gordon, it is you who has “a certain attitude about you wherein you will claim black to be white just to be spiteful.”
“98% is below an altitude of 3 km.”
Most of that would be Antarctica:
“Elevation. Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth: average elevation is 8,200ft (2500m). The elevation at the South Pole is 9,300ft (2835m). The highest point on the icecap is in Australian Antarctic Territory at 13,451ft (4100m), at 82 20’S, 56 30’E.”
https://antarctic-logistics.com/about-antarctica/antarctic-environment/
WHAT??
70% of it would be THE OCEAN.
–Antonin Qwerty says:
September 1, 2024 at 12:25 AM
WHAT??
70% of it would be THE OCEAN.–
But most of 2% of highest elevation, globally, is ice sheet of Antarctica.
Or we are in an Ice Age.
A slightly warmer time of Ice Age, but on average the last 2 million years has coldest.
And all warmer part interglacial periods of our Ice Age were much warmer then the present. Warmer than warmest time of our early Holocene period- when the sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher than at the moment and the Sahara desert was green.
Let me make it clear what you claimed.
You claimed that most of the 98% that is BELOW 3km would be Antarctica.
If 98% is below 3 km, then, logically, 2% is at or above 3 km.
98 of 100 leaves 2 of 100.
100 would equal the total of about 510 million square km.
2 times 5.1 = 10.2 million square km.
And it seemed to me, most of it, say + 5 million square km would be found in Antarctica.
aq…”Are Ken and Gordon bum buddies?”
***
You seem to be an expert on such matters. Your curiosity suggest that strongly. Are all alarmists so-inclined?
Not sure what it means to be an “expert” in such things.
Perhaps you can fill me in. Nup – scratch that – please DO NOT fill me in.
Not sure what it means to be an “expert” in such things.
Perhaps you can fill me in. Nup – scratch that – please DO NOT fill me in.
You see, you are fascinated by the subject. A closet example, and hopefully you remain in the closet since there are far too many out of it already. You just can’t seem to stop fantasizing about it.
Do you spend a lot of time at the Sydney YMCA, hanging around the steam baths and hoping? I have read that’s where AIDS started, in similar steam baths in New York and San Francisco. I wouldn’t know since my interest has always been with women, but you sound ready to branch out.
I understanding you are fishing Gordon. But you are barking up the wrong tree.
ent…”My skin is opaque to sunlight, yet sunlight warms me.
I see no reason why being opaque to IR should stop the ocean absorbing back radiation and being warmed by it.
If back radiation is not absorbed, what happens to the energy and where does it end up?”
***
The source of the radiation that heats your skin is some 5000K at the surface and closer to a million K in its interior. Your skin is infinitely cooler and the 2nd law is OK with it absorbing solar energy.
However, air in contact with the surface is in thermal equilibrium and no heat can be transferred. As altitude increases, the air becomes rapidly cooler and no heat can be transferred from a cooler object, by its own means, to a warmer object. The only reason the system works is that heated air at the surface rises and is replaced by cooler air from above.
You’re a teacher Ent, you should be familiar with the 2nd law. If it is wrong, prove it, and win yourself a Nobel.
Since the 2nd law was stated in the 19th century, quantum theory was developed. It is based on Bohr’s theory in 1913 that electrons orbiting a nucleus are confined to quantized energy states. When the electrons absorb radiation, or heat, they can jump to a higher orbital energy level, which increases the KE of electron and the atom temporarily, at least. When the electrons jump back to a lower energy level they must shed the KE gained and they do it via EM radiation. The amount of EM they shed specifies the frequency of the emitted EM.
The quantized orbitals specified by Bohr are unique in that electrons in those orbitals will only respond to discrete frequencies of EM. Look up the series for hydrogen, like the Balmer series. Each orbital is related to a specific frequency. That means, an electron at a higher energy orbital level will not respond to any other frequency, especially a lower frequency.
Guess what? All cooler body electrons can emit only lower frequencies and hotter body electrons cannot absorb them. That satisfies the 2nd law and the ingenuity in the law was developed by Clausius well before the atomic structure was understood. Clausius did it through brilliant reasoning using heat engine theory.
If you are teaching students, you owe it to them to understand the 2nd law and Bohr’s quantum theory. It’s no coincidence that both agree albeit from different base theories.
Re where does the energy go, no one knows. Since the birth of communications systems that use radiated EM, the emitted signals are still bouncing around somewhere in the universe.
Welcome back, Gordon.
The site wasn’t the same without your incoherent and scientifically inaccurate ranting.
Self-irony is sometimes the only weapon against the unfortunate.
john w…”The American Medical Association (AMA) today urged governors to oppose state legislation that would prohibit medically necessary gender transition-related care for minor patients, calling such efforts a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine”.
***
Do you mean that an 8 year old boy imagining he is a girl requires a medically necessary gender transition? Only to a surgeon raking in big bucks to perform such surgery.
Gender isn’t as clear cut as you might think.
There are a number of genetic, physiological, anatomical and medical conditions which blur the boundary between male and female. They are known as DSDs, differences in sexual development, and some of them need surgery.
https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/genotes/knowledge-hub/differences-in-sex-development/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko
Two genders
XY (male) and XX (female) chromosomes.
Any suggestion there is more than two genders is ridiculous.
Gender is not sex:
https://youtu.be/seUVb7gbrTY?si=n9Y0k6xQmCEmkOHJ
Erm. Elliott might need to correct his interpreter to include “youtu.be” videos. Here’s the alternative link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seUVb7gbrTY
How many genders?
Male, female, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transsexual, intersex.
That’s eight, unless I’ve missed some.
Even just restricting it to chromosome complement and ignoring developmental factors, you also have XXY, XYY, XXYY (tetragametic chimera) and a range of chromosomal abnormalities.
Gender dysphoria is not imagined. It is a real thing, albeit rare.
One way to look at this is to consider a matrix. The dimensions are Assigned at birth, Orientation, and Identity. That covers most people. From there many possible subcategories.
binny…”…a NASA suborbital rocket, an international team of scientists, for the first time, has successfully measured a planet-wide ELECTRIC field thought to be as fundamental to Earth as its GRAVITY and MAGNETIC fields”.
***
Old news. Syun Akasofu, a pioneer on the solar wind, which is a stream of raw electrons and protons, pointed this out decades ago. When the electrons and protons enter our magnetic field, they are largely diverted, but in the process, they induce a large electric potential in our atmosphere. That potential, in turn, generates electrical currents through our atmosphere, our oceans, and even our land surface.
BTW…Aksofu also claimed the IPCC erred by not including rewarming from the Little Ice Age in their anthropogenic theory. Seems NASA is behind the times on many things, like their hallucination that the Moon spins exactly once per orbit.
11th comment of the day.
Wellll !!
Look who is back after spending time in the naughty corner.
Looks like he has a lot to get off his chest.
Some things never change, dmt is still spouting uncorroborated nonsense.
I corroborate what dmt says.
aq…”I corroborate what dmt says”.
***
Figures that AQ would corroborate gibberish.
“Looks like he has a lot to get off his chest.”
That is “gibberish” to you? Oh dear.
Robertson is dement to such an extent that he was not able to follow the discussion originally initiated by Clint R, his best friend in GHE and lunar spin denial.
I followed the original discussion presented by Clint on Hunga Tonga and I agreed with him. I still do. Who else has offered an explanation for the sudden spike in the global average?
I think if I met Clint over a beer, we’d have a good laugh over our disagreements. One of my best friends I met in a situation where we were nearly in a physical brawl with each other over a woman.
binny,,,”Vournas, you just confirmed being an antiscientific pseudoskeptic like Clint R, Robertson and a few others”.
***
Christos has a degree in mechanical engineering, and he makes more sense on a bad day than you would in a lifetime. His work is well thought out as opposed to the gibberish you issue constantly.
I understand why it would appear to you that way, Magoo.
Once again, nothing but ad homs and insults from AQ, Binny, and their new lap dog, Ken.
