Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2024 was +0.88 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the July, 2024 anomaly of +0.85 deg. C.
Persistent global-averaged warmth was (unusually) contributed to this month by the Southern Hemisphere. Of the 27 regions we routinely monitor, 5 of them set record-warm (or near-record) high monthly temperature anomalies in August, all due to contributions from the Southern Hemisphere:
Global land: +1.35 deg. C
Southern Hemisphere land: +1.87 deg. C
Southern Hemisphere extratropical land: +2.23 deg. C
Antarctica: +3.31 deg. C (2nd place, previous record was +3.37 deg. C, Aug. 1996)
Australia: +1.80 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.16 C/decade (+0.14 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.21 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 20 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.95 | +1.02 | +0.88 | +1.35 | +0.23 | +1.10 | +1.29 |
| 2024 | Apr | +1.05 | +1.25 | +0.85 | +1.26 | +1.02 | +0.98 | +0.48 |
| 2024 | May | +0.90 | +0.98 | +0.83 | +1.31 | +0.38 | +0.38 | +0.45 |
| 2024 | June | +0.80 | +0.96 | +0.64 | +0.93 | +1.65 | +0.79 | +0.87 |
| 2024 | July | +0.85 | +1.02 | +0.68 | +1.06 | +0.77 | +0.67 | +0.01 |
| 2024 | August | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.81 | +0.88 | +0.69 | +0.94 | +1.80 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Wow, the 13 mo. mean is now a solid 0.5 degree higher than the previous record. Basically we have spent 13 mo. on a high plateau.
And the reason for this is?
Ask again in two years time.
There’s now a year’s data. It will take a year to analyse and another year to get it published.
“Ask again in two years time.”
I will.
It worried me that there was not a fall in global average temperatures in July.
There is still over 10% extra water vapour in the stratosphere from the underwater volcano.
We could stay around this level for some time even as the Grand Solar Minimum gains strength.
HAHA – WHAT “grand solar minimum”?
This cycle is already at Zharkova +47%, and growing by the month.
Well, it matches the surface record in that it is slightly higher than last month. But still about 0.2 above the surface record (for the same baseline period).
As I’ve said, this is exactly what happened in 1998 (albeit from a much lower baseline). That year the first noticeable drop in the satellite record occurred in September, and the big drop happened in November. However that year we were entering a strong La Nina, whereas this year will likely be a weak to moderate one.
So the predicted upcoming La Nina is likely to be a weak one. Good to know /sarc.
I said weak to moderate. Was your lack of comprehension deliberate?
The only prediction for a strong La Nina is coming from NOAA.
They also predicted that ALL of the three recent La Ninas would be strong.
Reality: One weak, two low-end moderate.
So the predicted upcoming La Nina is likely to be a weak to moderate one. Good to know /sarc.
You clearly don’t live by the adage ‘if you have nothing to say then say nothing’.
Instead you live by the adage ‘say anything just so you can be heard’.
Your inability to address any of the issues raised is telling. But that is what denial is about.
So I correct my words to match what you say, but that is not good enough. Tuff.
What would be “good enough” is to address the issue of the NOAA predictions, the one you are clearly relying upon.
1997-98 was a much stronger El Nino. And it’s global warming happened 4 months later. Yet its 13 month peak reached lesser height above previous records.
In 2015, the mid latitude oceans warmed to record levels before the El Nino, and are still quite elevated.
1998 was 0.525 above the average of the previous 5 years.
2024 is currently 0.606 above the average of the previous 5 years, and that will certainly be reduced when the year is complete.
Barely anything in it.
The similarity to 97/98 is due to the strong positive IOD event in both years. But by this time (August) in 1998 it had switched to a strong negative event, which hasn’t happened this time. The ONI had also gone strongly negative by August 1998, and that has not yet happened this time. Without those effects I’m sure the figure for 1998 would have been much higher than 0.525.
After 1998 came 2000. What then?
RLH
Another repeat of your comment that has NOTHING to do with the discussion of why this year has been so warm.
Another case of you saying absolutely ANYTHING just to be heard.
“2024 is currently 0.606 above the average of the previous 5 years, and that will certainly be reduced when the year is complete.”
The difference is that last year was already a record breaking year. You can’t just look at 2024 in isolation.
Arrgh.
Meant to say:
In 2023, the mid latitude oceans warmed to record levels before the El Nino, and are still quite elevated.
The 5 y before 1998 included recovery from Pinatubo.
Compare to quadratic trend:
1998 +0.668
2024 +0.502
Quadratic trend with 1998, 2023, 2024 and the two Pinatubo-affected years (1992-93) removed.
1998 … 0.465 above trend
2024 … 0.616 above trend
The difference of 0.151 is easily explained by what I said about the IOD and ENSO. If not, anything left over can easily be attributed to random noise.
And what about the earlier rise in 2023 as compared to 1997?
Cannot ignore the unprecedented warmth of ocean temperatures in early-mid 2023, not due to ENSO.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
The UAH ocean anomalies for May and June 2023 were 0.36 and 0.32 respectively.
At the time there were 24 previous months which had been higher than May and 35 which had been higher than June, so they could hardly be described as “unprecedented”. The first four months of the year were significantly lower than those.
Even July wasn’t the record highest anomaly, and August only equalled the previous highest. It took until September for the ocean anomaly to literally be unprecedented, and by that time the El Nino was already classified as strong.
I was clear that it was the sea surface temperatures that were at unprecedented warm temperatures.
These obviously affect the land and troposphere temperatures, perhaps with some delay, and cannot be ignored.
Why do you want to ignore them?
A quadratic trend implies warming is accelerating. I think that’s a claim that will only be tested after a few more years.
At present we have two possibilities. Accelerated warming with a regular El Nino, or consistent warming with an unusual spike.
Nate
You clearly said OCEAN TEMPERATURES, not sea surface anomalies.
I was using UAH ocean, as clearly stated.
Are you saying we should not be looking at UAH?
The NOAA data is very similar. Nothing unprecedented in the first half of the year.
Here’s the link I gave you. It is the sea surface temperature all days, each year.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
They show very elevated temperatures beginning in March 2023.
You can also select the N. Atlantic and see it had record warmth in the same period.
Do you not think they are relevant to warmth seen at 2m and in the troposphere?
Nate says:
”And what about the earlier rise in 2023 as compared to 1997?
Cannot ignore the unprecedented warmth of ocean temperatures in early-mid 2023, not due to ENSO.”
Indeed this befuddlement should be of no surprise to you.
There has been a huge oppression of science trying to understand natural climate change when in fact we know that natural changes are responsible for everything not on a smooth emissions curve of the entire history of emissions. Spike emissions are near negligible.
I am on the answer to this puzzle. And my findings, only beginning to be released, completely supports the lack of confidence by the IPCC for the general warming trend being much more than half the warming we have seen during the accelerated period of human emissions over the past 70 years. And I think that finding still rests on flaws in modtran that improperly treat the effects of convection.
As we know convection is a mode of cooling that accelerates cooling of the surface and works the same way at the bottom of the ”roof” as measured in the Vaughn Pratt experiments. It could be some convection is restricted by the vaughn Pratt convective traffic jam at the roof. But we may not have a long enough climate record to quantify that.
Natural effects explain these peaks and valleys and also explain the variable rates of ice melt, and water vapor changes. This will also have effects on stratospheric variations not caused by ozone variability from emissions of the various ozone depleting chemicals. Once modtran is fixed I think you may find climate effects occurring from ozone variation as well that may explain some of the shorter termed variability via having restricted the sale of some of those chemicals in the late 1990’s
It abundantly appears that CO2 experiences primary negative feedback getting back to the surface that insolation changes do not experience to the extent they are not absorbed in the atmosphere.
To get ice and water responses the heat has to first reach back to the surface and the primary flaw of modtran is starting up in the atmosphere and only figuring positive feedback from there.
“I am on the answer to this puzzle. And my findings, only beginning to be released”
Ok. Do let us know when you have figured it all out.
All the climate scientists will undoubtedly realize the that they should have studied Auditing instead.
The question Nate isn’t if scientists should have studied auditing. . .the question is how much curiosity do scientists really attach to understanding why climate fluctuates as it clearly does in every proxy one can find.
If you can find papers on that, and I think you can, then yes.
Well I did find a paper that refuted your claim that eccentricity only smoothly and slowly varies over a 100,000 year period.
So right now you have nothing to claim a lack of natural warming and you won’t find anything either because its not science its a made up myth about the slow changes in eccentricity you gobbled down from your daddy without him providing any reliable support for the idea.
Just endless middle school insults and rants, a poor substitute for a sound argument with evidence to back it up.
well you have proven your science on these topics is mere rumor and you have no science backing it up. calling it is what your daddy told you isn’t an insult. its just a fact.
Roy,
“So, what I am leaning toward is banning of certain individuals who make a habit of insulting others.”
Can you please consider banning Bill Hunter?
He is obviously incapable of living within your new rules, and he makes a habit of insulting others.
Pretty sad folks! This is what Nate’s argument for a single eccentricity cycle of 100,000 years has boiled down to. . .an appeal to get me banned for pointing that he lacks any scientific backing for the claim.
Not to speak of his claim than any claim otherwise is astrology which of course is just bonkers.
“has boiled down to”
Nope. You keep missing the point.
The point I am not missing is your lack of scientific support for the scientific positions you take around here. Instead of support its just Daddy said. That point couldn’t be more clear.
The usual baiting.
G’bye Bill.
The SOI (southern oscillation index) has been recorded since about 1850. It is an indicator of El Nino and La Nina and can be found here https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/. The SOI together with the IPO are a strong indicator and predictor of weather and rainfall in Queensland Aust. At present the IPO is close to neutral. The SOI for the last 14 months has in a weak El Nino phase. It is likely that the end of September the 30day SOI could confirm a change in phase to a weak La Nina (due to the near neutral IPO). The SOI record could be somewhat similar to 2010 when there was a change in phase which led to heavy rainfall and even floods but that time the IPO was in a phase that was stronger for rain. Weather (at least in Australia) changes in patterns. There is a 11 year cycle (particularly for bushfires -wet(growth) and dry ). The IPO cycle is 30-40 years (strong droughts and wet periods). There has been no climate change in Australia since European settlement and record keeping from 1788.
Every month I think this must surely be the point where the temperatures start to drop, but looks like we’ll have to wait another month at least.
This is the warmest August in the UAH data, 0.18C warmer than the previous record set last year, which was itself 0.31C warmer than the previous record.
The top ten warmest Augusts
1 2024 0.88
2 2023 0.70
3 1998 0.39
4 2016 0.32
5 2020 0.31
6 2017 0.30
7 2022 0.29
8 2019 0.27
9 2010 0.21
10 2021 0.18
Unless something really dramatic happens in the next few months, 2024
will smash the 2023 record year.
Not at all surprised this index has stayed high. A water vapor increase in the upper troposphere has remained consistent. This is likely aftereffects from Hunga-Tonga.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_tap_75S-75N_146hPa.png
The water vapor in the stratosphere is starting to diminish. It just takes a long time.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_10hPa.pdf
Total variation in all those years of data … 2 parts per MILLION.
You can really see the HTE at 10 hPa. It may take longer than expected to get back to “normal”.
You declared the “HTE” to be over almost a year ago.
Ant is now my most fanatical stalker. Here, he has responded within 4 minutes!
And, as usual, he has no science, only false accusations.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1567432
“The HTE has ended …”
So in fact the only false accusation here was your claim that I made a false accusation.
Taking me out-of-context is a misrepresentation, Ant. That then starts your false accusation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686317
But keep stalking me. It only shows how little science you have.
There is no comment in the rest of the comment or thread which changes the meaning of “The HTE has ended”.
Nice timeseries, thanks for posting. It supports why the tropics is now cooling quite significantly from the 2024 peak, but higher latitudes are not (yet?).
I like the climate reanalyser trends, but it’s a shame it doesn’t allow one to see mid-latitudes in each hemisphere alone. That might show the extreme warming pick up first in the Southern tropics, and lag elsewhere.
Surprised by anyone that thinks 2ppm of water vapour in the stratosphere isn’t significant!
Surprised by anyone who thinks 140 ppm of CO2 in the troposphere isn’t significant.
Especially given that it there is 5 times as much gas in the troposphere than in the stratosphere, so we are talking about a factor of 350 difference.
In Sydney, the last 11 days of the month averaged 25.3C (max).
That is ridiculous for this time of the year.
In the same period we had only 0.2 mm of rain.
But that is kind of expected. As La Nina approaches, SE Australia actually tends to get drier. It is only once we get to high-end weak La Nina that it starts getting wetter again (on average). It has something to do with the latitude of the weather systems and the direction of the resulting winds.
Anton, I used to live in Sydney 5 acres in a north west suburb where I recorded daily rainfall and was caught in 3 bushfires where we lost all our fences (people died during one of the bushfires -we could see the house from our back, a house unoccupied a few doors burnt down with a roof collapse, I saved our house and that of next door). I went to boarding school in Katoomba where it snowed in winter. There is nothing special about the weather in Sydney. It can be dry for periods, it can be wet & floods (patricularly around Windsor), it can be hot above 40C for weeks and it can be cold.
Have a look at this site https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/rainfall-poster/ in particular the poster with the cyclone tracks. Look at the SOI & IPO graphs. Lots of weather changes over the years. What sort of weather was there in the Federation drought from 1899 to 1911 or 1919?
There are absolutely many more warmer days in Sydney than in past years. You hardly ever hear of a max of 12C any more, and even 15C only happens a few times a year on average. Not the case in the 70s.
And I’m only talking about winter max’s here.
As I’ve been saying for quite a few months now, there’s something seriously wrong with the data. This is an obvious step-up that needs to be questioned. Nothing in the energy budget has changed significantly, so what is supporting this step-up?
Check the CERES data.
The EEI has jumped from 0.7W/m^2 to 1.5W/m^2.
The back of my envelope calculated that the effect would be a 0.18C increase in the ENSO neutral global average temperature.
This is consistent with observations. The question is why the EEI has suddenly doubled.
Bingo.
I hope you understand that CERES EEI is made up…. CERES “estimates the top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes” from which they generate EEI. They can ‘estimate’ anything they like.
Skeptical
TOA measurements are not tahe only way of measuring EEI.
The ARGOS measurements of bulk ocean temperature allow you to calculate the rate of increase in temperature, from which you can calculate the rate of increase in ocean heat content and hence EEI.
A similar chain of reasoning allows you to calculate EEI from sea level rise using rates of thermal expansion.
Interestingly, the three independent lines of reasoning agree on the same value for EEI.
“skeptical” is correct. The “estimates” are horrible science. And, that’s not to mention fluxes don’t “balance”.
The bogus EEI is just more cult nonsense.
In CERES the changes in fluxes can be measured with great precision. It is the absolute values that need help from other measurements to pin down.
So that means the change from 0.7 to 1.5 W/m2, that jump of 0.8 W/m2 is reliable.
If the energy budget is empirically the same, then it can only be that the energy distribution is anomalous. The only credible way I can see that happening is for the oceans to be losing heat to the atmosphere. That’s the main characteristic of el Nino, yet we have heard nothing about this being a super el-Nino. What we have heard about is the sudden cut in sulphate pollution from marine fuels, but that would show up in the Earth’s overall energy budget.