Gordon … when I first came to this site about 8-9 years ago, my first encounter was with YOU making a personal attack on me, just for explaining something. When I protested you basically said to suck it up because that’s how things are on this site. I’ve remembered that ever since every time I converse with you.
Oh oh oh…
I was sure this blog’s dumbest ignoramus would appear again, and fill the blog with his daily nonsense: unlike Flynnson, he wasn’t banned.
Quel dommage!
Yep.
Also, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A scientific proof without your Φ blah blah, please!
Of course,
The very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16
********************
The method we use is the “Planets and moons surface temperatures comparison”.
We are comparing the various different planets and moons (without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere, Earth included).
*****************
Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun, and, therefore, Earth and Moon are solar irradiated with the same intensity flux, because at Earth’s and Moon’s distance from the sun,
the So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So – it is the Solar constant – the solar flux at the Earth’s average distance from the sun).
We shall first compare the Earth’s and Moon’s the average surface temperatures
(for equal average Albedo a=0,306
the mean surface temperatures
Tmean.earth = 288K
vs Tmean.moon = 206,7K)
because Earth and Moon share the same intensity solar flux So = 1.361 W/m^2 , and therefore it makes the comparison most simple.
For avr. surface Moon T =220K
{ [(220K⁴) /(1-0,11)]*(1-0,306) }∕ ⁴ = 206,7 K
So we shall have:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon =
= 288K /206.7K = 1.3933
and the comparison for Earth and Moon,
their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root:
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16 =
= [ (1*1) /(0,0339*0,19)]^1/16 =
= (155,42)1/16 = 1,3709
where
N.earth = 1 rot/day
N.moon = 0,0339 rot/day
Earths cp = 1 cal/gr*oC (oceanic waters, and land mostly wet)
Moon’s cp = 0,19 cal/gr*oC (dry lunar regolith)
……………………..
When we compare the results (1,3933) and (1,3709) we recognize that they are almost identical!
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
Planets’ and moons’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
(Tmean.planet.1) /(Tmean.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
—————-
More Planets and Moons the satellite measured average surface temperatures comparison
Links:
Earth/Mars 288K/210K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922/
Earth/Europa 288K/102K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922/445498727
Io/Enceladus 110K/75K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922/446161363
Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune 165K /134K /72K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922/445559910
The Rotational Warming Phenomenon is right, because it has been many times demonstrated and, also, it has been theoretically explained by the physics first principles.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This
” N.moon = 0,0339 rot/day ”
can’t be correct because the lunar spin does not exist.
The “rotation” (spin) CV is referring to is relative to Sun.
Moon constantly changes its “face” relative to Sun, due to its orbit around Earth.
> relative to Sun
I’ve been told that frames of reference did not matter.
Perhaps Puffman ought to convene with his fellowship from time to time.
How about Binny offering a scientific explanation on anything?
You first Gordon.
Everything you say is either anti-science, or it is so trivial that 10 year olds understand it while you believe you are actually displaying advanced erudition.
I wonder which category “the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow” comes under?
Antonin, do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
I don’t recall addressing you or making any comment in this thread related to your nonsense, nor do I have any desire to engage with non-peer-reviewed “science”.
I’m pretty sure that is a term invented by you, not one used by scientists, so don’t use it as though it is an accepted scientific term.
If you are true to form amongst these people who only do blog “science”, you are in your 70s or 80s, worked in an unrelated or only loosely related field, are not happy that you have not been recognised outside your immediate circle for anything significant in your working life, and are desperate to change that in the limited time remaining before you pass. You are probably someone who complains that science should not be about consensus, while desperately (and for the most part unsuccessfully) seeking popular support amongst mere laymen on social media, while never actually engaging with experts in the field. That is because you know your theories will be torn to shreds by the experts. You undoubtedly also dream of being the hero who turned the tide, whose name will go down in immortality.
Yes, Antonin, you did engage.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685664
“Vournas
I don’t recall addressing you or making any comment in this thread related to your nonsense, nor do I have any desire to engage with non-peer-reviewed “science”.
I’m pretty sure that is a term invented by you, not one used by scientists, so dont use it as though it is an accepted scientific term.
If you are true to form amongst these people who only do blog “science”, you are in your 70s or 80s, worked in an unrelated or only loosely related field, are not happy that you have not been recognised outside your immediate circle for anything significant in your working life, and are desperate to change that in the limited time remaining before you pass. You are probably someone who complains that science should not be about consensus, while desperately (and for the most part unsuccessfully) seeking popular support amongst mere laymen on social media, while never actually engaging with experts in the field. That is because you know your theories will be torn to shreds by the experts. You undoubtedly also dream of being the hero who turned the tide, whose name will go down in immortality.”
–
–
Wow !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do you understand the concepts of
(1) “IN THIS THREAD”
(2) “addressing YOU”
(3) “related to YOUR nonsense”, as opposed to Gordon’s nonsense?
And “wow” is not a meaningful response.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An intriguing double bind:
(B1) remain slaves to their daddies […] their daddy taught them […] It really is laughable how they follow their leaders […] You take what your daddy tells you […] The only thing you believe is the rumors you heard from your daddy.
(B2) You have no authorities of any credibility to support that notion.
Procrustes would be proud!
SpaceXs Starship Transformation: Many Changes are Coming!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdtIJTq1Vug
It’s interesting, but I was thinking.
So they digging the flame trench, and I thought, how deep
can they dig?
I was thinking catching a big rocket on the ocean, and was thinking of catching about 30 meters below sea level.
So, obviously, it made me wondered could you did hole deeper than 30 meter below sea level at the star base.
How deep can they dig, and what’s the costs of digging “quite” deep. So I was thinking of having deep flame trench for landing- though it would harder for a rocket launch- a few engine vs 33+ engine, is quite different.
But how deep can you dig at starbase.
Is rules against it. And what environmental damage is imagined if you dig beyond some depth.
I guess a problem is where one moves the dirt.
So, they built a bit of a hill, to compress the water out of dirt. So, one also ask, how big of hill can make, then how much further down from top of hill can you make a hole. Which has flame divertor going back up, exiting out the side of hill. And the dirt is decoration rather than a useful structural element [as is the case at the moment- with the tens of meters pile drivers in the dirt being the actual structural part].
In sense, Starbase is in the ocean, with dirt decoration.
Clint R,
Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption
M. R. Schoeberl, Y. Wang, G. Taha, D. J. Zawada, R. Ueyama, A. Dessler
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
John W
Correct!
Entropic man wrote about this somewhat earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681394
It was heavily denied by the usual suspects.
Looks like the skeptics need to look for a new explanation. HTE just doesnt hold up anymore. Even Javier at WUWT can’t stop discussing it.
At the risk of repeating myself…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681464
Climate forcing??? Climate is a statistic, a 30 year average of weather. Since when does a statistic force anything?
The percentage of people who vote for a particular candidate in an election is also a statistic. I wonder if that statistic has any effect on anything?
I did not claim that statistics are bad or unnecessary, just that climate, as a statistic, can do nothing. Climate is the effect of weather, which in turn is affected by the Sun. Climate can cause nothing.
Besides, the percent of votes based on an actual count is accurate but gallop polls are nonsense. It is not possible to take a sample size of 1000 people and project the findings from it onto a population of several million.
I tested that theory on my probability and statistics prof. I asked if gallop polls were accurate. He replied, “Oh, no you don’t, you tell me if they are accurate and why”. I claimed they were inaccurate since the sample size was far too small and he agreed.
There is actually a formula in statistics for working out the reliability of a sample size and 1000 doesn’t cut it in most cases where the population size is many million.
You missed the point … as usual.
Climate is NOT a statistic. Statistics are merely used to ASSESS climate.
–SpaceX resumes launches with a bang!
August 31, 2024 9:29 am Robert Zimmerman
Within hours of the FAA clearing SpaceX to resume launches, the company did so most emphatically, launching twice in little more than an hour apart from opposite coasts.
First the company placed 20 Starlink satellites into orbit, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral. The first stage completed its eighteenth flight, landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic.
Then, one hour and five minutes later, the company launched 21 Starlink satellites, the Falcon 9 lifting off from Vandenberg in California. That first stage completed its ninth flight, landing on a drone ship in the Pacific.
This fast return to flight underlines the unnecessary delay of at least one day in launches caused by the FAAs red tape. SpaceX had scheduled at least one of these launches the previous night and was clearly ready to launch but had to cancel it because the FAA stood in the way.
The leaders in the 2024 launch race:
86 SpaceX
36 China
10 Rocket Lab
9 Russia
—
https://behindtheblack.com/
SC25 – 10.7 cm flux
Strongest months last cycle:
1. 166
2. 154
3. 154
Last 4 months:
May: 191
Jun: 191
Jul: 203
Aug: 251
Of the three biggest proponents of the “grand solar minimum”, gbaikie admits its on shaky ground, eben has gone silent for a few months, and ren has gone silent for a couple of years. But ren still implicitly believes the nonsense … that’s what all his implied cooling nonsense is based on.
Fact is, Zharkova is now 1 for 0. Despite being 70, she has never before made a published prediction of solar activity, let alone a successful one. Yet everyone believed her solely because she said what they wanted to hear. Her prediction will turn out to be one of the worst for this cycle.
Solar wind
speed: 382.2 km/sec
density: 4.01 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 180
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 30.22×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
11 numbered sunspots
Solar wind
speed: 415.6 km/sec
density: 0.58 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 156
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 226 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 30.64×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.8% Low
10 numbered sunspots
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
August sunspot: 215.5
Also:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
02 September – 28 September 2024
Solar activity is likely to be at moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate), with a slight chance for X-class events (R3-Strong), throughout the outlook period due to complex regions on the visible disk as well as the anticipated return of complex regions from the Sun's farside.
There is a chance for proton events at geosynchronous orbit on 02-03 Sep due to an M5.5 flare from the SE limb on 01 Sep. An increase in proton flux was observed following the event and there is potential for a gradual climb to the S1 (minor) threshold over the next couple of days.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is expected to be at normal to moderate levels.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to range from quiet to G1 (Minor) geomagnetic storm levels. G1 conditions are forecast on 27-28 Sep; active conditions are likely on 28 Sep, and unsettled levels are likely on 02 Sep, 08 Sep, and 17-18 Sep. All increases in geomagnetic activity are from anticipated recurrent features in the solar wind. The remainder of the outlook period is likely to be mostly quiet. —
And:
Storms Die Down but New Regions Pop Up | Space Weather Spotlight 01 September 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S07qt59PcWI
She hasn’t said much in last couple, and saying not much is happenning in terms of storms, and etc, which I guess it’s true, but of course we had high spot numbers.
Anyways, she is now, promising a lot more action, very soon.
Parker Solar Probe Lines Up for Final Venus Flyby
Posted on 2024-08-30 13:01:13
“NASA’s Parker Solar Probe executed a short maneuver on Aug. 26 that kept the spacecraft on course to hit the aim point for the mission’s seventh and final planned Venus flyby on Nov. 6.
Operating on preprogrammed commands, Parker fired its small directional thrusters for about 17 seconds, changing its velocity by less than a mile per hour, and setting its trajectory some 386 miles (593 kilometers) closer to a targeted approach point about 240 miles (380 kilometers) above the Venusian surface. The mission operations team at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, where Parker was designed and built, monitored the activity through NASA’s Deep Space Network antenna station in Goldstone, California.
Yanping Guo, Parker Solar Probe mission design and navigation manager at APL, said precise positioning and timing are critical to the Venus flybys, in which Parker uses the planet’s gravity to tighten its orbit around the Sun. The upcoming flyby will be closer to Venus than the previous six gravity assists, and the final piece of a clever mission design that will swing Parker to within just 3.8 million miles of the Sun’s surface – the closest the spacecraft will come to our star. “
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=199
ent…”There are a number of genetic, physiological, anatomical and medical conditions which blur the boundary between male and female. They are known as DSDs, differences in sexual development, and some of them need surgery”.
***
My point is this. If a male is born with his normal tackle intact and all he has to distinguish him from a female is a psychological opinion, likely backed by a sexual fetish, then I am calling bs.
Yes, mistakes happen in nature (look up hermaphrodite/intersex) but the condition is rare.
On the other hand, if a man is born with a full set of breasts and a penis, we might have a case of what you are talking about. Still. what is the difference, other than physical, that distinguished a male from a female?
We have always conditioned women to be submissive to wear certain clothing, and to ‘act’ in a certain manner. Many of these disturbed males coming out of the closet think that dressing in womens’ clothing and playing with dolls as a child makes a man a woman.
Get real. performing surgery on a healthy male, in an attempt to alter a natural male to a female, specially a child, is plain sick. Furthermore it is seriously irresponsible. Some of the children they are trying to talk into being the opposite sex have not even reached adolescence and have no idea what sex means.
Gordon Robertson
This may be one of your posts I agree with. Children are not allowed to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, and a variety of other activities because adults realize that a child’s brain is not fully developed and their ability to make decisions is limited.
I know maybe parents are afraid that their child may commit suicide so are under pressure to do things that maybe are later regretted.
If an adult wants to get surgery to change their physical body, I would allow that, I am not living in that person’s body and can’t determine what is best for them. They are an adult and can make life changing decisions. Young children, no. I would think maybe some counseling to keep them from killing themselves but have them wait until at least 18 years old to make such a life altering decision.
Get SOGI out of our schools.
ag…”I understanding you are fishing Gordon. But you are barking up the wrong tree”.
***
Let’s get something straight, you started it all by taking a cheap shot at my sexual orientation behind my back. Ad homs and insults are a cheap manner of debating. They are a sign of someone who lacks the scientific understanding and skills to engage in an objective exchange.
No point whining when you get bested at your own cheap game.
11th comment of the day.
Heads up … a mere question is not a “cheap shot”.
And don’t try to pretend you make no personal attacks. DIRECT ones, not mere questions.
And I see nowhere where I was “whining”. That was only you.
aq…”I love how these people like to save us the effort of providing evidence for a warming climate”.
***
The scientific evidence for the warming is blatantly clear. After 400+ years of the Little Ice Age the planet had to re-warm when whatever caused the cooling ceased.
What you present with your alarmist brethern is that a trace gas is causing it. You fail to consider scientific proof from the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation that a gas of 0.04% in a mixed gas (the atmosphere) cannot possibly warm the atmosphere any more than it’s mass percent, 0.06%. That means, for a 1C warming of the atmosphere, CO2 can contribute no more than 0.06C.
Your alarmist authority figures have pulled a warming percentage out of a hat that ranges from 9% to 25%. They have also implied a positive feedback that adds to the warming. Gavin Schmidt, who programs climate models for NASA GISS failed to explain how a feedback can cause an amplification of heat.
The truth is that alarmist climate science is backed only by consensus. There is no scientific explanation offered that holds any water.
“Whatever caused the cooling” did not cease. Anthropogenic warming STARTED. IT is was caused us to leave the LIA.
Heads up … CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. Radiation warms the atmosphere. CO2 is only the enabler.
Those laws say nothing of the sort. You certainly do not have the ability to understand and interpret the mathematics behind the HDE.
I presume, based on your incoherent reply, that you are well into the Foster’s lager.
I assume by your inability to understand a coherent reply that you are well into your Newfoundland Screech.
Perhaps you’ll learn one day that no one drinks Fosters here.
And I can’t stand beer … revolting stuff.
Antonin,
“”Whatever caused the cooling” did not cease. Anthropogenic warming STARTED. IT is was caused us to leave the LIA.”
“Whatever caused the cooling” did not cease. (LIA)
Why should it cease?
And, “Whatever caused the previous warming” did not cease.