My guess is that the budget must have changed measurably, and that this will show up in due course.
As I’VE been saying for a number of months now, the step-up is no different to 1998.
And by 2000 it was?
Please ask a meaningful question. What is “it”? Was WHAT?
We are talking about strong El Nino years, no no idea what 2000 has to do with anything.
The global temperature in 2000 returned to the same as before 1998.
Again – NOTHING to do with why 1998 and 2024 were so warm.
Skeptikal,
Good question. Yes, some parts of CERES EEI are estimated, there do not seem to be any papers on increased proton flux from a weakening geomagnetic field.
There are papers about electric field upticks before earth quakes but not much on the weakening geomagnetic field. Nor are there papers on the effects of the moving North and south pole. – other than some airports having to renumber runways due to the shifting magnetic north pole.
Based on the UAH temperature series, approximately 45% of the 2024 temperature anomaly can be attributed to natural, while the remaining 55% is likely a result of long-term climate change over the past 20 years.
… natural variation..
As the trend value is currently about +0.3 (with the baseline zero about 20 years ago), that is probably more like 35% trend, 65% annual variation. (Assuming your 20 year time frame)
The UAH trend last 20 years is 0.24C/decade =>+0.48 by end 2023. The UAH average for 2024 is +0.90. This amounts to about 55% of the +0.90 departure from the 1991-2000 mean.
We shouldn’t be using the last 12 months to establish the magnitude of the trend if the purpose is to determine how much 2024 is above the trend.
When I do that (Sep 2004 – Aug 2024) I get a trend of +0.29.
When I do it for Jul 2003 – Jun 2023 I get +0.18 per decade.
Antonin
The 2003-2005 periode is severely impacted by the NOAA15 drift, so I choose to start in 2006 to get a more reliable trend. Also that is a neutral ENSO phase. I stop in 2023, which was a mix of La Nina/El Nino. That way I get a more reasonable trend estimate of 0.24, rather than your extremes og 0.18 and 0.29. HadCRUT has the same trend for the same interval. I am looking for a best judgement estimate considering the uncertainty in the data.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing
that would be a less reliable approach as it moves the start date close to the 2007/8 La Nina and ending close to the 2023 El Nino.
Its pretty easy to avoid ENSO effects, Roy does work filtering that out of the data. Once our institutions cease gazing at their navel and tackle the entire subject of natural climate change it won’t take long to find additional stuff that needs filtering out.
Best practice for now is span terms across equally strong natural variations if what you are looking for is some kind of unexplained warming. the pros are well aware of that caveat.
UAH revision 6.0 in 2016 reduced the long term trend from 0.14C to 0.11C per decade. The UAH global temp trend has risen since, edging closer to the other global temperature data sets.
Trend per decade:
UAH 0.16C
NOAA 0.17C
HAD4 0.17C
GISS 0.19C
BEST 0.19C
RSS 0.21C
For the monthly NOAA data starting Dec 1978, I am getting a trend of +0.192C per decade.
I used the autocorrelation model ARMA (1,1) online trend plotter, starting in January 1979, figuring an extra month wouldn’t make much difference. This model tends to make the trend slightly smaller than straight linear regression. I’m getting GISS at 0.20 C/decade at woodfortrees with linear regression. Most of the temp data sets there are now well out of date.
UAH6.0 data is not updated since early 2023 on the ARMA (1,1) apps, so I couldn’t compare. I didn’t check very hard to see if the other data sets are up to date, though they look it,
I’m o/s and so don’t have the tools to run a linear regression through Excel.
The UAH global temp trend post 2005 is 0.24C/decade, similar to HadCRUT. Prior to 2000 it is 0.14C/decade, also very close to HadCRUT. Between 2000 and 2005 the UAH data cannot be trusted because of uncertainty in satellite drift. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing
I agree with the period of uncertainty. But that doesn’t mean you can’t trust by how much the data just after the uncertainty period exceeds the data just preceding that period.
Antonin,
That depends. Are they recording absolute temperature values or just changes over time? The same discrepancies are observed between UAH and NOAAs RATPAC-A balloon measurements. I believe UAH7.0 is overdue!
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AKhnLxqiJLmAIKCb-o_AaomYQS5qHdmB-cEqGKZ5bKw/edit?usp=sharing
The disparity with RSS is marked given that both are based on the same instruments. Among many others, one change in the UAH 6.0 revision was to the altitude weighting function: in UAH 6.0 this now more closely resembles the RSS v4.0 TTT (total troposphere) product, while RSS TLT (lower troposphere) weights the lower parts of the lower troposphere more, in some ways more similar to the older UAH approach. RSS TLT has the trend at just below 0.18, which is much closer to that in UAH 6.0. So it may be that all of these data sets are in closer agreement than seemed the case a few years back.
(Caveats apply) I ran the old UAH5.6 LT product to 2016.4 and compared with RSS4.0 TLT to the same date:
UAH5.6 : 0.151 C/decade (+/- 0.064)
RSS4.0 : 0.204 C/decade (+/- 0.065)
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Did atmospheric CO2 suddenly raidly increase to cause the temperatrue spike? Nope. The only real question to ask is why would temperature change so much without CO2 changing at all? That is how real science is done. That spike in temperature proves 100% CO2 isn’t causing climate change for anyone with an elementary school knoledge of how real science is performed.
Also, what truly unprecedented, calamitous events have transpired as a result of this marked and sustained increase in global T?
As Clara Peller would’ve said, “Where’s the Beef?”
What calamitous events? nothing unusual has happened,
Why do you believe there is a claim that annual variation is dependent on CO2?
Becasue the experts claim CO2 is the cause of 100% of the climate change and temperaratures since the start of the industrial age. Are you telling me the IPCC is lying?
Global climate change is measured over decades, not annually.
Who told you differently, CO2isLife?
Heads up … annual variation is NOT climate change.
“Becasue the experts claim CO2 is the cause of 100% of the climate change and temperaratures since the start of the industrial age.”
Actually its 105%. A partial list of the factors which can change climate includes plate tectonics, volcanoes, orbital cycles, ENSO, albedo, aerosols, land use and GHGs .
Apart from the last two the other factors are driving a slow cooling. GHGs and land use are cancelling the slow cooling trend and adding warming as well. Hence the 105%.
It’s not that difficult. The La Nina/El Nino shift caused the rapid increase in 2023/24. However, the fact that a moderate 2024-El Nino gave a UAH-peak at 1.05 versus a strong 1998-El Nino only resulted in a 0.62 peak is likely caused by the CO2 increase.
Heads up, something other than CO2 clearly alters the temperature and climate. There is an entire dicumentary titled How Climate Made History. 12,000 years of climate change and the only period where man is blamed for the natural phenemenon is the current period. You likerally have to ignore hundreds of thousands of years recorded in ice core data showing clearly wide climate cycles and for some resaon we blame man for the most recent period. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would assume what caused the past change is causing the current change. Have we ruled out past causes of climate change causing current climate change? Nope.
Easiest way to expose the fraud is to simply control for the UHI and Water Vapor when choosing the temperature record. There are literally hundreds of temperature records showing no warming what are exposed to identical CO2 levels as the other ones showing warming. How do you explain that? Something other than CO2 is causeing the climate change.
“Its not that difficult. The La Nina/El Nino shift caused the rapid increase in 2023/24.”
Bingo!!! Ding DIng DIng DIng, we have a winner. What evidence do we have that 15 micron LWIR can warm water? 0.00, nada, none, zip.
Show me a simple controlled experiment where extra 15 micron LWIR is applied to a bucket of water causing a material change in temperature. Show me just one single controlled repeatable verifiable experiment and I will believe this nonsense, just one. That experiment is step #1 for any serious science. It hasn’t been done for a reason.
What do you believe happens to 15 micron radiation when it hits water? Do you think it just vanishes, taking its energy with it into the ether?
“What do you believe happens to 15 micron radiation when it hits water? Do you think it just vanishes, taking its energy with it into the ether?”
1) Nothing close to short wave visable radiation that penetrates and actually warms water
2) 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate water, at best it can cause a slight increase is surface evaporation which would COOL the water underneath
3) 15 Micron has the energy of a black body of -80C. You don’t warm water with the energy consistent with the sublimation temperature of dry ice
Once again, that is a simple experiment to run. Someone must have run it. We’ve spent trillions with a T dollars on this theory. Someone must have run the most basic and foundation experiment…right?
CO2isLife: Once again, that is a simple experiment to run. Someone must have run it.
Of course it is simple. It is performed countless times every single day in the food service industry when they use IR lamps to keep food warmer than it would be otherwise without the lamps.
I encourage you to do it in your home. Fill a vessel of water and allow it to reach room temperature. Then turn on an IR lamp directed at the water. Do it and report what happens back to the forum here.
“Of course it is simple. It is performed countless times every single day in the food service industry when they use IR lamps to keep food warmer than it would be otherwise without the lamps.”
Masterful sophistry demonstrating an ignorance of quantum mechanics on an epic scale.
“Infrared energy relative to those frequencies is efficiently absorbed by the body. Therefore, the food absorbs infrared radiation efficiently at wavelengths greater than 2.5 m through the change in the vibration state of the mechanism of vibration, which causes its temperature rise (heating) [39].”
Carbon dioxide primarily absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths around 2.7 micrometers, 4.3 micrometers, and 15 micrometers. (Note, earth doesn’t emit 2.7 and 4.3 microns, the GHG effect is limited to 15 microns)
Yes, IR will warm things, 15 Micron LWIR won’t. At best, it triggers the sublimation of dry ice to turn from a solid to a gas.
CO2isLife
It is all too obvious that you know nothing about the reasons for past climate changes, nor the difference between climate and weather.
bdgwx demonstrates his ignorance of physics, again.
Infrared heating used in the food industry employs high temperature bulbs, often over 1000°F. The emitted photons include photons “hot” enough to not only warm food, but to even cook it. Infrared is NOT all the same. The cult can’t understand this. (The cult won’t even be able to understand what I mean by a “hot” photon.)
CO2 is life.
Light reading. It’s much more than just a question of whether the ocean surface can absorb 15 micron IR. Pay particular attention to the reference list and the last but one paragraph of the Discussion.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351#:
CO2isLife
Cool. Now answer my question.
CO2isLife, have you done the experiment yet?
“Show me a simple controlled experiment where extra 15 micron LWIR is applied to a bucket of water causing a material change in temperature.”
CO2IL, you have never listened.
There is nothing special about 15 micron IR vs. 10 micron or 20 micron, with respect to water.
Why?
Because they all are strongly abs0rbed by liquid water. Because the emissivity of water is very close to 1 over a broad range of LWIR.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-The-measured-and-simulated-spectral-emissivity-of-water-surface-b-Same-as-a_fig3_303958048
And Kirchhoff’s law,states that emissivity = abs0rbtivity.
Thus we know that water abs0rbs strongly over a broad range of LWIR wavelengths.
And as I explained to you several times, this is an easy experiment to demonstrate. Shine a cheap LWIR source, a ceramic IR heater for reptile pets, downward onto a bucket of water.
It warms! Try it yourself, this time.
Satellite tilt still not getting fixed
Accusations still not being substantiated.
Surface temps are also running extremely high the last couple of years, as have radiosonde temps of the troposphere, so it’s not to do with ‘satellite tilt.’
Appears device still broke.
Andrew
The only thing “broke” is the METHOD of inferring surface temperatures from temperatures on average 3 km above the surface.
Just for the record, John Christy and I do not promote the LT temperature as a replacement for surface temperature, although they are certainly related, with LT supposedly providing a stronger signal than the surface (according to theory). -Roy
Roy,
Thanks for getting the update out on labor day.
Roy
We all know that the trend reverses in the stratosphere.
Do you happen to know the crossover altitude, ie. the altitude of zero trend?
And is there any research on how the trend varies between the surface and the zero-trend altitude? Can it be assumed to be approximately linear?
Hayman Capital Management founder and CIO Kyle Bass explained in a Bloomberg interview that the mounting backlash against environmental, social, and governance investing in recent years is primarily a response to the extreme demands of radical climate activists, or “green” defenders. Bass argued that these activists were so disconnected from reality that their uncompromising stance on blackballing the fossil fuel industrywithout acknowledging that energy transitions can take upwards of half a centuryhas fueled the backlash. He said plans to moderate fossil fuel usage over decades from the start would’ve possibly prevented the backlash.
Bass said the ESG backlash derives from climate activists’ demands that fossil fuels be abandoned immediately. He said the demands were never realistic.
“There were all of these idiots that were just saying, if anyone is doing hydrocarbons, we’re going to blackball them from doing business or from receiving capital,” Bass said, adding, “And so Texas lashed back and said, if you’re going to blackball someone that’s producing hydrocarbons, we’re not going to do business with you either.”
Google: Kyle Bass Says ‘Green’ War To Blackball Oil Was Doomed To Fail
For the link.
Any chance you could learn how to post a link?
As the vast majority of people understand that a transition is necessary, rather than the fringe idea of an immediate total cessation of fossil fuel use, this is no doubt yet another sensationalist bit of reporting that amplifies the voices of a powerless few to get a few clicks from the outraged. Quite a strong market these days.
When I post a link it gets caught in moderation limbo.
There’s a considerable list of words and letter combinations that moderation won’t digest.
Try saving each comment before you post, then if it doesn’t appear, try putting it up one paragraph at a time till you find the problem.
You can convert links that don’t post here at tinyurl:
https://tinyurl.com/
This will work most of the time, but occasionally a tinyurl will contain the forbidden strings and prevent the post going thru.
Here is the Monckton Pause update for August. At its peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is now +0.40 C/decade.
Here are some more trends…
1st half: +0.14 C.decade-1
2nd half: +0.23 C.decade-1
Last 10 years: +0.39 C.decade-1
Last 15 years: +0.37 C.decade-1
Last 20 years: +0.30 C.decade-1
Last 25 years: +0.22 C.decade-1
Last 30 years: +0.18 C.decade-1
The warming rate acceleration is now +0.028 C.decade-2.
Question for those who thought the Monckton pause was meaningful:
Is the trend of 0.4 C/decade from the same start date just as meaningful?
Feeling cold, cold, cold! This summer was Britain’s coolest in 9 YEARS, Met Office confirms
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13804935/summer-Britain-coldest-9-YEARS-Met-Office.html
London was pretty damned hot through July and August. Just started cooling off lately. Edinburgh had a pretty cool Summer. It was hard to figure out what to wear out with the weather changing through the day.
Read the article. You saying the British Met Office is wrong?
“Average temperature across the UK was 14.37C over June, July and August”
Did I contradict the article? I’ve been in London and Edinburgh the last couple of months. You saying I can’t tell if it’s hot or not?
“The Met Office has confirmed that this summer was the coldest in Britain since 2015.
The average temperature across the UK was just 14.37C over June, July and August – 0.22C below the long-term average.”
Individual days have been hot. The average (mean) has been low.
> Read the article.
Good idea:
Do you dispute that claim?
Nope. The UK as a whole has been colder this year. So sayeth the Met Office.
> Nope.
Then you have no grounds to dispute what Barry said.
You might still quarrel over it, as is your wont.
Ranks from the Met Office:
June 61/141
July 54/141
Aug 24/141
And May was 1/141
“Then you have no grounds to dispute what Barry said.”
Barry said the story was accurate.
May is not in the Summer here in the UK.
> Barry said
That London was pretty damned hot through July and August.
Do you dispute that?
RLH
You:
“The UK as a whole has been colder THIS YEAR.”
Pretending you were making only one claim. Just keep dodging and weaving.
UK Jan-Aug Ranks (out of 141):
1. 2022 (10.49)
2. 2014 & 2023 (10.18)
4. 2024 (10.16)
5. 2020 (10.11)
6. 1990 & 2003 (10.06)
8. 2017 (10.05)
9. 2007 (10.04)
10. 2019 (10.00)
90th Percentile (9.71)
Upper Quartile (9.33)
Median (8.75)
Lower Quartile (8.29)
10th Percentile (7.84)
.
.
.
Now specifically for England (Jan-Aug)
1. 2022 (11.43)
2. 2020 & 2024 (11.19)
4. 1990 & 2014 (11.04)
6. 2017 (10.98)
7. 2023 (10.95)
8. 2007 (10.93)
9. 2003 (10.83)
10. 2019 (10.81)
90th Percentile (10.63)
Upper Quartile (10.10)
Median (9.53)
Lower Quartile (8.99)
10th Percentile (8.51)
You won’t engage with these stats because you don’t want to know.
“Barry said the story was accurate.”
That’s not what I said, though I assume it was.
I have it the coolest since 1986 . apart from the southern counties, fields of barley were still green in Northumberland in mid August.
Temperatures in the western equatorial Pacific are falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Well it seems that the Great Barrier Reef is not threatened. That’s the most important thing.https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_aus_1.png
The SOI ratio is close to 8.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
The Southern Oscillation Index or SOI is a standardised index of the barometric pressures over Darwin, Australia and Tahiti. Climate scientists use the SOI to assess the strength of the El Nio Southern Oscillation phenomenon (or ENSO), which in Queensland accounts for nearly 25 per cent of our year-to-year rainfall variability. For example, it is often wetter during a La Nia classified year (when the sustained SOI is very positive (higher than +7)) and drier during an El Nio classified year (when the sustained SOI is very negative (lower than -7)). The index scale ranges from about +35 to -35 using the Troup method of calculation used on Long Paddock.
Since the ocean maintains temperature much longer than the atmosphere and land, the global temperature is also limited by the temperature of the ocean surface. The mass of the atmosphere and the pressure near the surface control the evaporation of the ocean.
Since the pressure near the surface is fairly constant, evaporation increases as solar radiation increases.
There is a constant average temperature gradient in the troposphere, which operates until the atmosphere reaches a pressure of about 100 hPa, and this is the case on all planets that have a fairly dense atmosphere (well above 100 hPa at the surface).
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2024.png
“Based on the information provided in the search results, there does not appear to be any ocean surface that maintains an average temperature higher than 30C (86F) year-round. However, some key points regarding ocean surface temperatures:
There seems to be an upper limit or thermal cap on ocean surface temperatures around 30-31C (86-88F). As mentioned in result , a histogram of observed ocean temperatures shows a sharp cutoff around 31C.
While temperatures can briefly exceed 30C in some areas, this appears to be during short-term heat waves rather than sustained averages. For example, result mentions marine heat waves in the Mediterranean reaching over 30C in summer 2023.
The highest regular sea surface temperatures are typically found in tropical regions like the Pacific Warm Pool northeast of Australia, which reaches around 30-31C at its maximum but does not maintain that temperature year-round.
Historical evidence suggests that in much warmer climates of the past, like the Eocene period, tropical sea surface temperatures may have exceeded 35C (95F). However, this is not observed in the current climate.”
RickWill
You should try Perplexity AI:
https://www.perplexity.ai
In summary, the average annual ocean surface temperature in the tropics is about 27-29C, with slight seasonal variations. These values are higher than in other regions due to the large amounts of solar energy reaching these areas throughout the year.
“Attempts to relate directly the curvature of vertical temperature gradient in the TSL and EM skin layer, as
developed by Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b), to changes in the incident IR radiation did not produce a
convincing dependence, at least on the time scales of our measurements. Revealing such a relationship will
require more sensitive instruments than are currently available.
How can you have “settled science” when the instrumentation to settle such science doesn’t exist? Thanks ET.
Ocean warming
has been shown to account for over 90% of the increase in energy accumulated in the climate system
between years 1971 and 2010 (IPCC, 2014).
It is, however, not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the oceans heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean. This is because the penetration depth of IR radiation in water is within submillimeter scales (Figure 1) thereby implying that the incident longwave radiation does not directly heat the layers beyond the top submillimeter of the ocean surface.
Given the mean vertical temperature gradient of the TSL, heat typically flows from the ocean to the atmosphere, therefore heat from the absorption of longwave radiation will be conducted upward, back to the sea surface. This raises questions about the cause of the observed increase in upper OHC as it suggests that all heat due to the absorption of increased longwave radiation should be concentrated in the upper submillimeter from the interface.
All that research to prove an unlikely hypothesis and all they needed to do was to run a controlled experiment using a long pass IR FIlter. Why do they complicate such a simple situation?
Once again, IR will warm H2O, 15 Micron LWIR will not. Not all wavelengths are created equal. CO2 only deals in 15 micron.
CO2isLife
Consider this point on your water discussion and IR from CO2.
Water can emit the 15 micron photon and hence can absorb it.
With the DWIR from CO2 (mostly in the 15 micron band of IR) hitting the water surface what it will do is negate the 15 micron photon energy loss from the water surface as the emitted one is replaced with the DWIR. Note such a process will not warm up water. It will slow the cooling rate by reducing how much energy the water will lose by emitting 15 micron IR.
GHE does not claim atmosphere is warming the surface as an independent heat source. It slows the cooling like insulation does.
The surface is primarily heated by solar energy. If you increase the insulating effect by adding more GHG (which are transparent to visible light but not so for IR) you reduce the surface cooling rate (water included). This allows the solar heating to drive the surface to a higher temperature until the outgoing energy equals the incoming. Then the temperature stabilizes.
If you understand the GHE as an insulation to radiant energy it will all make sense to you. You will understand how CO2 can lead to a warmer ocean simply by reducing the rate the surface loses energy via radiant energy. It will still lose energy by evaporation that is a different mechanism. Decreasing any of the heat loss mechanisms (conduction, convection, or radiant energy) will cause a heated surface to achieve a higher temperature than in a comparable system in which there are nothing restricting the heat loss. Adding CO2 adds a bit to surface insulating effect.
Norman, you’re still making the same mistakes. Low energy photons (relative to surface temperature) are not absorbed, they’re reflected. And even if some low energy photons are absorbed, they will not raise surface temperature. It is NOT energy that raises temperatures, it takes the “right kind” of energy. Entropy is involved. That’s why ice cubes cannot boil water.
You’re also confusing nighttime with daytime. You believe insulation keeps surface warm so when daylight happens, Sun will cause surface warming. Daytime is NOT the GHE. Sun warms Earth both day and night. You’re just looking for ways to believe in the GHE nonsense. It’s a false belief. It ain’t science.
If you want to see some REAL global warming, study the HTE. Disruptions in the Polar Vortex combined with water vapor in the Stratosphere raised global temperatures over the last two years. Learn some science starting with this link provided by Richard M:
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_10hPa.pdf
The HTE did things CO2 can not do. That’s why the cult tries so hard to discredit it.
> It is, however, not clear how the greenhouse effect directly affects the oceans heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean.
It is not clear if this is not hasty patch writing:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686585
Perhaps one day you’ll get to
The explanation is provided a bit below.
Try not to churn away from it.
OMG!!! Entropic Man posted link to research that seeked to prove CO2 can cause the oceans to warm, and anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand it proves just the opposite. If this got past peer review, there is a serious problem with peer review.
“The direction of flow of heat is almost always from the
ocean to the atmosphere meaning that the surface temperature is
cooler than the temperature below the TSL (Figure 2).”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351
Sig says:
September 2, 2024 at 10:13 AM
CO2isLife
It is all too obvious that you know nothing about the reasons for past climate changes, nor the difference between climate and weather.
Hey Sig, why don’t you enlighten me. Please explain how SUVs and CO2 caused the Old Kingdom Collapse, Minoan and Roman Warming, Bronze Age Collapse, Little Ice Age and the Coming Ice Age of the 1970s?
CO2 is life
Ocean heat flow for dummies.
Sunlight passes through the surface and warms the water beneath, making the ocean warmer than the air above it.
Heat flows down the thermal gradient from ocean to atmosphere by conduction and radiation.
IR back radiation warms the surface, creating a warm film which reduces the temperature gradient and slows heat loss from the ocean.
Reduced heat loss increases the equilibrium temperature.
ent…this theory is not for dummies, it is by dummies.
1)How does sunlight pass through a water surface when it is electrons in the surface water molecules that absorbs the sunlight? There is no known mechanism by which sunlight can ignore the surface molecules and directly heat sub-surface molecules. Explains how that can happen? It is nothing more than an incorrect supposition by alarmist trying to support the equally inane anthropogenic theory.
2)How does heat flow down a hypothetical thermal gradient when air is a very poor conductor of heat. A very thin layer of air can absorb heat via conduction at a surface but without convection the heat will go nowhere. That’s why Lindzen claimed the surface temperature would rise to 70C without convection, much like in a real greenhouse.
So, there’s your greenhouse theory, which is killed by convection, just as in the atmosphere.
Thermal gradients exist only in solid substances and perhaps in liquids, but not in a gas like air, where heat conduction is insignificant. Heat can only move through air via convection, the one heat transport method you omitted. With convection, heat is moved by a bulk flow of air molecules.
3)How does IR back-radiation warm a surface that is warmer than the source? That’s a direct contravention of the 2nd law.
CO2isLife
I have not claimed that SUVs and CO2 emissions caused any of this. The collapse of kingdoms and societies doesnt necessarily have to be driven by climate change. I havent heard anyone suggesting that climate change was a factor in the fall of the Mongolian Empire, the indigenous cultures of North and South America during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Napoleonic Empire, the German Reich, or the Soviet Union. According to Donald Trump, it even seems like the U.S. might be heading in a similar direction.
However, I get the impression that you subscribe to the idea of historical warm and cold periods, first proposed by Don Easterbrook based on a single ice core from Greenland, which has since gained popularity among climate change deniers. His interpretation appears to suggest that life flourished during warm periods and collapsed during cooler ones. This perspective overlooks the fact that in regions like Egypt and the Mediterranean, excessive heat and droughts pose far greater threats.
Recent temperature reconstructions based on global proxies do not show such dramatic fluctuations. Instead, they reveal a gradual cooling trend that was abruptly reversed by unnatural warming over the last 100-200 years. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V-HMlQ7kItBJVq3Bqg3vtpH8XuZevCBKWnm08eIzEiU/edit?usp=sharing
The cooling during the Little Ice Age is primarily associated with the Northern Hemisphere. It was mainly caused by reduced insolation in the north, which was further exacerbated by several large volcanic eruptions. The feared “Coming Ice Age” has effectively been canceled by our greenhouse gas emissions. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SIJ-75WG-jXt_MQ88rmDUkMdMc4XK-P5tVAa2QjoxQQ/edit?usp=sharing
sig…explain how the Northern Hemisphere cooled 1C to 2C over a 400 year period while the rest of the planet was unaffected. How was solar input blocked in the NH for 400+ years while the SH was unaffected. Volcanic aerosols might affect a region for several months or a year, but not for 400 years.
There was no known volcanic activity in Europe between 1300 AD and 1850 AD yet the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps extended so much that it wiped out long-established villages and farms in its path. That is proof by itself that the Mer de Glace glacier had already expanded by 1850 and that its subsequent recession was not related to anthropogenic warming. It was simply melting back to where it was before the Little Ice Age.
It takes seriously cold weather to expand a glacier to that extent and the notion that such a cold climate existed only in the Northern Hemisphere is ingenuous. However, that’s all the IPCC has to carry on with its propaganda that a trace gas is causing the warming since 1850. It must disregard re-warming from the LIA or its anthropogenic theory makes little sense.
Gordo wrote more complete BS:
He carefully limits his post to “known volcanic activity in Europe”, ignoring the fact that volcanoes impact climate around the entire planet. Events such as the “1259 event” (as it was once called), the 1453 Kuwae, 1783-84 Laki, Iceland, 1815 Krakatoa, etc, all resulted in short term cooling.
Nice work, Gordo, will you get a Gold Star for your efforts?
Gordon,
explain how the Northern Hemisphere cooled 1C to 2C over a 400 year period while the rest of the planet was unaffected. How was solar input blocked in the NH for 400+ years while the SH was unaffected.
Well, Gordon, it seems you’re not entirely familiar with the Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch, over a century ago, explained that the changes in Earth’s insolation during northern hemisphere summers, particularly around 62N, are the primary triggers for transitions between glacial and interglacial periods. Over the past 9,000 years, midsummer insolation at this latitude has decreased by about 10% due to changes in the Earth’s axial tilt and orbital eccentricity. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SIJ-75WG-jXt_MQ88rmDUkMdMc4XK-P5tVAa2QjoxQQ/edit?usp=sharing
Today, perihelionwhen Earth is closest to the Sunoccurs in early January, when the Sun is low on the horizon in the northern hemisphere, making this insolation less impactful. In contrast, in the southern hemisphere, perihelion occurs during summer (January), which enhances insolation and has a more significant warming effect. This perfectly explains your observation: cooling trends in the north and more stable temperatures in the south. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xrFfHhltHMTtMsUAv0tGInpw0Yc8JvLXczUqWX4zPmQ/edit?usp=sharing
Moreover, it appears you may be struggling to grasp the impact of volcanic activity. Large volcanic eruptions that release sulfur into the stratosphere can cause global cooling lasting several years. The eruption doesnt have to occur in Europe to affect European weather. For instance, the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia led to “the year without a summer” in both Europe and North America in 1816. Additionally, the increased ice and snow caused by such cooling events can trigger positive feedback mechanisms, prolonging the effects. There were several large eruptions between 1250 and the early 1800s, contributing to this cooling.
Periods of low solar activity may also have played a role in the cooling.
The Northern Hemisphere temperature drop of 1-2C over 400 years, is equivalent to a cooling rate of -0.025 to -0.05C per decade. Since 1970, however, NOAA estimates that the Northern Hemisphere has seen a temperature increase of 1.5C, or +0.27C per decadea rate 5 to 10 times faster than the historical cooling.