(MWP)
Of course none has ceased. Earth is in a continuous warming pattern.
There never been any Hot Holocene Optimum.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
“Why should it cease?”
Why ask me? It was Gordon who made that claim. Fight it out with him.
Antonin, but none has ceased. Earth is in a continuous warming pattern.
There never been any Hot Holocene Optimum.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon, Vournas is desperate to discuss something with you.
AQ,
What caused the cooling in the 20th Century before the warming started? Can any warming or cooling be natural variation? How much of the recent warming is natural variation? Show your evidence that GHE is 33K (60F).
john w…”Looks like the skeptics need to look for a new explanation. HTE just doesnt hold up anymore. Even Javier at WUWT cant stop discussing it”.
***
I’d like to hear your explanations for the recent spike. I could use a good laugh.
Clint’s explanation for the so-called “HTE” is that the eruption weakened the polar vortex.
Anyone who knows anything about the polar vortex knows that when it weakens it causes COLD air to flow from the Arctic into the lower latitudes, as it is displaced by warmer air that flows into the Arctic. It causes the Arctic to warm and the lower latitudes to cool. There is NO general warming or cooling of the earth as a whole.
Further, the polar vortex is non-existent in the summer. So according to Clint, HT which erupted in the southern hemisphere summer somehow managed to weaken a non-existent Antarctic vortex as it weakened the Arctic vortex. It apparently did this due to “waves” sent out by the eruption. These waves must have somehow been bouncing around for 6 months, because somehow this weakness was transferred to the Antarctic vortex when it started up 6 months later. Then 6 months later the weakness was apparently transferred back to the Arctic vortex. Who knew that waves could last so long, or that “weakness” could be transferred over 15000 km between seasons.
Yet you buy this nonsense. Not because of any knowledge of the science, but because it is something you WANT to hear. Meanwhile, Clint’s only reply is “you don’t understand the science, but without EVER trying to explain his version of the science behind his claim. Never HOW “weakness” is propagated pole to pole season to season. Never HOW a weakened vortex does the opposite of what it has ALWAYS done before.
We KNOW you read every comment here … nothing gets by you. (Unless it is a reminder of how you believe that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow … somehow that is invisible to you.) So you HAVE read my comment about the temperature spike.
A large number of mistakes there, Ant.
You obviously don’t understand the Polar Vortex. Shutting down the PV means cool air is pushed from the pole. But, it also means warm air is blocked from moving to the Stratosphere.
You appear to be confusing “shutting down the PV” with a “Sudden Stratospheric Warming”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming
A “shutting down” of the PV definitely results in warming of Earth, since an enormous amount of warm air is blocked from moving to the Stratosphere.
And, it’s only the PV at the Arctic that “is non-existent in the summer”. The PV at South Pole is fully active in Northern Hemisphere summer. Then it is active at North Pole in Northern Hemisphere winter. The PV changes poles with the seasons. See if you can find an adult to help you learn the basics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
In addition, the HTE is much more than just its effect on PV. The next leading theories are the formation of a “lid” caused by water vapor, and the ozone/chlorine chemistries.
You don’t understand the science, and can’t learn. You get the last word because you’ve be here until you get it anyway….
You can manufacture all the theories you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that EVERY time the vortex has weakened, there has been a cooling in the lower latitudes.
“The PV changes poles with the seasons”
So are you claiming that it moves across the equator from one pole to the other?
Or are you claiming that it hyperspaces from one pole to the other?
Or do you think perhaps a new one starts up completely independent of the other.
Gordon,
If the spike persists through the upcoming meteorological winter in the Northern Hemisphere, I will take a more serious look at whether something unusual might be occurring.
I agree with AQ that the recent temperature spike is likely due to El Nio on top of long-term global warming. I anticipate we might experience another prolonged pause in warming lasting at least a decade, given the scale of this spike. I probably won’t live long enough to see it come to an end and have the chance to say ‘I told you so’ to the skeptics.
Monckton will probably reappear in about four years with his usual ‘no global warming’ update for a set period, but it will be as inconsequential as previous updates have been, given our current situation.
SC25 is now at Zharkova +47%.
The remainder of September needs to average 101 spots per day to reach Zharkova +50% at the end of the month.
Or 90 spots per day if we are rounding to the nearest whole percent.
Further, August would have been the 4th strongest month in SC23.
The strongest month in SC24 would have ranked only 33rd in SC23.
And it is one year ago this month that gbaikie first claimed that the first spotless day was just around the corner.
Let’s add for the sake of clarity the SSN minima for SC 23/24/25 during the last 365 days:
SC 23: 37
SC 24: 16
SC 25: 25
I have often seen that gbaikie used non-committing sources for SSN, and deliberately ignores SILSO.
I don’t get their fascination with spotless days, especially when the first one might be. It would be like caring about whether the strongest day in the cycle is 284 or 285.
Two years ago I counted the spotless day accumulation for SC 24 and SC 25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4dfdqgDDrNRRyeSBPKx7CONPb1cV_sJ/view
*
One year before, I compared SSN and spotless day sequences:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fzmcLFOfUmjYuEeysd3jWSmHtUXNmJeB/view
Just for fun…
Antonin,
“Vournas
I don’t recall addressing you or making any comment in this thread related to your nonsense, nor do I have any desire to engage with non-peer-reviewed “science”.
I’m pretty sure that is a term invented by you, not one used by scientists, so dont use it as though it is an accepted scientific term.”
–
Don’t you peer-reviewing the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Dont you peer-reviewing the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?”
Meaningful sentence please.
A new temperature dataset.
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/finally-a-really-new-global-temperature-dataset/
A few small differences from previous ones, but nothing that changes the pattern.
It does warm the early 20th century and reduce the WW2 bump. The smoother graph will please the sceptics who complain that the graph doesn’t quite match CO2 emissions.
I do not believe in conspiracies or dishonest scientists as a default answer or first approximation for answering these questions:
Why do surface analysis, RSS, and UAH always look so different?
Surface analysis always looks very smooth and progressive. Is that possibly the effect of the earth being a heat sink and a natural temperature moderator? Do they average or smooth the data intentionally?
RSS clearly has less definition on the graphs I see than UAH with the same raw data. Do they use some kind of averaging or smoothing technique? Do they have a product with more definition that I am missing?
UAH clearly has the most month to month definition, and in my view that suggests better precision. Accuracy is not the issue because the trend is not calibrated. It is a trend of relative variation.
Tim S,
Bindidon has done a lot of comparisons of LT data with surface data in many, many locations throughout the world. Almost always, there is very little difference in trends among satellite and raw surface. Temperature anomalies are less affected by issues, such as urban heat island effects, compared to other data types.
John W, I guess it is my fault you are not following along. I should have been more explicit. He posted world-wide trend graphs. I was responding in that context of world-wide graphs over time.
Tim S
” He posted world-wide trend graphs. I was responding in that context of world-wide graphs over time. ”
What exactly do you mean here?
People not quite familiar with the world of real data processing often keep a bit nebulous.
John W
” Bindidon has done a lot of comparisons of LT data with surface data in many, many locations throughout the world. ”
Correct, e.g. the Corn Belt, based on GHCN daily sources:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HuYJQZOx_MUDbtSJwfKSsNRHEufp777G/view
*
But I made also global comparisons of UAL LT vs. surface, one of them based on GHCN V4, jointly used by NOAA and GISS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZGRLXFt9E2-kNxE7Mwuj9le7kCYKchRF/view
*
Comparing RATPAC-B radiosondes to either UAH LT or the surface also are interesting:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e7QchheuZpX3gm9bY1tCivjggk1–pRp/view
Tim S
” RSS clearly has less definition on the graphs I see than UAH with the same raw data. ”
That’s quite nebulous as well.
Please explain.
My statement is obvious. My questions are obvious.
Carry on!
Tim S
” My statement is obvious. My questions are obvious. ”
That, Tim S, is exactly what people write who do not know what they are talking about but try to hide this fact.