This is a completely different ball game and not comparable to the slow, natural cooling processes of the past. “Simply melting back” is not a scientifically valid explanation for the rapid changes we’re witnessing.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1eJh5__g6r1hq0kttQZcZnwLEML6OwCapOs8hXyavq2A/edit?usp=sharing
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Ocean warming, primarily resulting from the escalating levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leads to a rise in the temperature of the Earth’s oceans. These gases act as heat-trapping agents, contributing to the overall phenomenon of global warming. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how ocean warming impacts marine ecosystems, a thorough literature review was conducted over a span of three decades, involving 2484 initial publications. The systematic literature review screening was facilitated by utilizing Abstrackr’s web-based application to efficiently select relevant abstracts, resulting in a final list of 797 publications aligned with the study’s objectives. Since the advent of the industrial revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have witnessed an exponential surge, leading to a cumulative increase in atmospheric temperatures at an average rate of 0.08 C (0.14 F) per decade since 1880. Over the past 50 years, the ocean has emerged as a primary heat reservoir, absorbing and distributing the majority of the Earth’s warming, with more than 90% of the heat gain occurring within its waters. Between 1950 and 2020, the global sea surface temperature (SST) increased by 0.11 C (0.19 F). The consequences of ocean warming extend significantly to the environment and climate. It induces the expansion of the ocean, alters its stratification and currents, diminishes oxygen availability, elevates sea levels, and intensifies hurricanes and storms. It also affects marine species’ physiology, abundance, distribution, trophic interactions, survival, and mortality and can also cause stress and consequences for human societies that depend on impacted marine resources. Ocean warming is projected to increase from 2 to 4 and 4-8 times under climate scenarios Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 1-2.6 and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 5-8.5, respectively, with an additional 0.6-2.0 C added by the end of the century. We summarize its impacts and detailed negative or positive responses on marine taxonomic groups. We also provide critical information to help stakeholders, scientists, managers, and decision-makers to mitigate and adapt while improving biodiversity conservation and sustainability of marine ecosystems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064523000681
Perhaps that’s not “direct” enough.
Williard, sorry, making a claim isn’t evidence that 15 micron LWIR can warm water. Also, SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is related to incomeing high energy short wave visible radiation, not LWIR.
> making a claim isnt evidence
I thought you asked for an explanation.
One sammich at a time, please.
“making a claim isnt evidence”
Now apply that to your “HTE”.
CO2 is life, Ken
“evidence that 15 micron LWIR can warm water. ”
I just gave you a review paper on the subject, which you rejected. While the details are fiendishly complex, the outcome can be visualized very easily.
Sketch a graph.
The X axis is distance, from 1 m below the surface (-1) to 1 metre above the surface (+1).
The Y axis is temperature change, from 0 to +2.
Draw the temperature gradient without DWLR as a straight line from -1,2 to 1/0.
Now add the effect of DWLR on the surface temperature as a line from 0,1 to 0,1.1.
Finally draw the temperature gradient with DWLR as a line from -1,2 to 0,1.1 and on to 1/0.
Note that the DWLR has reduced the slope of the temperature gradient below the water surface, which slows the rate of heat flow from ocean bulk to the surface.
The Law of Limiting Factors says that the overall rate of a process is the rate of the slowest part. Slowing the heat flow upward to the surface slows the whole process of heat flow from ocean to atmosphere and leads to warmer ocean temperatures.
Ent, you’re STILL making the same mistake as your cult.
Not all infrared is the same. You can’t seem to understand that. Some IR can warm water, but some can’t. CO2’s 15μ photons are in the “can’t” group.
If fact, a 15μ photon has even less useable energy than a photon at peak emission from ice!
You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Puffman you still mistake special pleading for a valid form of argument.
And you are still stalking EM.
You have a very hard case to make that an increase of 0.11C over a period of 70 years … particularly when you consider how sparce is the record and the virtual non-existence of records prior 1950 … that there are any significant consequences.
There is no trend in any of the items you’ve listed that can be attributed to CO2 or the miniscule increase in SST except for ocean expansion. Too, ocean expansion due to ocean warming has been going on since the start of the Holocene.
Further, you haven’t shown or made the case how there is any other mechanism affecting ocean than direct solar warming.
Have you any evidence CO2 emissions are causing ocean temperatures and SST (which is not really an indicator of ocean temperatures) to increase?
> You have a very hard case to make that
No, I actually don’t.
The actual sammich was meant to explain “how the greenhouse effect directly affects the oceans heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean.”
Want to take a bite?
So you don’t have any case to make. Why are you spouting nonsense as if it were ‘fact’.
No vegemite sammich for you.
> So you dont have any case to make.
Not the one you request. It is not a commitment I have right now. And I don’t owe you anything.
Perhaps you could convince someone that you researched that Very Important Topic.
Show us your homework.
“And I dont owe you anything.”
Actually you do owe me. You’ve made a claim that you cannot support and you expect everyone on this thread to believe your unsupported claims.
If You’ve made the decision to make a statement here then you have entered into a social contract where you have an obligation to answer.
Else you are nothing but a ‘trull’.
> You’ve made a claim
Which claim was that?
Here’s what a claim looks like:
Have you supported it? No.
Have you showed that you researched it? No.
Is it implied by what I was saying? No.
Is it just the usual Contrarian Two Step? You bet.
***
When are you going to carry your own weight on the field? If you think that burdening with your own homework will do, pace the Son of Lobster – think again, Sunshine!
Now, go clean your room and find back your homework.
“Over the past 50 years, the ocean has emerged as a primary heat reservoir, absorbing and distributing the majority of the Earths warming, with more than 90% of the heat gain occurring within its waters. Between 1950 and 2020, the global sea surface temperature (SST) increased by 0.11 C (0.19 F). The consequences of ocean warming extend significantly to the environment and climate. It induces the expansion of the ocean, alters its stratification and currents, diminishes oxygen availability, elevates sea levels, and intensifies hurricanes and storms. It also affects marine species physiology, abundance, distribution, trophic interactions, survival, and mortality and can also cause stress and consequences for human societies that depend on impacted marine resources.”
Its you that are making the outrageous claim so its up to you to support the claim.
I don’t need to research anything; your entire claim is prima facie wrong.
To suggest that an SST increase of 0.11F means for example more frequent or more intense hurricanes, requires evidence. Meanwhile your claim is not supported by any salient data.
> Its you that are making the outrageous claim so its up to you to support the claim.
It’s actually a quote from the abstract of a paper, and the claim is actually supported in the paper, which you obviously haven’t read.
Now, my turn: where’s the support for your “outrageous”?
> I dont need to research anything; your entire claim is prima facie wrong.
Purest denial is very hard to find.
Yet another alarmist theory based on speculation and consensus. No scientific fact.
So … like the “HTE” then …
There is no other theory to explain the recent spike. No one knows what caused it and that includes any anthropogenic theory. All we have is the HTE and the amount of water it dumped into the stratosphere, a normally-desert-like region of the atmosphere, seems to be an important clue.
There is always the possibility that the spike is natural variability. We imply have not been studying the atmosphere long enough to know. However, Tsonis et al did a study of ocean oscillations and their effect dating back a century and concluded that such warming/cooling is related to the ocean oscillations.
> There is no other theory to explain the recent spike.
The paper isn’t about the recent spike.
Go peddle that talking point elsewhere.
Gordon
As stated before, we all know you read EVERY post here.
Please read my comment about the spike.
Tell me – by what process does water vapour warm the planet if there is no greenhouse effect?
What I said to GR also applies to the superintendent.
Someone here is still very NaCly.
Is the superintendant in a BDSM relationship with GR?
In any event, he can always reiterate his request down thread, in its own special place.
Perhaps tomorrow would be best, as he already busted his comment limit for the day.
Willard
Sep 2
12 comments
Meanwhile, the superintendent wrote 54 comments in this thread since yesterday.
But fair enough. See you tomorrow.
I’m not the one who is complaining about the numbers. Just the content.
Lest we forget:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683625
Were the superintendent truthful that it would matter little. This is not his blog. Nobody ought to care about his own concerns. By contrast, Roy expressed a wish to limit the number of comments to 10 per day per user. The least we could do is to abide by it. Now.
Sure, the superintendent might find it unfair. After all, he will soon disappear for the month. Still, he made more than 20% of the comments here. Mostly humourless reprimands, notwithstanding his homophobic barb,
Next time, I will not forget about Central Time.
The UK may have had a cooler summer, but don’t be distracted from the overall trend of warming summers:
https://postimg.cc/wRYpBnYw
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
“The UK may have had a cooler summer”
According to the Met Office it did.
Above the median, so still warm.
August more than 1C above the median.
“Above the median, so still warm.”
You have actual evidence for that median?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/8/Tmean/UK.gif
The data:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/date/UK.txt
Can I assume you have the ability to work out the median? Or am I assuming too much?
BTW, thanks for your graph which shows clearly that Aug 24 was well above the median – above the upper quartile in fact.
“August more than 1C above the median.”
For August?
“Monthly, seasonal and annual mean air temperature for UK”
The August median (1884-2024) is 14.3C, and August 2024 was 15.4C.
Which of those numbers are you challenging?
Trends tell you nothing over the short term.
A trend tells you that a “cold” month nowadays would have been even colder without the trend.
If that were not true, we would still be getting months of -0.4 and colder.
I said ‘over the short term’. Why do alarmist scientists have such a penchant for ignoring the warming during the 1930s, where records were set for heat waves and high temperatures? What caused that warming and why did it stop? Is it possible that our current warming is just another variation?
I prefer to wait and see what develops and I don’t buy into the hysteria that we must act now. I have no faith in current politicians and their ability to assess the available science.
Having said that, I certainly hope we are not headed for another LIA.
[JW] don’t be distracted from the overall trend of warming summers
[GR] Trends tell you nothing over the short term.
Is this a case of violent agreement?
Willard
Gordon Robertson has been on these forums for years (decades?), and I don’t think his talking points have changed. Is my observation correct?
The warming you refer to from the 30s was only a regional American thing. The US occupies 2% of the globe.
Further, 4 of the 10 years of the 30s in the US were below average … 1930, 1932, 1935 and 1937.
By further cherry picking, I’m sure you can find another tiny region or two which was warm for various months in the 30s, and transfer that to the whole globe and the whole decade.
The warming from the 1930s is alleged to have affected only North America. Was anyone looking, or interested? I mean, in the 1930s, who was checking?
Any records we have were primarily kept in the US since most stations were located there. Why would there be warming only in the US and not elsewhere? Why would there be 10 years of record heat waves only in the US? By what mechanism would that occur?
One I can think of might be an issue with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the PDO, ENSO, or all three combined. A study by Tsonis et al, dating back a century, even though the AMO, PDO and ENSO had not been formally discovered, indicated that these three working in conjunction and opposition could explain global warming as we know it. If that is the case, why would the ocean oscillation not be considered as a cause of any warming cooling?
I realize it is likely asking too much of you to think that far out of the box. You seem more concerned with wearing your shorts in the middle of an Oz winter.
There are plenty of records from around the world. The UK and Australia are the easiest to find.
If you are really interested in knowing the answer, you could easily do some googling. But you won’t because you might find something you don’t like.
And it wasn’t even all of the US. For a number of states it wasn’t even the warmest decade up to that point.
JW,
My favourite bit remains:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
So, at least since 2008.
The very best thing in Marohasy’s post
” Gordon Robertson on a Molten Core ”
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
is the link at her post’s end:
Posted by: Gordon Robertson at August 17, 2008 08:18 AM
which links to a dead end:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003331.html
Even in the Web Archive’s oldest crawl (Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:12:47 GMT)
https://web.archive.org/web/20120401085611/http://jennifermarohasy.com/archives/003331.html
nothing to see, move along!
Excellent.
“Above the median, so still warm.”
You have actual evidence for that median?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686277
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/polar-vortex/polar-vortex-acting
“a disrupted polar vortex increases the odds that the tropospheric jet stream will stay shifted farther south, which increases the risk for COLD air outbreaks over the eastern United States and Europe”
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/polar-vortex-winds-graph-20240404.png
This shows that the Arctic polar vortex was actually STRONGER than normal through most of 2023, and only weakened just as Clint was telling us that “the HTE has ended”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1567432
The vortex is affected by the rotation of the Earth and the difference in temperatures between the Arctic region and the Tropics. It is also affected in the Arctic by the stratosphere, which is much closer to the surface in that region than at the Equator.
During the Arctic winter, when there is little or no solar input, the frigid air of the stratosphere descends to the surface. It would normally be very dry air but with millions of tons of water injected into it, there is no telling what effect that will have.
The fact that it varied in 2023 is no surprise. It normally varies summer to winter in the NH anyway.
Why are you glossing over the point? Clint was telling us all through 2023 how weak the polar vortex was, when in fact it was not. When Clint “informed” us in Dec 2023 that the HTE was over, THAT was when it weakened.
So basically … he was speaking out of his ass. And you choose to believe him.
clint was the first to twig onto the theory. I don’t think he has done anything other than theorize about the likely connection between HTE and the current warming spike.
Do you have a better explanation?
He was doing more than theorising … he was stating that anyone who disagrees with him “doesn’t understand science”.
Why is it that you refuse to look at my posts on the spike, despite numerous requests for you to do so.
Ant has found a link he can’t understand. Surprise, surprise.
And he takes my words out of context. Surprise, surprise.
Ant won’t understand but the context was considering ONLY the Polar Vortex disruption as part to the HTE. I was not talking about the other theories, such as water vapor, and ozone/chlorine chemistries. The PV aspect of HTE appears to have ended. The water vapor aspect still continues, even though it is lessening.
Watch Ant continue stalking me. That’s why this is so much fun.
“The HTE has ended” means exactly what it says.
And I’ve already linked to you saying that the “HTE” has nothing to do with water vapour.
Funny how the weakening of the Arctic cortex only began when you said it was over.
Spin Spin Spin …
Aa I stated Ant, you won’t be able to understand.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
As usual Clint, you make such a claim without explaining ANYTHING. This is how your science works. (Of course, its really your politics in play.)
Wrong again, Ant. I’ve explained this several times. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You don’t appreciated science.
And “politics”? I’m not the one that stalks people while hurling false accusations.
Much ado about nothing,
As Roy pointed out above, the global average is being skewed by a very slight warming in regions of the Southern Hemisphere.
Anyone who has studied the UAH global contour maps understands that warming and cooling is variable month to month. In regions of the Arctic, warming extends to +5C in spots and next months the spot has moved. Meantime, in other regions of the planet, temperatures are -4C cooler. The global average then works out to about +1C.
It is important to understand that the term global warming is in fact a mathematical average between warming and cooling. The fact that much of the warming is in colder regions like the Arctic speaks volumes. The entire concept of global warming is a statistically-based argument and not much in the way of fact.
As Will Happer points out, it is a scam. He claimed he’d settle for hoax but he thinks scam is more appropriate.
Statistics provide valuable insights, and the evidence for global warming extends beyond numbers. We see it in the melting ice, the reduction in cloud cover, the upward shift of tree lines across the globe, and rising sea levels, among many other signs. The reality of global warming is undeniable and happening right before our eyes.
We are still recovering from the 400+ year Little Ice Age. According to geophysicist Syun Akasofu, the re-warming should take place at a rate of about 0.5C/century. In nearly 2 centuries we have warmed only 1C, on average. We may have a long way to go yet to get back to our ‘normal’ temperature.
The delay in warming is due to our frigid winters in the NH and SH. Therefore, Akasofu’s guess is only that, a guess.