And your questions
” Do they use some kind of averaging or smoothing technique? Do they have a product with more definition that I am missing? ”
are not obvious at all: they merely reflect technical incompetence.
You are simply unable to exactly describe what you mean.
Carry on keeping nebulous, Tim S. No problem for me!
Come back to us when you will be able to tell us exactly what you mean when comparing RSS to UAH, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!
One of my favorite actors, but we know he is pretending.
” You want the truth? You cant handle the truth!
One of my favorite actors, but we know he is pretending. ”
*
And instead of explaining clearly what he means with the expected technical skills, Tim S continues to pull the wool over people’s eyes by spouting incomprehensible platitudes.
Stop robertsoning, Tim S, start reasoning, and explain what you exactly mean.
Tim S
Both RSS and UAH quote 95% confidence limits of +/- 0.1C for their global average anomalies. This is somewhat more uncertain than the surface data, for which the confidence limits are about +/- 0.06C.
This reflects the greater internal variation in the atmosphere data, hence the larger standard deviation. Sample size is not an issue. All the surface and atmospheric datasets have large enough sample sizes to push the precision of the mean below the uncertainty due to internal variation.
Differences in the assumptions used when designing their algorithms also mean that RSS tends to derive slightly higher temperatures than UAH from the same microwave data.
Bindidon has some interesting comments in the very topic where people are encouraged to be polite and respectful.
Are you having a bad day?
“Why do surface analysis, RSS, and UAH always look so different?
Surface analysis always looks very smooth and progressive.”
For one thing, the troposphere responds more strongly to ENSO than the surface.
Thus the swings from El Nino to La Nina are larger in UAH than at the surface.
I completely agree with Dr. Spencer with his new policy on regulating the comments here on his site. As a 40-yr retired weatherman with a B.S. in meteorology, I come to this site to learn about the greenhouse effect. I read the comments to learn about how much of an affect CO2 warming has on the atmosphere. I have my opinions but most people here are more knowledgeable about the subject than I am.
Although some of the insults are amusing, I can’t really learn anything from that. I would rather read about scientific theory to help me understand what the debate is all about. I am looking forward to reading the various scientific opinions about how the atmosphere actually works.
You may be the right person to ask a question I have about the weather. I am interested if you know, and not the various incompetent opinions other people will offer on this site.
A primary effect of the greenhouse gases is instability in the atmosphere. Increased instability is also associated with low pressure leading to a more rapid decrease in pressure and temperature with altitude. Here is the question:
The greenhouse effect causes a higher temperature at the surface. Does the increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 cause the whole atmosphere to be warmer, does it increase instability, or both? If the answer is both, then at what altitude does the effect become cooling only?
“Does the increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 cause the whole atmosphere to be warmer, ”
Below the tropopause, yes.
“does it increase instability,”
Below the tropopause, yes.
“at what altitude does the effect become cooling only?”
Above the tropopause.
Rob Mitchell
” I am looking forward to reading the various scientific opinions about how the atmosphere actually works. ”
The problem for most of us is that the subject is extremely complex (kinda antithesis of the ‘ball-on-a-string’ used by those on this blog who try to explain us that our Moon doesn’t spin).
Hence, the more the authors move into the subject, the more difficult it becomes for nearly all of us to understand what ‘what the debate is all about’.
A typical example is
Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion
Jean-Louis Dufresne, Vincent Eymet, Cyril Crevoisier and Jean-Yves Grandpeix (2020)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
*
My preferred paper when jumping into the subject for the first time:
Elementary analytic models of climate
The mean global heat balance
Joseph W. Chamberlain (1979)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790010343/downloads/19790010343.pdf
*
The best is to a priori ignore the styupid replies by ignoramuses like Robertson, Clint R and a few other antiscience specialists.
Yes, they are deniers, not skeptics.
rob…”Although some of the insults are amusing, I cant really learn anything from that. I would rather read about scientific theory to help me understand what the debate is all about”.
***
Good point. Unfortunately, this site is plagued by climate alarmists who cannot defend their positions other than through appeals to authority. Barry puts up decent rebuttals as does Tim Folkerts and Entropic, but most rely on appeals to authority and ad hom attacks.
Insults can be amusing but not as a sole means of rebuttal. I have engaged in witty repartee re insults much of my life, along the lines of Monty Python. However, I have endured all forms of insults here, lacking in wit but seldom are my views rebutted scientifically. Rather I am the target of cheap shot artists who question my university education, my sanity, my integrity, and more recently, my sexual identity.
I don’t care about insults, It tells me a lot about the party offering insults when that’s all they have. Like you, I’d prefer an atmosphere geared to scientific understanding but that is hard to come by in today’s polarized, emotional atmosphere.
Science, in general, has come under the influence of political correctness. The owner of Facebook has recently revealed how the Biden administration put pressure on him to censor views on covid that did not meet their propaganda about it. They have taken to presenting their views as science and any opposing views as misinformation.
This attitude is actually not new. Einstein gained his reputation from groupies who actively resisted constructive criticism about his theories. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, offered an excellent critique of Einstein’s relativity theory but Essen could not get published in the mainstream scientific community.
Rob Mitchell,
Gordon Robertson claims photons don’t exist, and Kirchhoff’s Law is obsolete. Hope that helps.
Rob Mitchell, unfortunately the majority of commenters here offer very little science. They’re still arguing about whether or not Earth is in a warming trend, or not. FACT — Earth is in a warming trend.
Now, the claim that CO2 is warming the Earth is nonsense. The CO2 claim can be easily debunked from basic physics. The claim started with the bogus equation from Arrhenius, about a century ago. The equation is empirical, that is, it is based on the fact that temperatures rose as CO2 rose. There is correlation, but the physics is WRONG.
It is possible to invent an equation that relates global warming with the world-wide increase in ice cream production. There is a correlation, but claiming ice cream is “heating the planet” ain’t science. Just as claiming CO2 is “heating the planet” ain’t science.
Before 2016, the majority stance among deniers was no warming.
I’m sure if we took a look at your (ie. g**e**r**a**n’s) old comments we would find you saying the same.
It was only when the warming became too great that you had to concede and change your tactics.
Ant, I don’t know what false accusations have to do with science.
I guess it means you have no science….
aq…from which hat did you draw 2016? I have never encountered an all out denier that warming has occurred, only that it has nothing to do with CO2. That’s hardly a denial since no one has ever proved that a trace gas can significantly warm the atmosphere.
Oh really Gordon. So you have never seen someone here claim “no warming since 1986”.
aq…”I dont recall addressing you or making any comment in this thread related to your nonsense, nor do I have any desire to engage with non-peer-reviewed science.
—
“Do you understand the concepts of
(1) IN THIS THREAD
(2) addressing YOU
(3) related to YOUR nonsense, as opposed to Gordons nonsense?”
***
This is one of the worst ad hominem attacks I have seen on Roy’s blog over the years. Christos very politely presents his scientific argument re planetary warming despite the fact that English is not anywhere near his native tongue. And you, AQ, attack him recklessly without the slightest effort to debate him scientifically.
Your only comeback is the sad old refrain about requiring peer review to be taken seriously. That is a joke in itself, you, of all people, calling for peer review. You would not understand a scientific paper whether it was peer reviewed or not.
That’s nothing new to me, you usually attack posters, not only with ad homs and insults but through entirely inappropriate inferences of sexuality. All you are good for is presenting propaganda in support of your uncorroborated theories about a trace gas causing catastrophic warming that leads to catastrophic climate change.
I recall you when you posted under another nym. There were three Aussies, Mike Flynn, Barry and yourself. The fact that you arbitrarily change nyms is an indication of your lack of sincerity and your desire to disrupt the group.
Robertson the eternal liar…
” This is one of the worst ad hominem attacks I have seen on Roys blog over the years. ”
*
No, Robertson: The worst personal attacks I’ve seen on Roy’s blog over the years have come from YOU and no one else.