We should be talking about stuff like this rather than hiding from it as does the IPCC.
(1) Where did you pull your 0.5C per century from?
(2) We have warmed by 1C in just over 50 years. We have warmed by 0.3C in the last decade.
Gordon Robertson:
“The entire concept of global warming is a statistically-based argument and not much in the way of fact.
As Will Happer points out, it is a scam.”
Also Gordon Robertson:
“We are still recovering from the 400+ year Little Ice Age…
We may have a long way to go yet to get back to our ‘normal’ temperature.”
Man contradicts himself from one post to the next.
“It is important to understand that the term global warming is in fact a mathematical average between warming and cooling.”
It’s also important to understand that the term batting average is in fact a mathematical average between hits and outs.
david…having played sports much of my life at a decently high level, and although there are bean-counters today who thrive on statistics, I know from experience they are often misleading.
I cannot forget the number of times a team I was on was meant to beat another team due to stats only to have been humiliated by a loss to them. There are even teams today that count the number of passes in soccer and think it relevant, so we are now subjected to boring soccer games as teams try to complete as many passes in a row as they can.
Scottish comedian Billy Connolley, commenting on the Scottish national team, quipped that someone needs to tell them the point of the game is to put the ball between the two poles at the other end of the park. It has nothing to do with statistics and it used to be about skill. Alas, too many soccer players got nose-bleeds from the training required to run for 90 minutes, so today, they have altered the game so most of the players can stand around playing tic-tac-tow like a load of buskers.
Relating that to the global average, the entire planet has not warmed uniformly. There is still a disparity of close to 1C…again on average, between the hotter ‘spots’ and the cooler ‘spots’. This is compounded by the fact that the anomalies used are referenced locally.
If you look at a UAH temperature contour map, you can plainly see that regions in the Arctic, which vary month to month are as much as 5C warmer than their average whereas regions in the Tropics don’t even warm.
It’s a mugs game. A 1C average warming over 174 years (since 1850) is literally insignificant, yet we are hysterically crying about catastrophic warming and climate change.
Climate alarmists need to go on a course of Prozak to combat their self-induced anxiety and depression. Don’t know if a medication exists for hysteria.
328 words that preface the only one that matters, the A-word.
Perhaps we ought to celebrate less than 350-word digressions.
“davidhaving played sports much of my life at a decently high level, and although there are bean-counters today who thrive on statistics, I know from experience they are often misleading.”
Yeah, man, we don’t need no stinkin’ statistics. I know from experience, Ray Oyler was every bit the hitter Ted Williams was. Any statistics to the contrary are simply misleading. And don’t get me started with trends in global temperature. Don’t even get me started.
Gordon, reading through all the nit picking and contradictory rhetoric it was refreshing to read your post. Predicting weather beyond a few weeks was mathematically proven impossible fifty years ago; and climate is orders of magnitude more UNPREDICTABLE. A simple thought experiment reveals that increasing ocean and polar region temperatures causes the Earth to loose thermal energy. On top of that, water vapor convection transports a tremendous amount of energy to the upper atmosphere and the majority of the heat radiates off into space. Then there’s the positive feed back of ice formation that reflects energy back into space. Cosmic rays increasing cloud formation and orbital changes causing energy from the sun to vary.
CO2’s effect on climate isn’t significant and increasing it benefits plant life. The amplification of AGW by CO2 up to ‘settled’ status is one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in history. A fraud perpetrated by greedy men in a perverse attempt to acquire absolute power.
“Predicting weather beyond a few weeks was mathematically proven impossible fifty years ago”
True.
“and climate is orders of magnitude more UNPREDICTABLE.”
Not quite. The situation is comparable to putting a pot of water onto a burner and bringing to a boil.
Weather is local, comparable to measuring the temperature at one spot in the heated water. It exhibits wild T variation, the water is chaotic.
However global mean temperature (climate) is comparable to the mean temperature of the water in the pot. It’s warming is highly predictable, and not so susceptible to localized chaos.
Gordon Robertson,
Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations
“Building on recent studies, we attempt hemispheric temperature reconstructions with proxy data networks for the past millennium. We focus not just on the reconstructions, but the uncertainties therein, and important caveats. Though expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400, our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence. The 20th century warming counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070
john…can I interest you in becoming a skeptic?
If you want to become immersed in a scientific debate you need to spend time learning details. The first thing you need to learn is that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (MBH), co-authors of your linked paper, have already made serious fools of themselves creating the MBH hockey stick joke. While it was originally blessed by the IPCC, they later discarded it like a hot potato when it became clear in an analysis by the National Academy of Science and an expert statistician, that MBH had committed several juvenile errors.
Here they are again claiming the same old, same old. Your paper, dated 1999, is MBH declaring their joke that the planet has warmed catastrophically since 1990.
“Building on recent studies, we attempt hemispheric temperature reconstructions with proxy data networks for the past millennium”.
Here’s the joke…
1)One century’s proxy data (think it was the 13th century) involved proxy data from one tree.
NAS ruled that MBH could not be applied before the 16th century. Playing it safe, the IPCC limited MBH to the period from 1850 onward. There goes the 1000 years claimed by MBH.
but wait…
2)NAS also ruled that the proxy data for the 20th century, based only on pine bristlecone, was inadmissible. There goes the 20th century so you are left with 50 years from 1850 to 1900.
but wait again,
3)around 1960, the proxy data began to show cooling while in the real world it was apparently warming. So, Mann, of MBH, not to be out-done, stopped the proxy data at 1960 or so and spliced onto it real data from modern thermometers.
Ask yourself this: if the proxy data was proved to be going in the wrong direction circa 1960, why would you have confidence it was not going in the wrong direction during the previous 960 years. Lohle, an expert on tree ring proxies claimed the proxies can be unreliable since tree ring width can vary due to a lack of precipitation and not necessarily temperature variations.
Of course, the IPCC, slobbering for legitimacy, pounced on the study, along with the equally desperate Al Gore, and turned MBH into a national monument, better know as the hockey stick graph. The popularity lasted till two serious investigators, Steve McIntyre of climateaudit, and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph happened to study the MBH data and found their statistical methods to be critically flawed.
They took their findings to the IPCC and were rebuffed on several occasions. However, they kept pestering till the US government took them seriously and appointed NAS and statistics expert, Wegmann, to investigate. Wegmann agreed with M&M and so did NAS to an extent, hence the revision of MBH to 50 years of proxy data, which revealed nothing.
Here’s the irony. MBH did not dispute the finding of either NAS or Wegmann, instead, one of them, Bradley, claimed only that Wegmann had plagiarized him.
Duh!!! A government appointed investigator quotes from Bradley and that is deemed plagiarism??? Plagiarism is when you steal someone else’s material and claim it as your own.
Wegmann explained that he had already cited Bradley and considered that sufficient. However, Bradley, in a fit of pique at having his shoddy statistical analysis revealed, was grasping at straws and went after every single comment attributed to him by Wegmann that was not accompanied with a citation.
The only people who have stuck by MBH, like Amman and Wahl, were students of Mann.
582 buzz words based on a false premise:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023395
Gordo, Does your mention or Loehle’s work refer to his 2007 paper or his equally botched “correction” in 2008? Back then, he was playing with other people’s proxy data, combining them incorrectly to claim that the MWP was warmer than what was found in recent days. I hadn’t heard that he actually analyzed tree ring data, in which paper was that work published?
John
The first thing you need to learn is Gordon-speak.
When he says “details”, he means “propaganda”.
When he says “learn” he means “swallow, while convincing yourself you have thought for yourself”.
Further, the hockey stick graph, which Gordon says the IPCC “later discarded it like a hot potato”, can be found on p316 of AR6 – Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis.
This is one of his many “facts” that he has been corrected on many times before. Despite the fact it is there for everyone to check (it was also in AR5), he prefers to live his world of alternate “facts”.
+1
For about a year and half, the trend has been in an amazingly tight range with very little monthly variation. The 5-month surge in early 2023 was amazing enough. There seem to be a lot theories, but no solid answers. It is hard to imagine this is the result of an incremental 2 ppmv annual accumulation of CO2. James Hansen himself now claims that there will be on tipping point, just incremental growth leading to “the point of no return”.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
[The “tipping point” concept, implying an unstable climate response, is misused and overused, thus encouraging a fatalistic public response or climate change denial.]
[Attention should be focused on the danger of passing the point of no return, when we lock in disastrous consequences that cannot be reversed on any time scale humans care about.]
Okay, maybe I should pay attention and proof read first. It is a 1-year trend now, and Hansen says “no” tipping point, not on.
tim s…there is history behind Hansen. Although he has a degree in physics, he went into the field of astronomy. Whilst doing his astronomy stuff, he came under the influence of Carl Sagan, a blowhard who specialized in humiliating fellow scholars publicly.
A pet theory of Sagan was that the Venusian atmosphere is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect, and Hansen bought into it. He predicted the same result for Earth if we continued to vent fossil fuel gases into the atmosphere.
Sagan has subsequently been proved wrong. The Pioneer shots to Venus in the late 1970s revealed a surface temperature of 450C, prompting astronomer Andrew Ingersoll to claim that if the probes are correct, such a high surface temperature would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics as far as a greenhouse environment is concerned.
The term ‘tipping point’ comes from a runaway positive feedback. There is a belief prevalent in climate science that such a feedback can cause amplification of heat but that is not possible for several reasons.
1)feedback itself cannot cause amplification. I don’t know why anyone thinks it can since any practical forms of such feedback systems all employ an amplifier. PF affects the amplifier by causing it to increase amplification during each iteration. In electronic amplifiers that is prevented when the power supply can deliver no more current
I won’t go into that again here, but Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS, who learned under Hanson, failed to explain how positive feedback can amplify anything. He tried to explain it using a mathematical series and engineer Jeffrey Glassman rebutted by pointing out that his series would amplify nothing. Yet Schmidt continues to claim feedback can amplify. In reality, it has no means of amplifying anything without an independent amplifier.
Amplifiers amply, feedback methods can only control the amplifier.
The current popular theory is the AGW theory in which back-radiation from so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be absorbed by the surface. The theory claims that such back-radiation can warm the surface, in conjunction with solar energy, hence raising the surface temperature beyond what it is warmed by solar energy itself.
The extra warming releases more water vapour and that is your feedback. As the cycle progresses, more WV is released and the amount of heat theoretically increases. The problem here is obvious, there is no amplifier. Secondly, heat cannot be transferred from an atmosphere that is in thermal equilibrium at best, or cooler than the surface. Thirdly, heat and a method of increasing it is not specified.
The only way to increase heat in the atmosphere is by adding more air molecules, increasing air pressure, or by applying an independent heat source. Even at that, the only heat can come from solar energy.
You cannot use infrared from the surface, recycle it, and use it as a source of heat. Someone who has studied basic physics should understand why, and it is spelled L – O – S – S – E – S. There are considerable and significant losses of IR between the surface and GHGs. The IR is subject to the inverse square law.
Once absorbed by a molecule of GHG, when re-emitted, a portion of the emitted energy goes vertically upward, a portion goes laterally, and that leaves a portion of the original energy to go toward the surface. That energy is subjected to the inverse square law.
By the time the back-radiated energy reaches the surface, it is a fraction of the energy lost initially when the IR was radiated from the surface. There is no way it could possibly make up for the original heat lost, even if it could be absorbed.
I know a lot of people, including yourself have trouble with this, but the 2nd law is a universal law of energy that cannot be redefined at anyone’s whim. It was stated clearly by Clausius and can be applied to any form of energy. Basically, it states that energy cannot be transferred by its own means from a state of lower energy potential to a state of higher energy potential.
Some have tried to amend it to apply to a net energy but Clausius said nothing about net energy. He based it on heat engine theory and if one follows his reasoning with a pressure, volume, temperature heat engine diagram, the 2nd law becomes abundantly clear.
Heat engine theory begins by keeping one variable constant while varying the other two. Then another is held constant while varying the other two, and so on till the cycle is complete. If one tried to reverse that process it becomes absolutely clear that it cannot be done. In other words, there is no way to start at a lower temperature and work toward a higher temperature, without introducing an external means of making that work by altering the pressure, temperature, volume characteristics externally.
Simply put, it is impossible to transfer heat by its own means from a cooler atmosphere, or one in thermal equilibrium with the surface, to the surface. Hansen, Schmidt, and Sagan were wrong about that theory. As far as Venus is concerned there is no way to transfer heat from an atmosphere to a surface at 450C. Such a transfer would require that the atmosphere exceeded 450C. Such a temperature would require an exceedingly high pressure.
889 words.
Gordon, thank you for the clear explanation. Now I understand why the frequency of re-emitted photons is so important. Water is the key and at present, no working model exists to define its properties. In light of this it’s baffling how anyone can claim to have a reliable climate model and so many smart people have been fooled by the hoax.
John Hart…see below on Sept 4th for more detail on frequency of photons.
On tipping points.
In complexity theory a tipping point is an abrupt change from one stable state to another. ( I could go on about strange attractors, but not today).
In climate the classic example is the transition from glacial period to an interglacial triggered by increasing Summer sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere.
In the short term a tipping point would show as a sudden change in the average temperature which continues over time.
The transition might be gradual over years. Global warming might be viewed as a tipping as the climate shifts from Icehouse interglacial to Hothouse conditions over centuries.
It might be abrupt, changing over a single year. The 2023/2024 jump might be one of these, an abrupt change in conditions triggering a long term shift in the average conditions.
Too early to be sure. You’d need more years of data to see if it was stable, plus a clearly identified cause and mechanism.
A tipping point can result in an abrupt transition, but not necessarily. But it is an inexorable transition. It is typically associated with hysteresis, whereby a return to the original conditions is insufficient to reverse the transition. An even more stark example is the transition out of a snowball earth.
(Gordon will now jump in and “explain” what hysteresis means in terms of transformers, believing that captures the entire concept.)
john w…”Gordon Robertson has been on these forums for years (decades?), and I dont think his talking points have changed. Is my observation correct?”
***
John, might I suggest that you take more of an interest in the science I am discussing. If you try to rebut it with genuine objectivity, I promise to respect your effort and not take a shot at you.
Although my talking points may not have varied a lot they have definitely changed in content. I have strived to seek the truth as I went along and that has caused me to amend my thoughts on these topics.
I might compare it to playing soccer. I began to notice that as I practices more, I began acquiring skills which were unknown to me before that. In other words, as you practice anything, the body adapts and offers you insight. Insight is not something you can develop via thought, it is an unconscious process offered to you as you become serious about something.
Although I am not religious in a conventional way, there is a saying in the Bible that appeals to me…’seek and ye shall find’. In other words, if you are content to sit around with your finger in a dark place, and follow the crowd, you will learn very little. On the other hand, if you dare to stand up and be counted, you are sure to be singled out by those who keep their fingers in dark places. They are never content to simply keep their finger there, they feel compelled to strike out at anyone who fails to follow that practice.
Right now, you are busy building a negative case about me because you cannot obviously discuss science on the level I am offering. If you tried, even a little, I would be happy to explain my POV. In fact, that applies to anyone posting here. Unfortunately, I am written off as a conspiracy theorist without the slightest attempt to discuss the science.
I seriously don’t give a hoot. A wise man once wrote: there are three types of people: those who don’t want to know, those who want to know but cannot/wont put in the effort and time to understand, and those who seriously seek truth.
Which one are you?
aq…”He was doing more than theorising he was stating that anyone who disagrees with him doesnt understand science.
Why is it that you refuse to look at my posts on the spike, despite numerous requests for you to do so”.
***
You are taking Clint far too seriously. He likes to yank peoples’ chains. He and I have been head-butting for a while and it’s no big deal to me.
Try to see some humour in it and it may come across differently.
Can you link me to your post?
BTW…I have nothing personal against you, I know nothing about you. I feel it is my duty to oppose whatever is written on behalf of climate alarm. Based on my considerable experience on blogs I tend to give as good as I get. If someone wants to talk civilly, even though he has diametrically opposing views, I will respond in kind.
So … you’re saying Clint is a … tr011?
Your “duty” extends to outright denial for the sake of denial.
And I believe you meant to say “I tend to get as good as I give”.
Fun to watch Ant and gordon attempt to discredit me. Neither of them understands science.
Well, you’re half right.
In fact, in proportion to words per comment, you’re more than half right.
But when we factor in your “science” …
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
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot_N20.png
It can be seen that the AAO has risen to 0 and may now fall again.
https://i.ibb.co/0CD8V3s/hgt-aao-cdas.p
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.cdas.png
Zero sea surface temperature anomaly in the Nio 4 region relative to the 1981-2010 average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
SOI values for 3 Sep, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days 8.08
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino4Mon.gif
Average of 7 models (NOAA, UKMO, BOM, JMA, METEO, CanSIPS, ECMWF):
Sep: -0.45
Oct: -0.6
Nov: -0.7
Dec: -0.7
Jan: -0.55
Notice their prediction for the depth of the La Nina has diminished.
The strength of the predicted La Nina has reduced. More in line with other predictions.
You should not rely on one model. Best to look at many. As can be found at IRI.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
The dynamic average predict a weak la Nina, at Nino3.4 = -0.5 C.
With each passing month it is becoming more apparent that the RATE of global warming is increasing. Dr. Roy’s recent satellite date along with recent data from most other sources supports the observation that this acceleration in warming is taking place.
Dr. S.
Glad to see you’ve noticed the HTE, Mark.
Why do you consider the rate is increasing?
The quadratic trend has a positive quadratic term.
As would any cyclic term that was longer than a few years.
What a load of rubbish. If the trend reduces you get a negative quadratic term. I guess you failed maths.
That depends on how long the cycle is. Long cycles show up with long positive phases. Does not mean they wont turn negative in the future.
I forgot, the future is always positive in temperature terms.
RLH: Why do you consider the rate is increasing?
The coefficient of the quadratic term of the trend is +0.028 C.decade-2.
When you use the future La Nina (projected) the ‘trend’ changes lower.
We were not talking about the future.
Ever thought of being honest?
Dr.S
The global sea surface temperature is falling, and the sea surface is 70% of the Earth’s surface.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Common Sense wins over “science.” Here is 100% Proof:
I wrote this above:
“2) 15 Micron LWIR doesnt penetrate water, at best it can cause a slight increase is surface evaporation which would COOL the water underneath”
Willard then posted all the evidnce I needed to prove my point.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351
Take a look at Figure #1 and Figure #2:
Figure #1 shows that LWIR of 15 Micron or 666 Wavenumber does not penetrate the oceans. If fact they call it the TSL, the thermal skin layer. Note how the larger wave numbers, shorter wavelengths penetrate the oceans. That is where the warming energy comes from, not LWIR.
Figure #2 shows that the TSL is in fact COOLER than the water below. How in the world can a cool layer be respnsible for warming the deeper layers of the oceans. That is 100% pure nonsense, but it does show you what the water layer that does interact with LWIR COOLS as a result.
People in Climate “Science” have clearly never taken Quantum Mechanics, and they obvioulsy have never learned to read an elementary school chart. The evidence is right their in front of them and they choose to ignore the obvious.
Thanks Willard for providing the evidence any real scientist needs to know to reach the conclusion that Climate “Science” is a joke.
Have you done the experiment yet? Did you place an IR lamp above a vessel of water at room temperature and observe the water getting colder when you turned the lamp on?
Here’s an experiment for you, bdgwx: Place your bare hand on the IR bulb you’re using to heat water. How long can you hold the bulb?
bdgwx, what part of not all wavelengths are created equal don’t you understand. Yes, IR will warm water. IR ranges from 7 to 100 Microns, with 15 being at the very far end of the LWIR.
You are 100% a sophist. The one and only wavelength relevant to CO2 is 15 microns. That is it. Do you refute that fact?
If you agree, which you should, go to Spectral Calc and identify what temperature of a black body is 15 micron associated with?
You will see that -80C is associated with 15 micron. Dry ice sublimates at -80C which isn’t a coincidence.
Anyway, do you seriiously believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere with the energy of dry ice can actualy warm water?
If any of this nonsense was true, where 100 ppm can increase temperatures by 1C, we would simply wrap our homes in CO2 bubble wrap and they would self heat. You just discovered a perpetual motion machine.
Has any engineer figured this out? Nope. Trillion of dollars would be made if you could actually warm things by simply adding CO2.
CO2isLife: Yes, IR will warm water. IR ranges from 7 to 100 Microns, with 15 being at the very far end of the LWIR.
If agree that IR including 15 um will warm water and don’t want people to think your position is the opposite then you should stop saying it cools water.
CO2isLife: If you agree, which you should, go to Spectral Calc and identify what temperature of a black body is 15 micron associated with?
Spectral Calc says all temperatures are associated with 15 um radiation. And it’s no surprise since Spectral Calc complies with Planck’s Law.
As has been explained to you ad-nauseum you are misunderstanding Wein’s Displacement Law which only says that an -80 C blackbody will have it’s peak emission at around 15 um. It does NOT say that it will only emit at 15 um.
CO2isLife: Anyway, do you seriiously believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere with the energy of dry ice can actualy warm water?
First…CO2 in the atmosphere is not emitting with the energy of dry ice.
Second…CO2 in its solid phase emits differently than it does in its gaseous phase.
Third…according to the 1LOT any radiation that causes Ein to increase will result in dE > 0. And given that temperature is related to a body’s interval energy via dT = dE / (m*c) then it is necessarily the case that CO2 will cause a body to warm when that CO2 shields the body from a colder alternative.
CO2isLife: Has any engineer figured this out?
Yes. Everybody has figured this out.
CO2isLife: Trillion of dollars would be made if you could actually warm things by simply adding CO2.
You can’t warm things by “simply adding CO2”. It’s more complicated than that. Warming occurs only when a specific configuration of the system exists. That configuration mandates that 1) CO2 shield the body to be warmed from a colder alternative and 2) when the body to be warmed is receiving an input of energy from something other than the CO2 itself.
You guys look at the GHE the wrong way. It is about conservation of energy. Input must equal output for the planet to be in radiant equilibrium and maintain a constant temperature. The Earth warms (because it has to to achieve radiant equilibrium), the Moon warms, Mars warms, etc. etc. All objects warm until they are in radiant equilibrium. There is GHE. But, no one knows what it is. Current theory is that 0.44% of gases cause Earth to warm 60F. Balderdash.
You are making a lot of sense, Stephen, except for
“There is GHE. But, no one knows what it is.”
Science knows very well what that is.
“Current theory is that 0.44% of gases cause Earth to warm 60F. Balderdash.”
Being astonished is not an argument.
10:45am A: At least as long as Clint R can hold an ice cube in his hand.
CO2isLife 10:12 am misses that Fig. 1 (Eqn.1) is never zero at any wavenumber so penetration depth of (absorbed) IR in water is never zero.
Ball4? Really? The being absorbed by the “skin layer” counts as penetrating the ocean? Really?
The oceans, the deep oceans, are warming. In the context of this discussion, 15 micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate the ocean, it is absorbed 100% by the surface skin layer.
No way can it warm water 20m down as is claimed.
Really! And experimentally along with theory. CO2isLife is just behind in searching & reading this blog.
CO2 is life
“No way can it warm water 20m down as is claimed.”
That is not the claim.
Heat gets into the ocean as sunlight. LWIR makes it harder for the heat from sunlight to get back out.
Roy’s experiment shows this.
He set up two tubs of water with temperature sensors at night. One received 360W/m^2 of LWIR from the sky; the other 430W/m^2 of LWIR from a metal shield.
The tub receiving more LWIR lost heat more slowly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686296
> Take a look at Figure #1
Better yet, read the text that explains why it’s there:
Op. Cit.
Contrarians have clearly never taken Reading Comprehension 101.
Earth’s average global surface air temperature is about 15 C.
I am quite old, and during my lifetime, Earth’s average temperature has been about 15 C. Currently they are saying Earth average global surface was about 14 C.
When I was in my teens, and learned about global warming, and it was said average was 15 C, I thought 2 to 3 C of warming would not be a problem, and this conclusion, gave me the label of a lukewarmer.
But so called “father” of global warming thought a 5 C increase in global temperature would a good thing.
Long before I was born, it was known and taught that we are in an Ice Age. And the “father” of global warming, was long dead, before I was born, and knew we were in an Ice Age. And it’s possible he knew that past interglacial period were much warmer than our present interglacial period. Certainly today, this is known.
15 C is a cold air temperature, and only reason Earth has average temperature of about 15 C, is because the ocean average surface air temperature is much warmer than the global average land temperature.
The global average land temperature, been fairly recently, determined to be about 10 C.
And human don’t live on the ocean. All of them live on land which has average temperature of about 15 C.
And it’s known that far more people die from cooler conditions as compared to warming condition. Or a lot more people die in winter as compared to the summer.
And generally summertime has always been the happier period of time.
Perhaps it’s related to not having to chop wood in winter- or you didn’t chop enough wood when it was warmer, and so, you find yourself out there in the cold winter, busting your balls {or something].
Now the Ice Age doesn’t have much effect upon the tropical region in the world {though people in this warmer region still die more from colder conditions, than warmer conditions} but has big effect upon regions closer to polar regions. In Europe when glaciers destroying small towns it was disaster worth notice. And this was happening during a recent colder period within our interglacial period, which has going on from more than 10,000 year, whereas the cooler part of our Ice Age lasts about 100,000 years. So this was called the little ice age, but was merely colder period within the Holocene interglacial period. Though one could say our interglacial period is in very big Ice Age {called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and the little ice age, was little or very tiny, lasting only several centuries, perhaps the coldest for couple centuries.
Because we in Ice Age our land averages about 10 C, more than 1/3 of land is dry deserts, and we have two polar Ice Sheets and other glaciers covering large amounts of land area.
In recent news it was reported the Greenland Ice Sheet melted about 1 million years ago [during a warmer interglacial period. And it was long known that Greenland only in last couple millions became an Ice Sheet, or a “permanent” ice sheets.
Or long known that in last couple millions our Ice Age has been the coldest it’s been over the 33.9 million years, since it started.
Anyways, I think we should be allowed to make ocean settlements and get to live where it’s warmer.
Well said GB. Don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. At some point in the not too distant future, Earth will be a cold wasteland again, and history will be forgotten.
The Grand Solar Minimum is actually already underway ,but the 10% extra water vapour in the stratosphere is confusing the overall picture.
The current solar cycle is stronger than the last one.
Sorry the ‘Grand Solar minimum’ was a failed prediction.
Strange that the global average global temperature jumps to a more or less static value, has it been hijacked?
Something doubled the planet’s net heat gain from 0.7W/m^2 to 1.5W/m^2. Nobody’s sure yet what caused it.
BTW, I will repeat this 1,000x. If CO2 can warm water, someone would simply buy a long pass filter that isolates 15 micron LWIR, shine it on a bucket of water, and measure its temperature against a control, you know, they would preform actual real science.
If they did, they would be able to shut me up. Until now, not a single climate “scientist” has bothered to perform the elementary experiment.
Am I to beleive that the entire field of climate “science” doesn’t understand how to apply the scientific method to these problems?
Roy Spencer has done the experiment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Ok then, some scientist already did simply use a long pass filter that isolates 15 micron LWIR, shined it on a bucket of water, and measured its temperature against a control, you know, preforming actual real science to demonstrate deeper water than just the skin layer is warmed by incident icy radiation so that scientist was able to shut CO2isLife up as per CO2isLife’s own comment.
Up with CO2isLife I will not put.
The assertion ‘Roy Spencer has done the experiment.’ is NOT true. The request was for 15 micron LWIR, not a comparison between an aluminum sheet and dark sky. Posting untrue statements doesn’t win arguments it undermines credibility.
A request to measure “15 micron LWIR” warming deeper than skin layer water vs. control water is fulfilled by the experiment, John. No mechanical details of how to do so were initially provided so no untrue physical statements in the thread except by John.
John Hart is correct. The experiment was NOT about 15μ photons warming water.
But Ball4 has no credibility anyway….
Entorpic Man, that experiment hardly proves CO2 causes warming of water. H2O in the atmosphere is the same as the H2O in the bucket. They both absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. Clearly atmosheric H2O can slow cooling (not warm) of water becuase it effectvely prevents/slows IR from leaving the bucket of water. Basicaly it is like two steps forward one step back.
Once again, the only wavelenghts that involve CO2 is 15 Micron LWIR. Dr. SPencer’s experiment does nothing to isolate those wavelengths. To do that you need a long-path wavelength filter.
You need to do a controlled experiment that isolates and varies the independent variable, ie 15 Micron LWIR.
Water Temperature = Function of 15 LWIR
Water Temperature = Dependent Variable
15 Micron LWOR = Independent Variable
Simple science 101.
Once again, the added icy radiation wavelengths involving 15 Micron LWIR caused water at a depth far below skin temperatures to be measured warmer than the shaded control water which disproves CO2isLife’s faulty “100% proof.”
Simple, replicable experimental evidence “about 15μ photons warming water”.
CO2 is life
“No way can it warm water 20m down as is claimed.”
That is not the claim.
Heat gets into the ocean as sunlight. LWIR makes it harder for the heat from sunlight to get back out.
Roy’s experiment shows this.
He set up two tubs of water with temperature sensors at night. One received 360W/m^2 of LWIR from the sky; the other 430W/m^2 of LWIR from a metal shield.
The tub receiving more LWIR lost heat more slowly.
DWLR is not only 15 micron photons from CO2. 50% is from H2O, 25% from clouds and 5% from other GHGs. Only 20% comes from CO2.
You should get over this obsession with CO2 and pay more attention to what is actually happening.
If you want a recently published paper on the interaction between 15 micron LWIR and water you probably won’t find one on the Internet. The experiment would have been done a century ago and now found only in undergraduate physics textbooks.
This is getting beyond a joke. I have tried to seriously discuss this with you and all I get back is the same old misconceptions, straw men and sammich demands. Get your act together and start debating as a scientist instead if a spoiled child.