You insulted years ago Andrew Motte, the first historical translator of Newton’s Principia, by name calling him a ‘cheating S O B’ (because you were unable to understand Newton’s original New Latin text, and unduly thought Motte would have translated it wrong).
No one on this blog wrote such a disgusting thing.
*
A few years later, you furthermore insulted somebody by name calling him an ‘a$$hole’ (you even didn’t have the balls to write this insult ‘as is’).
*
You don’t believe me, Robertson?
Write a mail to the UAH team, and ask them to show you the places. They have the tools to find them.
When was the last time Andrew Motte posted on this site? If I did call him what you claim, what was the context?
You seem to miss the point that the dysfunctional communication between you and me is hardly typical of my behavior here. It has been very seldom that I have called anyone an SOB, or anything else. Having said that, I get a chuckle out of your incessant insults aimed at me. I neither take them personally nor seriously.
Besides, my beef with AQ re Christos is the outright hostility offered by AQ toward Christos, who has been a good blog citizen. I can see in the presentation of Christos a typical engineering analysis and I see no reason why anyone takes umbrage with him. Christos has offered a compelling argument that the temperature of planets is related to their speed of rotation.
The Moon does not rotate but its orbit around Earth exposes each side of the Moon to the Sun.
There is good reason to challenge the Motte translation. He did not have Newton to consult since Isaac had passed on. Therefore he interpreted a few words by Newton based on the popular theory offered by Cassini that the Moon rotated on an internal orbit exactly once per orbit.
Had Motte dug a little deeper he would surely have noticed Newton’s words that contradict his translation. Newton stated clearly that the Moon moves with a linear motion and that the linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. He then claimed the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth. All three points summed points definitely to curvilinear translation without local rotation.
I have never seen an explanation from Cassini as to why he thought the Moon rotates. That applies to Mayer as well.
Bindidon
He also conveniently forgets how many times he has insulted entire nationalities in dealing with a single person. He is blind to his own contribution to the mood here.
Gorgon – you HAVE to be kidding.
Asking him if he understands is an ad hom? You really are desperate now.
Every time I changed names I advertised the fact, so cut the BS. Instead attack Flynn and Clint for their lack of sincerity. Or is it somehow different for them?
Now go back to teaching that the moons phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
(Are you going to call that an ad hom as well?)
It becomes an ad hom when it is hostile and not related to the posts by Christos. If you have a beef with his constant, or whatever bugs you, state it scientifically.
And remember, English is far from being the primary language spoken by Christos. When I have encountered similar situations on other sites, people usually welcome people trying to talk a foreign language and tried to help them. All I have seen from you toward Christos is hostility.
Christos has already indicated that he does not understand English slang and that likely means he has trouble with the vernacular. Do you think maybe your differences may be related to a lack of communication related to language difference?
Any “hostility” has been only towards the “science” and the motivations for promoting that nonsense. YOU are no different in promoting hostility.
“the dysfunctional communication between you and me is hardly typical of my behavior here”
No, that is TYPICAL of your behaviour. Everything you point out as a negative in others applies equally to you. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Further …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685801
tim s…”A primary effect of the greenhouse gases is instability in the atmosphere. Increased instability is also associated with low pressure leading to a more rapid decrease in pressure and temperature with altitude. Here is the question:
The greenhouse effect causes a higher temperature at the surface. Does the increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 cause the whole atmosphere to be warmer, does it increase instability, or both? If the answer is both, then at what altitude does the effect become cooling only?”
***
It’s clear from your question that you are not serious about understanding the points you are trying to make. You are asking a meteorologist to explain things you don’t understand, yet you are willing to make a blanket statement that a so-called greenhouse effect causes a higher temperature at the surface.
You are equating the atmosphere to a greenhouse yet you fail to understand how a greenhouse warms. The theory you just expressed is based on an anachronism dating back to the 19th century that IR absorbed by a gas like CO2 can warm the atmosphere significantly. In other words, there is a confusion between heat and infrared energy.
The reason the theory is an anachronism is that in the 19th century it was believed that IR as described was heat in motion as heat rays. They had no idea that heat was not being transferred via IR but involved a change of energy forms in which heat was lost at the emitting surface.
I have presented my rebuttal to you, now see if you can rebut it scientifically. I have also described, in detail, how the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation limits CO2 warming in the atmosphere to 0.06% per 1C warming of the atmosphere.
Let’s see you rebut the above without resorting to ad homs, insult, and appeals to authority.
“Lets see you rebut the above without resorting to ad homs, insult, and appeals to authority.”
I can do 2 out of 3.
Simply read what Roy says about the greenhouse effect.
Take it up with our host if you disagree.
Funny prof, I have never seen you do a scientific debate. You do smart alec commentaries.
As far as Roy is concerned, he has a professional reputation to defend and I have no intention of challenging him directly re right or wrong. As I see it, we are on the same page re global warming/climate change and there is no need to split hairs over disagreements.
I have stated my concerns re the greenhouse effect which I regard as a misnomer. What it references has nothing to do with a real greenhouse. I am not denying there is a warming effect, just that it has nothing to do with a real greenhouse and should be renamed.
As long as the greenhouse moniker is used, people will tend to confuse the mechanism involved with a real greenhouse. That lends itself to the notion that infrared radiation is a major player in warming and plays right into the fabrication that humans are causing warming by emitting so-called greenhouse gases.
The atmosphere definitely provides a warming effect but IMHO the mechanism is far different than the greenhouse model. The warming involves all gases with N2/O2 making up 99% of the gases. I think it’s plain silly to claim a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for not only warming but for transferring heat from the atmosphere to space.
We have already seen evidence that O2 radiates in the microwave band, the UAH data is based on that fact. Any radiation by O2 represents cooling in the atmosphere. I am sure N2 is radiating energy away but not so much in the IR band. Does that matter?
The argument here is that N2/O2 only radiate a fraction of CO2, however, CO2 is only a tiny fraction of N2/O2 in density. That’s why I am so vehemently opposed to a simplified explanation of global warming. The argument is politically based and not backed by real science.
Radiation is a very inefficient way of cooling a surface at terrestrial temperatures since it is 260 times slower than conduction/convection. That partly explains the so-called GHE, solar radiation produces heating much faster than surface IR can get rid of it.
Ironically, the Moon has the same issue, solar energy heats the surface faster than radiation from the surface can cool it. When the Moon reaches the part of its orbit where the heated surface moves into the dark side, it takes longer to cool than anticipated.
john w…”Rob Mitchell,
Gordon Robertson claims photons dont exist, and Kirchhoffs Law is obsolete. Hope that helps”.
***
What’s with the propaganda about me? I have never claimed that photons don’t exist just that no one has proved they exist as claimed. It was Einstein who claimed quanta could be viewed as particles with momentum because absorbing quanta caused electrons to be ejected from a surface. He was likely thinking of snooker balls colliding. Bohr’s later explanation showed that electrons are ejected because they absorb EM, increasing their KE, and it is the increased KE that causes them to be ejected, not any transfer of momentum as with billiard balls.
Several times in the past I have claimed electrons emit quanta of EM. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the added theory that a massless particle, as the photon is defined, can have momentum. Also, photon theory fails to explain you quanta from different electrons in different atoms can combine to produce wavefront of light.
I have already clarified the Kircheoff’s Law statement but you seem like the type who is so dependent on ad homs that you fail to listen and comprehend.
In the field of electronics and electricity, I still use the concepts of Kircheoff’s Laws in circuits. I have it ingrained on the inside of my eyelids, so much so, that I no longer need the equations but can reason myself around a circuit simply using voltage drops and current sums at nodes.
You are referring to another law of Kircheoff that was developed before the science related to atomic structure was known. He was, in essence, try to explain a concept called thermal radiation, an incorrect assumption that heat can be radiated as heat. Heat as the KE of electrons is actually converted by electrons to electromagnetic radiation, which has no heat.