To borrow from clinateball. If you really want this information, stop demanding a sammich and do your own research
Ent and Ball4 are caught empty-handed. Neither can deal with the fact that infrared has differing photons. Some photons have much lower entropy than others. These lower-entropy photons have more useable energy. The peak frequency (WDL) photon from ice even has more useable energy than CO2’s 15μ photon. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Enjoy the desperation exhibited by Ent and Ball4. It’s also known as “meltdown”….
Since Clint R comments “Some photons have much lower entropy than others.”, then to Clint R a single photon possesses a kinetic temperature in order to be at a lower entropy than another photon. Temperature is a measure of avg. KE of molecules and photons are not molecules.
Clint R is unaccomplished in basic physics in such a humorous way as to stumble into these gaffes.
NB: Radiation, however, does indeed possess entropy due to brightness temperature considerations (see Christian Brosseau, 1998: Fundamentals of Polarized Light: A Statistical Optics Approach. John Wiley & Sons, appendix C, section 3.4 & brief history in App. E). Perhaps Clint R can use that ref. to find out if entropy really is possessed by an individual photon & thus have less entropy than another single photon.
Clint R should realize though that entropy arguments have not been applied extensively to optics problems, possibly because they can be solved by other, more familiar, methods of which Clint R seems unaware. Or, at least, Clint R has an opportunity to be a pioneer on the subject. That will involve testing which Clint R totally avoids so I doubt that endeavor is possible for Clint.
Enjoy the desperate rambling exhibited by Ball4. Its also known as “meltdown”….
(Will Ent join him?)
Bridging the Gap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpktWhCTXDY&t=4328s
I didn’t particularly like it.
But I wondered if Universe getting worst or better.
I tend to think there are other civilizations in the Universe, and generally that we in a forsaken place in it.
And is somewhat related to, why does God need a Starship?
Star travel seems difficult and very expensive, but that mostly related to our solar system.
Now, it seems God make some people do hard things, Noah, Moses, etc.
Was Noah good at building huge ships? And it seems it would be pretty hard for a major ship builder to build the Ark.
And …he had his kids. Sort of like my father actually, though my father never was anywhere near as crazy.
So, it seems we are in bad spot to think about doing star travel, but in comparison, making vast telescopes in space, and looking at the Universe, would minor hobby, if we become spacefaring.
Though chance of just that, doesn’t look good.
One might we are in the best of times, because there is some hope of becoming spacefaring civilization.
I thought we were here to discuss facts, not “god”.
What is claimed to be a fact by NASA and NOAA is that more than 90%
of global warming is warming the ocean.
Do you, will you, dispute that fact?
Newton seemed to think the discussion of God is scientific, and I concur. I don’t follow any organized religion but the question interests me.
If we are going to claim evolution theory is science, then we need to allow discussion of the alternative. Right now, God makes a lot more sense to me than evolution theory. If you read on the complexity of the human eye and vision, which no one can yet explain, I am opting for a designer. There is simply no scientific explanation for how life originated let alone vision.
–Newton seemed to think the discussion of God is scientific, and I concur. I dont follow any organized religion but the question interests me.
If we are going to claim evolution theory is science, then we need to allow discussion of the alternative. Right now, God makes a lot more sense to me than evolution theory. If you read on the complexity of the human eye and vision, which no one can yet explain, I am opting for a designer. There is simply no scientific explanation for how life originated let alone vision.–
Well, old testament and new testament, aren’t very happy with any organized religion, either. Christ claimed they were all going to hell, and God in Torah didn’t express much happiness with Jews and their golden calf, thing.
And all prophets over the centuries, also, were not generally happy about it.
In terms of evolutionary theory, it doesn’t seem to be in conflict.
It seems mainly the Torah [Old Testament} is mostly against murder, [and all kinds/forms of stealing- including the stealing of a life] and that murder should always be seriously investigated in an organized fashion- and also loving the stranger.
It seems to me, there is a significant “evolutionary advantage” to the idea of loving the stranger.
And many “heroes” in the Torah, are not Jews- and include women.
It seems to me, Christ was largely about improving organized religion.
Though it would seem to me like rather impossible task- but one could say they are, mostly, not sacrificing children to some god, these days so, that’s quite an improvement.
gb…”…old testament and new testament, arent very happy with any organized religion, either”.
***
My old dad got me kicked out of Sunday school by putting it in my head that the Bible was written by humans, not God. He also asked why a God that loved you would send you to Hell. I asked that question in Sunday school and got kicked out. I thought my mom would murder me but when I told her what happened she took me back to Sunday school and tore a strip of the teacher.
I prefer the words of Jesus, according to the disciple Thomas (aka Doubting Thomas). The Gospel of Thomas was banned circa 325 AD when the Roman emperor Constantine got together with chosen bishops at Nicea and determined the future of Christianity, including what could and could not appear in the Bible.
I find it ironic that Thomas, who had the ear of Jesus and hung out with him, would be excluded from the Bible. Fortunately, some aspiring monk stashed several banned Gospels in the Egyptian desert in urns and they were discovered only recently. Elaine Pagels became an authority on the Gospels. The missing Gospels have been deemed authenitc by experts and the Gospel of Thomas predates other Gospels like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I saw nothing from Jesus that we are going to Hell. In the Gospel of Thomas, Thomas quoted Jesus as saying that all we need is already within. Most of us were born with a conscience, and the capacity for compassion, love, empathy, and so on. In other words, we were born with the ability to get along with others and to make this world a better place.
If you read religious historian Elaine Pagels, on Hell and Satan, you will see both are inventions of the human mind. I think humans have conspired to offer their own versions of God, much of which is based on their egos and greed.
Thomas quoted Jesus, who said that everything we need is already within us.
For Jesus to become Jesus, he first had to become an observer, i.e., objectively observe reality without judgment. In the next stage, we can make conscious decisions.
I read upthread, without any surprise:
” There was no known volcanic activity in Europe between 1300 AD and 1850 AD yet the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps extended so much that it wiped out long-established villages and farms in its path. ”
*
Typical trash by ignoramus Robertson who despite so many explanations still does not have a bit of a clue about volcanism and the global effect of eruptions.
*
In 1257, one of the greatest eruptions of the last 2500 years occurred in Indonesia: the Samalas volcano on the Lombok island near Bali literally partly disappeared in a giant explosion (it lost 1500 meters altitude), was recorded like all great eruptions in ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland, and was reported at many places in many documents in the world, beginning with Lombok’s environs and ending in… Europe (e.g. London in 1258/1259).
*
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
Lavigne & al. (2013)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
Look for example at Fig. 3 comparing Samalas in 1257 to Tambora in 1815…
*
The 1257 CE cataclysmic eruption of Samalas volcano (Indonesia) revealed by indigenous written sources: Forgotten kingdoms, emergency response, and societal recovery
Malawani & al. (2022)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027322002190
*
This just to explain how uneducated people like Robertson actually are – not only when they tell us nonsense about Newton’s Principia, or about NOAA’s weather stations.
*
But it was of course by far not the Samalas volcano alone which affected global climate patterns.
Look at this incredible eruption sequence
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bh7NjyY970aHBuPn0xD2XP9cdogzvn2E/view
and you better understand the real background of papers like
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Miller & al. (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
or
2600-years of stratospheric volcanism through sulfate isotopes
Gautier & al. (2019)
https://hal.science/hal-02350375/document
*
Anyone credulously believing Robertson’s antiscience 100% deserves it.
I said…” There was no known volcanic activity in Europe between 1300 AD and 1850 AD…
***
Since when is Indonesia anywhere near Europe? And, how long did the Indonesian volcano last?
Then Binny drops his conclusive proof…”The 1257 CE cataclysmic eruption of Samalas volcano (Indonesia) revealed by indigenous written sources:…”
Indigenous written sources???
Glad you are around for comic relief, Binny, every site needs a blog klown.
Research “The year without a Summer.”
Tambora erupted in Indonesia in 1815 and caused crop failures across Europe.
Italy is in Europe
Iceland is arguably Europe, but Europe-adjacent
Azores? Europe
Norway too.
There have been many European eruptions between 1300 and 1850.
Sig
You wrote upthread
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686018
” The same discrepancies are observed between UAH and NOAAs RATPAC-A balloon measurements. ”
*
Sorry: It’s not my job to defend UAH, but I feel like you’re making the usual mistake of comparing RATPAC radiosonde data with global UAH data.
RATPAC consists of 85 IGRA locations, 70% of which are on land and the remaining 30 on islands.
So RATPAC should be rather compared to UAH Land.
*
Here’s a graph comparing the original monthly UAH Land data with RATPAC-B:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/136JiPLLcT3kZAbjmV7zJdPBqgyVlfuas/view
*
Moreover, you wrote also:
” Are they recording absolute temperature values or just changes over time? ”
I suppose that with ‘changes over time’ you in fact mean ‘anomalies’ i.e. departures from a mean, for UAH currently that of the period 1991-2020.
How could anyone record departures from a mean without having recorded the absolute temperatures before? Please explain.
Here is UAH LT’s 12-month climatology for the period mentioned above, based on a 2.5 degree grid:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
When you average the grid cells in each month, you obtain:
Mon: Kelvin
Jan: 263.18
Feb: 263.27
Mar: 263.43
Apr: 263.84
May: 264.45
Jun: 265.10
Jul: 265.42
Aug: 265.23
Sep: 264.64
Oct: 263.95
Nov: 263.41
Dec: 263.19
Absolute enough, isn’t it?
Bindidon,
You are absolutely correct: It is more relevant to compare Ratpac with UAH-land. Unfortunately, your plot is not very well suited to make the observation, so I downloaded the UAH land in order to check. And the answer is exactly the same: The Ratpac deviates from UAH land in the interval 2000-2005, the same as the other data series.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/108-hNzA0NT1CG3jQ00W_1uPs5EDCEd_lTr63elh_l4o/edit?usp=sharing
I realize there are a lot of radiosonde data that may be used in such a comparison, but I do not have the capacity to analyse it all. However, I notice that the largest correction to balloon data done by Christy&Spencer in order to fit the satellite data was in the 2000-2005 interval.
No, I ment actual changes from some sort of starting point. It puzzles me that when UAH update their version 5 to version 6 by switching to the NOAA-15 satellite in the period i question, that also impacts the value for years later in 2016. If the curve simply recorded an estimate of the absolute temperature, there should be no reason to change the 2016 temperature. So it must be more complicated. Do you know the answer?
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11cM7qytN2AjPsRaDRO5Y2sRlwh2R8Yxik8vopEI9IIY/edit?usp=sharing
Palmowski on September 3, 2024 at 8:01 AM
” Dr.S! Dr. S! Dr. S!
The global sea surface temperature is falling, and the sea surface is 70% of the Earths surface.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png ”
*
Woooaahh! Global Cooling ahead, for sure.
13 little weeks… that’s about three months.
What about looking a bit outside of this minuscule period?
Here is UAH LT’s ocean data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qHo1IsqVXGdHZy_Y98-FT_tROYf2aHVb/view
Starship Satellites, Alternatives to Black Holes, The Best Lifeform | Overtime Q&A 8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ugsq2mY1u0
Boatloads of money, nobody, going to Mars.
He is worried about Starship returning from the Moon.
Well, the dream is orbital capture.
We haven’t done it yet. But SLS capsule bounced off Earth’s atmosphere. Not sure how much, but that is sort of what you do, I believe.
Oh, but Starship isn’t returning, it’s docking with SLS capsule.
So, maybe he thinking about SLS being cancelled or something [certainly possible] but as said Starship would be quite useful if it can do an orbital capture.
Oh, here something interest. It seems it going faster than I thought:
x1,000 Resolution of JWST But x1,000 Cheaper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcR6gs0Up6k
This is cheap and going to happen soon.
Those cheap private NASA robotic missions could make a crazy telescope, and then within decade it gets even better- beyond sci fi,
very cheap and simple and also put on Moon.
But for something even bigger and better, maybe cost a billion dollars, put in orbit, and look at vegetation on planets in all the stars near us.
But before that, could find planets a lot better.
I guess it was a good thing that JWST will only last about 10 years.
In couple years, we could get something better, and then, within a decade, a get telescope, way, way better. At 1/10th the cost.
Evolution Space tests rocket on Spaceport Company sea-based platform
The solid propulsion test vehicle reached an altitude of 55,500 feet
Sandra Erwin
September 3, 2024
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“WASHINGTON Evolution Space, a Mojave, California-based startup, announced Sept. 3 it successfully flew a sub-scale test rocket from a sea-based platform operated by The Spaceport Company. The launch took place Aug. 31 over the Gulf of Mexico.
The solid propulsion test vehicle, designed as a sub-orbital, sub-hypersonic rocket, reached an altitude of 55,500 feet. A sub-scale test flight uses a smaller, scaled-down version of the final rocket design in order to gather data and validate design concepts ahead of full-scale development.”
Mojave, near me, and also, hottest region in the world.
aq…”the hockey stick graph, which Gordon says the IPCC later discarded it like a hot potato, can be found on p316 of AR6 Working Group I The Physical Science Basis”.
***
If you read around the IPCC graph, they offer the following limitations:
1)the new graph applies only from 1850 onward.
2)the new graph has so many error bars they now call it the spaghetti graph. In other words, the chances of it representing the past 1000 years as Mann et al claimed, is slim to none.
All the new graph has done is try to re-institute the MWP and LIA. Now it can’t be called a hockey stick but something akin to W. C. Fields’ pool cue.
https://aurorasginjoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/corbis-je001723.jpg?w=375
re your graph…
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/15/swindle-and-the-ipcc-tar-spaghetti-graph/
re spaghetti diagrams in general:
https://climateaudit.org/2004/10/26/spaghetti-diagrams/
The tommy-rot presented as the new MBH hockey stick is akin to the chicanery from NOAA and GISS when they presented 2014 as the hottest year ever, based on a 48% and 38% probability respectively. What kind of scientist makes such a claim?
And no one has ever explained why it is considered scientific to terminate a proxy study that is showing cooling and splice on real temperature data that is showing warming.
clint…”Fun to watch Ant and gordon attempt to discredit me”.
***
I was not trying to discredit you, I was supporting your theory about HTE. I said you like to yank chains, as do I. Nothing there is an attempt to discredit you on the HTE.
The Great Barrier Reef and the entire biosphere are really only threatened by one thing – a large increase in UVB radiation at the Earth’s surface along with a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
This is why the GBR goes white during El Nino, when cloud cover in the western tropical Pacific decreases.
“The Great Barrier Reef and the entire biosphere are really only threatened by one thing a large increase in UVB radiation at the Earths surface along with a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere.”
That’s not the opinion of the vast majority of experts on the topic of the Great Barrier Reef.
Aside: I’ve lately been visiting the reef as a tourist. The small area I visit as a scuba diver has degraded significantly since my first encounter in 1998.
Of course, this is only an anecdote against the vast stretch of the Reef.
John Hart…”Now I understand why the frequency of re-emitted photons is so important”.
***
John…that’s another phenomenon that does not require the 2nd law to explain. It involves quantum theory and it’s actually quite easy to understand if you understand basic atomic theory. Basic atom theory can be learned in minutes and that is enough to understand basic quantum theory. However, it helps to understand the history as well to see how it all fits together and why so many today misunderstand the basic theory.