During his attempt to understand thermal radiation, Kircheoff developed the concept of an ideal radiator/absorber he called a blackbody. That was over 50 years before Bohr discovered the real process involving electrons and electromagnetic energy. Following that discovery, both Kircheoff’s and Planck’s theories became obsolete.
Planck did provide the clue Bohr required when he discovered quantized energy states but he knew nothing about electrons and was only guessing. His theory is based on a spectrum of frequencies which he regarded theoretically as tiny oscillators. Whereas that was a good guess given the level of science at the time it was far from the truth.
Furthermore, Planck did some curve fitting to make his theory fit the known spectra of radiation from heated bodies. Bohr supplied the real story.
More on that later.
The more….from Planck’s Nobel Prize in 1918…
“When a black body is heated, electromagnetic radiation is emitted with a spectrum corresponding to the temperature of the body, and not to its composition. Calculating the form of the spectrum using then-known physical laws gave an unreasonable result; the radiation in the high-frequency area of the spectrum became infinite. Max Planck solved this problem in 1900 by introducing the theory of quanta, that is, that radiation consists of quanta with specific energies determined by a new fundamental constant, thereafter called Plancks constant”.
***
1)a blackbody is a theoretical construct that has no equivalence in reality. Ergo, no one knows what happens when such an ideal construct is heated. All Planck did was formulate a hypothesis while knowing nothing about atomic structure.
2)the statement from the Nobel committee claims EM is emitted and its spectrum is related only to temperature and not composition of the body. Bohr disproved that statement in 1913 when he associated electron kinetic energy in the hydrogen atom to the orbitals of the sole electron in hydrogen. Since then, all electron energies have been worked out for all atoms (elements) and they all have different spectra.
3)temperature is a measure of the electron orbital KE’s en masse in a solid object. In a gas, temperature is defined as the average KE of gas atoms/molecules. However, to increase the KE of an atom or molecule the only way to do it is to add energy to the electrons in the atoms/molecules. That energy can be added when the electrons absorb heat or EM.
Put another way, the only way an atom can increase its KE is by electrons absorbing heat or EM and jumping to a higher orbital energy level commensurate with the amount of energy absorbed. Any emissions from the atom occur only when the excited electrons drop back to a lower orbital energy level.
4)If atoms as pure elements are heated, they emit characteristic, discrete frequencies. For example, sodium emits a characteristic yellow colour when heated to a certain temperature. Yellow corresponds to a discrete frequency/wavelength.
When Tyndall electrically heated a platinum filament wire, it emitted a series of discrete EM frequencies with temperatures ranging from about 500C to 1500 C. Heating other elements will produce a characteristic frequency range dependent on the electrons and electron orbital arrangements in the atom. Clearly, temperature is a measure only and has nothing to do with the resultant spectrum. It is, in fact, the electron composition of the material that determines the spectrum.
The Nobel committee were wrong and the ramifications of such speculation extends to modern times. We are plagued today by pseudo-science that is based only on anachronisms and consensus.
Since the Nobel was awarded to Planck in 1918, only 5 years after Bohr made his earth-shattering discovery, it is plain that the Nobel committees explanation of Planck’s work was based on older, incorrect assumptions.
There is some interest in knowing who the big fossil fuel consumers are. This link has some data. It turns out that China burns more coal than the entire rest of the world combined. India is a distant second and no other country comes close.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/top-countries-by-fossil-fuel-consumption-in-2023/
The irony is that we in the West are trying to save the planet based on a quaint notion that the CO2 produced by fossil fuel emissions from coal, etc., are dangerously heating the planet. Meantime, Third World countries are emitting fossil fuel emissions like it is going out of style.
Another irony is that part of our reason for moving toward zero emissions is that we are somehow saving this Third World from starvation and other catastrophes. It would be far better if we cleaned up the planet first by eliminating the despots who will surely take any offerings we grant to the poorer nations and use it for their own wealth.
“You do smart alec commentaries.”
Thanks for the ad hom and insult you purported to disdain.
“You are equating the atmosphere to a greenhouse yet you fail to understand how a greenhouse warms.”
Yet, on 9 August, Roy makes it perfectly clear:
“Yes, the Greenhouse Effect Is Like a Real Greenhouse”
Please take your issues up with Roy. I have no time to deal with them here.
It looks rather different when you look at fuel consumption per capita.
An American consumes as much as 2.4 Chinamen.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-per-capita
Or as much as ten Indians.
Matthew 7-3
Is that a buy-bull reference?
Antonin Qwerty
It’s from the Bible.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ”
Matthew 7:3-5
Most of chinamen are living in the pre-industial times.
Tim S
” There is some interest in knowing who the big fossil fuel consumers are. ”
Oh how interesting. It looks as if you learned that ‘fact’ just right now.
*
” It turns out that China burns more coal than the entire rest of the world combined. India is a distant second and no other country comes close. ”
*
I read such info already at least ten years ago in French and German newspapers.
*
What you however apparently never had a look at is this:
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.0906974107/asset/0f4cf8fc-ea36-4ad7-a6f4-31b8f0f174c8/assets/graphic/pnas.0906974107fig01.jpeg
Maybe this speaks to you, even if India wasn’t accounted for at that time?
*
Source
Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions
Steven J. Davis, Ken Caldeira (2010)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0906974107
It is interesting how many biases and assumptions about intent come out after posting a simple fact. One can look at per-capita data or claim that I am accusing someone, or even that I am late to the party. The fact still remains that however much the industrial countries can be blamed for carbon emissions, the overall world-wide rate of emissions is not likely to be reduced for many decades. This remains true despite efforts to impose reduction mandates in any one or many countries.
Still more interesting the fact that there are still contrarians to believe they do not reveal their biases when they pick and choose the facts they hide behind,
All the while ignoring so many other facts, e.g.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Seldom is the question asked: are our contrarians learning there there is some interest in knowing how they should tackle 5he questions they themselves are asking?
Also, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earths surface.
Because we have written a Universal Equation which is valid for all planets and moons in solar system.
Earth is a planet, thus when the Equation calculates for Earth’s surface the mean surface temperature Tmean = 287,4 K and the satellite measured the Earth’s average surface temperature
Tsat =288K,
Then there is no room for any significant atmospheric greenhouse effect, much more there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your theory predicts that the incoming shortwave radiation to the Earth would be 112W/m^2 and the outward longwave radiation would be 112W/m^2.
The measured incoming shortwave radiation is 240W/m^2 and the measured outgoing longwave radiation is 238.5W/m^2.
There is a term for a theory whose predictions disagree with observations. It is wrong.
It seems all models fail to understand that average surface temperature, is directly connected to entire ocean [which is the surface of Earth, it’s just a big surface]. Anyhow, it takes a long time to warm the average temperature of entire surface. And it’s such long time, that the average should include interglacial and the longer glacial period of our Ice Age.
And we happen to be in the coldest period in our Ice Age, which has going on for 33.9 million years.
And when dealing with such long periods of time, you have include the geothermal heat of Earth.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“The measured incoming shortwave radiation is 240W/m^2 and the measured outgoing longwave radiation is 238.5W/m^2.”
The measured incoming is 1362W/m^2. Then a part of it is reflected, what is left interacted with surface and a part of the interacted it is absorbed in the surface’s inner layers.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” And when dealing with such long periods of time, you have include the geothermal heat of Earth. ”
No. No one feels the need to compare 44 TW geothermal with 175,000 TW solar, even in the middle of an Ice Age.
Christos
Solar insolation is 1362W/m^2. Averaged over the Earth’s surface that becomes 340W/m^2. When you remove albedo that becomes 240W/m^2 absorbed solar radiation (ASR) by the atmosphere and surface.
From orbit the outwArd longwave radiation (OSR) is 238.5 W/m^2 , leaving 1.5W/m^2 as the EEI.
These are measured quantities, observed from orbit by satellites and by ground stations.
Your theory postulates that only 0.47, 47% of the solar insolation is absorbed. That is 160W/m^2. Since ASR=OLR +EEI
OLD should also be about 160W/m^2.
If you wish your theory to be taken seriously it must explain not just the temperatures, but also the observed energy budget.
Thank you, Ent,
“Your theory postulates that only 0.47, 47% of the solar insolation is absorbed. ”
–
No, my theory doesn’t postulate that only 0.47, 47% of the solar insolation is absorbed.
What my theory postulates, in the case of Earth, because Earth is a planet with a smooth surface, is that only 0.47, or 47% of the solar insolation is not reflected.
That quantity – the 0.47, or 47% of the solar insolation is not absorbed in the Earth’s inner layers. What is not reflected interacts with planetary surface, and only a fraction of that quantity – only a fraction of the 0.47, or 47% of the solar insolation, only a fraction of it gets absorbed in Earth’s inner layers.
So, it is actually a completely different approach, it is a completely different mechanism when describing the planet radiative energy balance, the
Energy in = Energy out
which (in radiative equilibrium) should be necessarily met.
–
The above naturally begs for the question:
Where to goes the not absorbed solar energy then?
The not absorbed SW solar energy, when interacting with planetary surface’s matter, the surface’s skin layer gets warmed, and instantly transforms the SW solar energy into the LW (IR) outgoing radiative EM energy.
The temperature (at every spot) developed by the surface’s skin layer is measured by satellite sensors and that skin layer’s temperature is considered as the spot’s surface temperature.
The spot’s skin layer’s temperature is a superficial temperature. That temperature doesn’t represent the temperature the surface’s inner layers are at. Because the not reflected SW solar energy is not entirely absorbed in surface’s inner layers.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gorrection:
The above
“What my theory postulates, in the case of Earth, because Earth is a planet with a smooth surface, is that only 0.47, or 47% of the solar insolation is not reflected.”
Is not correct, because Φ =0,47 is the solar irradiation accepting factor.
The not reflected portion is:
Φ(1 -a)So = 0,47(1 – 0,306)So = 0,47*0,694*So = 0,326*So
0,326*So = 0,326*1362W/m^2 = 444W/m^2 related to the planet cros-section cycle.
The number 444W/m^2 cannot be averaged over the entire planetary surface, because the 444W/m^2 is not absorbed, the 444W/m^2 interacts with surface, and only a fraction of the 444W/m^2 gets absorbed in inner layers.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–Bindidon says:
September 3, 2024 at 11:53 AM
And when dealing with such long periods of time, you have include the geothermal heat of Earth.
No. No one feels the need to compare 44 TW geothermal with 175,000 TW solar, even in the middle of an Ice Age.–
This 175,000 TW is TOA and nothing to do with bottom of ocean- and particularly during a glaciational period.
If for no other reason, than, they a much longer period of time.
Roy, nobody who is serious about climate change takes you seriously. You’re a denier who has made too many mistakes. No one who knows anything is going to bother commenting here–they upset you so much that all you can think to do is block them.
You long ago left the realm of science. As they say, science advances one funeral at a time. Nobody believes your time series anyway. You did that to yourself.
*** Stay classy, David. -Roy
David,
I for one believe Dr Roy’s time series. It doesn’t represent the surface record, but it does show warming, a fair amount of it.
Welcome back, but behave yourself, or you might get your privileges revoked.
Solar wind
speed: 333.6 km/sec
density: 1.02 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Sep 24
https://spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 238 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.00×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
10 numbered sunspot.
Solar wind
speed: 412.7 km/sec
density: 0.67 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 151
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 242 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.15×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
6 numbered sunspots.
None leaving or coming
A couple of small coronal holes near equator
Solar wind
speed: 372.3 km/sec
density: 0.94 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 167
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 241 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.62×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
6 numbered sunspots, One is leaving within day.
Solar wind
speed: 367.1 km/sec
density: 5.36 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 188
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 249 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.72×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.4% Low
7 numbered sunspots
Solar wind
speed: 355.8 km/sec
density: 1.97 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 222 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.91×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.0% Low
10 numbered sunspots.
No spots are coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 386.7 km/sec
density: 1.08 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 176
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 228 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.95×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.7% Low
11 numbered sunspot. 2 leaving to farside. None coming from farside, yet
–Six Things to Know About Sand Mining
Sand is the single most mined commodity, eclipsing minerals and metals by a colossal margin. Around 85% of the material we pull up from the earth is sand, gravel or other aggregate materials. Sand is also the most consumed substance after water, being used in virtually every construction or manufacturing process, even used as an ingredient in toothpaste.
Globally our annual aggregate consumption is somewhere around 53 billion tonnes the equivalent to every person on earth using 20kg of sand every single day. And with rapid global urbanisation, particularly owing to economic growth across East Asia, the demand for sand is only increasing: since the early 2000s, China has used more sand every three years than the United States used in the entire 20th century.–
https://www.mining-technology.com/features/six-things-sand-mining/?cf-view
But in summary, mining sand is bad.
And Hellas Basin has some sand in it, and was wondering how sand is mined.
Anyways, there are lots of kinds of sand, and you would have see what kind of sand, there was. They say they like sharp sand rather than worn out sand, for building purposes.
And with moon, the sharp dust is regarded as major problem for crew exploration
It seems until we get enough understanding of Mars geology, one is sort of forced to mine a lot sand. Also some say Hellas basin has a lot to do with Mars global dust storms. And thinking getting rid of some kinds of specific sand and volatiles, might reduce/elimate the global dust storms.
More bad:
“The environmental and social impacts of sand extraction are issues of global significance. Eroded materials from hard rock sources, sands and gravels are the unrecognised foundational material of national economies. They are mined all over the world, with aggregates accounting for the largest volume of solid material extracted globally (UNEP, 2014, 2019).
The following is a summary of the environmental degradation caused by sand mining:
Loss of biodiversity: via pollution and direct impacts on the biophysical integrity of ecosystems (UNEP, 2014). Removing significant amounts of material from dynamic environments like rivers and coasts, and static environments such as quarries, results in widespread environmental change (UNEP, 2014). Marine sand mining via benthic dredging causes changes in water turbidity and results in a net decline in faunal biomass and abundance (Desprez et al., 2010) or a shift in species composition (UNEP, 2014).
Land losses: both inland through aggregate extraction and river erosion, and coastal through extraction and erosion. Agricultural production could be affected through loss of agricultural land from river erosion (UNEP, 2014).
Hydrological function: change in water flows, flood regulation and marine currents. River and marine aggregates are the main sources of aggregates for building and land reclamation. Removing sediment from rivers causes the river to cut its channel through the bed of the valley floor both upstream and downstream of the extraction site. This leads to coarsening of bed material and lateral channel instability (UNEP, 2014).
Water supply: mainly through lowering of the water table and pollution, also marine aggregate needs to be thoroughly washed to remove salt (UNEP, 2014). For example, the removal of more than 12 million tonnes of sand per year from the Vembanad Lake catchment in India has led to the lowering of the riverbed by 715 cm/y (Padmalal et al., 2008). Sand mining can lead to a loss of aquifer storage (Kondolf, 1997). The lowering of the water table can affect agricultural production (Kondolf, 1997).
Climate: directly through transport emissions, indirectly through cement production (UNEP, 2014).
Landscape: coastal erosion, changes in deltaic structures, quarries, pollution of rivers (UNEP, 2014). Erosion occurs from direct sand removal from beaches. It can also occur indirectly, resulting from near-shore marine dredging, or as a result of sand mining in rivers (Kondolf, 1997). Damming and mining have reduced sediment delivery from rivers to many coastal areas, leading to accelerated beach erosion (Kondolf, 1997).
Extreme events: decline of protection against extreme events (flood, drought, storm surge) (UNEP, 2014).
https://www.preventionweb.net/understanding-disaster-risk/terminology/hips/en0022
It seems will have mine sand on Mars, rather than on Earth.