Basic atomic theory claims that electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons. No one to this day can prove that, so it remains a model, albeit a model that has been successfully applied in the fields of electronics and chemistry.
The electron was not discovered till 1898 by Thompson. Rutherford, a colleague, developed the theory of atomic structure. However, Rutherford could not quite work out how electrons worked in relation to the nucleus.
Neils Bohr was a student of Rutherford and he took on the explanation. He too was stymied till a friend suggested he study the emission and absorp-tion spectrum of hydrogen. He did, and that’s when the light went on.
It had already been developed by Planck, circa 1900, that energy in a radiation spectrum operated in discrete energy levels per frequency/wavelength. The higher the frequency, the more energy a photon has. Note that Planck’s constant, h, relates the energy in Joules in a radiation frequency to the frequency.
E = hf, therefore h = E/f. Planck had to fudge this somewhat to curve fit the equation to the known response, therefore the full equation has an exponential expression to cause the spectrum to fall after rising to a peak.
Einstein noted his claim and applied it to photoemissivity, wherein it was noted that certain frequencies of radiation caused electrons to be emitted from a surface. This is where the theory developed that photons have momentum. Einstein presumed radiation must have momentum in order to dislodge an electron from atoms in a surface via collision. That was disproved by Bohr in 1913 but the theory has stuck.
Going on the proof that hydrogen emitted and absorbed only at discrete frequencies (not a continuous spectrum) he worked out that electrons were responsible. He invoked Planck’s quantized states, stipulating that electrons could only reside in certain orbital energy states. If the electron gained energy, it could rise to a higher orbital but when it dropped back to its original state (ground state) it had to release the acquired energy by emitting a quantum of electromagnetic energy.
The emitted energy is stated mathematically as E = hf, where E is the energy difference between orbital states (usually in eV), h is Planck’s constant, and f is the frequency of the emitted quanta. Later, circa 1928) that quanta was renamed to photon and incorrectly given a momentum. Note that in E = hf, h is a proportionality constant relating E in joules to f in hertz. If you transpose to h = E/f it becomes joules/hertz.
Here’s the trick. The frequency of the emitted energy comes from the electron’s angular frequency. That is, the rate at which the electron orbits a nucleus in a particular orbital. Also, the electron carries an electric charge hence produces an electric field. As it moves, the electric field produces an in-phase magnetic field.
Some folks think that EM appears magically in an atom or molecule out of a black box. They are in denial that the only source of EM in an atom, hence a molecule, is the electric and magnetic field of electrons. The emitted frequency also must come from the electron’s angular orbital frequency.
It’s no coincidence that the emitted energy has an electric and magnetic field. It’s also no coincidence that an EM field, when absorbed by an electron, affects the EM field in a moving electron, causing it to jump to a higher energy level, with a higher velocity and KE. It’s not a collision via momentum exchange that excites the electron but an interaction in which the EM quanta disappears and the electron gains velocity and frequency.
Normally, it’s an electric field or magnetic field, or both, that causes a particle like an electron to accelerate. It seems obvious that it is the EM field frequency that causes an electron to accelerate, gain KE, and rise to a higher orbital level. However, with the electron orbital at such a colossal speed, the EM frequency must be in phase and exact. More on that in a bit.
The energy an electron can absorb is either heat or electromagnetic energy of a specific frequency. Just as an electron in a specific atomic orbital can only emit a discrete frequency, it can only absorb a discrete frequency as well. That frequency must satisfy E = hf.
The energy gained by the electron is kinetic energy. Kinetic means only that the energy is moving. What energy is moving? No one knows what energy is, all that can be observed is what that energy causes to happen. In the case of atoms and atomic sub-particles like electrons, the energy is thermal energy, or heat. Therefore an increase in the energy of an electron is heat and, en masse, as all electrons in the atom of a mass gain energy, the energy they gain is heat for the whole mass.
If you have a mass at a lower temperature, the energy (E) in its atomic energy orbitals will be lower. Therefore the frequency, will need to be lower, E = hf. If you have a hotter mass nearby the atoms in it electrons are sitting at a higher energy level, therefore E hotter > E cooler. That means f hotter > f cooler.
Since the electrons in the hotter object require a discrete frequency to excite them that must match the E = hf of the hotter electrons, it is simply not possible for the EM emitted by a cooler body to be absorbed by electrons in the atoms of a hotter body.
The 2nd law is preserved. Clausius did not understand any of Bohr’s theory, he did not even know that electrons existed in atoms, yet Clausius specified that EM radiation must obey the 2nd law. I don’t know how he knew this because in his day heat was believed to flow through the atmosphere (aether) as heat rays. They had the concept of radiation correct, they simply had no idea how it worked.
It seems the same is true today. We tend to cling to incorrect theories while pushing pseudo-science.
Wow. 1099 words.
Is that a record?
One less-important error (in the grand scheme of things).
“The energy gained by the electron is kinetic energy.”
Work is done against the electric field to move the electron farther from the nucleus. The electron gains electrical potential energy in addition to KE as it moves to a higher orbit.
One more-important error.
“If you have a mass at a lower temperature, the energy (E) in its atomic energy orbitals will be lower. ”
The absorption of thermal IR is primarily related to VIBRATIONS of the atoms in a molecule or solid, and not to electrons moving to higher energy orbits around specific atoms. The model to imagine is balls (nuclei) connected to each other by springs (bonds).
Furthermore, vibrational energy increase by increasing AMPLITUDE of the vibration, not FREQUENCY. A ‘cold’ CO2 molecule is not vibrating, but can start vibrating when it absorbs a 15 um photons. This warmer, vibrating molecule can vibrate with a larger amplitude (but same frequency) by absorbing another 15 um photon.
No matter how ‘hot’ the CO2 molecule, it can STILL gain energy (get warmer) by absorbing a 15 um photon.
tim…clearly, you don’t understand Bohr’s theory. He stipulated that electrons must reside in discrete energy orbitals with no action permitted between those levels. That is equivalent to a digital situation which is either-or. In such a context, talking about work is meaningless.
All that has been specified is a series of orbitals that have maximum energy at infinity, or the distance from the nucleus where the electron can break free. Each orbital is indicated as a minus quantity, in eV, to indicated that levels nearest to the nucleus have the most negative value. That translates to an ever increasing KE per orbital level till the electron has enough KE to break free.
If you look at the Schrodiner wave equation, it is an examination of potential energy versus kinetic energy, and deals nowhere with work. This is not an exercise in electrostatics it is a breakthrough theory based on Planck’s quantization.
—-
“The absorption of thermal IR is primarily related to VIBRATIONS of the atoms in a molecule or solid, and not to electrons moving to higher energy orbits around specific atoms. The model to imagine is balls (nuclei) connected to each other by springs (bonds)”.
***
The vibrations are all due to electron bonds. Without the electron there are no atoms or molecular bonds. It is electrons in bonds that absorb and emit radiation.
Go deeper. Radiation is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. What else in an atom or molecule could emit an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field? And what in an atom or molecule could be affected by an Em field other than a particle with its own electric/magnetic field?
Then there is frequency. The frequency of EM emission is related to the angular orbital frequencies of electrons. What else in a molecule could emit such high frequencies?
***
Sorry…but all molecules and covalent bonds vibrate naturally. It’s the nature of the interaction between positively charged particles and negatively charged particles. it’s the same in solids made up only of atoms. The only way to alter the vibrations in a molecule is to alter the charge or KE on the +ve or -ve charge. That is done in an electron by absorbing EM.
Gordonclearly, you dont understand Bohrs theory is only a first step, useful for understanding individual atoms. From there, the theory was developed further to cover molecules and eventually solids. For solids, the discrete energies become energy bands.
Also, electrical potential energy and work still apply. Electrons farther from the nucleus have more electrical potential energy.
Finally, vibrating (and rotating) nuclei are moving charges, and they can absorb and emit EM energy. It is not just electrons in quantized orbits that do this. This is well-known in spectroscopy, where these vibrational and rotational energies are clearly identified.
aq…”A tipping point can result in an abrupt transition, but not necessarily. But it is an inexorable transition. It is typically associated with hysteresis, whereby a return to the original conditions is insufficient to reverse the transition. An even more stark example is the transition out of a snowball earth.
(Gordon will now jump in and explain what hysteresis means in terms of transformers, believing that captures the entire concept.)”
***
The following is not my theory, I disagree with it.
***The tipping point theory related to Hansen is quite clear. Solar energy heats the surface and the surface converts SW solar to LW infrared. That infrared can be absorbed by GHGs, which back-radiate it to the surface. The surface warms beyond what it is heated by solar and that heating evapourates more WV. As the cycle repeats, more WV is evapourated and WV being a stronger GHG, back-radiates more IR.***
This process describes a positive feedback but the amplifying means is not specified. It is presumed that the cycle is a feedback and that the feedback is the amplifier. However, the theory is wrong because back-radiated IR from a cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface. The theory not only contradicts the 2nd law it is a classic case of perpetual motion.
It is simply not possible to recycle infrared so it is presented as an independent source of heat. There are significant losses in the cycle, so much so, that the returned energy could not even make up the initial heat lost at the surface, even if heat could be transferred cold to hot.
As far as hysteresis is concerned, I am aware that it applies to any system in which one element of an initial process lags another when the process is reversed another. I just don’t see what hysteresis has to do with a tipping point.
Gordo’s rant repeats his usual ignorance of physics, writing:
The surface IR which may be absorbed is converted to thermal energy which may then excite molecules to emit more IR radiation as a function of temperature and the emission wavelengths of the gas. The Thermal IR radiation emitted by a layer of gas goes in all directions, with half going up and half going down. Furthermore, the surface material can not select photons based on the temperature of the source, so emissions from a colder layer will be absorbed the same as those from a warmer layer. And since the downward IR returned to the surface can not equal that emitted by a surface with the same temperature, there’s no violation of the Second Law, etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Gordo never learns.
Swannie offers yet another anti-2nd law rant. He still has not explained how heat moves from a colder region to a warmer region BY ITS OWN MEANS.
Swanson is not talking about heat. IR is readily absorbed by surfaces of any temperature regardless the temperature of the emitting surface.
It is not Swanson who confuses radiative transmission with transfer of heat. That mistake is entirely the province of those who think surfaces cannot absorb radiation emitted from warmer objects.
Warmer objects emit a broad spectrum of radiation at a wide range of frequencies.
Likewise, a surface – especially a blackbody – can absorb across a vast spectrum of radiation.
Gordon’s error seems to be in thinking that the energy emitted by the warmer object is somehow prevented – across its entire spectrum – from raising the energy state of any electrons in the cooler surface. As if the warm-object energy is in a different class to the energy-state potential of all the electrons in the cooler surface.
Gordon,
“Swannie offers yet another anti-2nd law rant. He still has not explained how heat moves from a colder region to a warmer region BY ITS OWN MEANS.”
Where does Swanson say that happens?
And it’s not perpetual motion because only half returns in the downward direction.
(min + max) / 2 is NOT a Mean. It is an approximation and should be called that.
Of course it’s a mean. It’s just not the mean of the entire day’s temperatures.
Justify that comment.
“Of course it’s a mean.”
Just an inaccurate one.
“It’s just not the mean of the entire day’s temperatures.”
So not very useful at that then.
aq..it’s a mean of two temperature reading and by no means indicates a real average for a day. Sometimes it’s not even close.
No one has yet shown that, for the purposes of deriving long-term trends, the difference is significant enough to worry about. While others (like Bindidon) have actually run the comparison and found negligible difference.
And what if we got the average based on every hour of the day? Wouldn’t there be someone who complained that this is not good enough, unless we get the average accounted for every minute of the day? Or second?
No, this is a complaint without a demonstrated basis.
That’s a common problem with many skeptical claims, Barry. They often argue that there’s a misunderstanding about a particular topic, but they fail to provide concrete data or publications to support their point.
Their primary motivation doesn’t seem to be advancing scientific understanding. As you mentioned earlier, it, supposedly, comes down to just having talking points for forum discussions.
Sometimes there is no real talking point. Contrarians comment meander all the way down. Read any comment by gb. Or they repeat silly insults as nauseam. Take a comment by Puffman at random.
Sometimes the quasi-automatic responses are so convoluted it is hard to believe that they convey any talking point. When GR hears the name of Fourier, we can bet that he will mention something about greenhouses.
Sometimes the talking points are so rigid that it comes off as pure advertising. There is no going-through motions going on. No real interaction. For when two contrarians respond to one another doing the same, it resembles parallel play.
There is supposed to be some kind of appeal behind the talking points. What we are being served are idees fixes.
Typhoon in the South China Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/c3B6qFJ/himawari9-ir-12-W-202409040950.gif
Things the cult doesn’t understand:
1. There is NO science that CO2 can raise surface temperatures. The bogus Arrhenius equation was developed from observing that temperatures correlate with CO2. But, CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. The equation should be reversed so CO2 is predicted from temperature. THAT would be science.
2. The bogus “Earth Energy Imbalance” (EEI) egregiously attempts to balance flux, not energy. Flux does NOT balance.
3. The cult claims Earth has a bogus energy imbalance of about 1-2 W/m². Any such figure they come up with is bogus. Beyond that, Earth’s energy solar input varies about 90 W/m² during a calendar year. In January, Earth is much closer to Sun (Perihelion). In July, Earth is much farther from Sun (Aphelion). The difference in solar flux can be measured, between the two extremes. The difference is about 90 W/m². Yet Earth does not have an annual variance in temperature reflecting such a drastic change. In fact, UAH Global reports higher temperatures when Earth is receiving 90 W/m² less than when it is on the other side of its orbit! Earth is colder with more solar flux and warmer with less solar flux! Earth knows something about thermodynamics and radiative physics. The cult doesn’t….
Hi, Clint.
Very interesting material!
“In fact, UAH Global reports higher temperatures when Earth is receiving 90 W/m less than when it is on the other side of its orbit! ”
Can you, please, provide the reference (references) to that material.
I am very much interested about it!
Christos
CV, Bindi provided the UAH data here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686483
The ~90 W/m² difference is reported here:
The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth’s varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
Thank you, Clint.
I see what you mean,
Bindidon,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686483
“When you average the grid cells in each month, you obtain:
Mon: Kelvin
Jan: 263.18
Feb: 263.27
Mar: 263.43
Apr: 263.84
May: 264.45
Jun: 265.10
Jul: 265.42
Aug: 265.23
Sep: 264.64
Oct: 263.95
Nov: 263.41
Dec: 263.19
Absolute enough, isnt it?”
(emphasis added)
Jan: 263.18 vs Jul: 265.42 it is a 2.24 degrees C difference!
Does it mean Earth’s average surface temperature is 2.24 degrees C higher when the Earth is much farther from Sun (Aphelion)?
Yes it does!
Clint:
“In fact, UAH Global reports higher temperatures when Earth is receiving 90 W/m2 less than when it is on the other side of its orbit! Earth is colder with more solar flux and warmer with less solar flux!”
(emphasis added)
It is a very important observation!!!
–
Christos
Also, thank you, Bindidon!!!
Christos
Re Clint’s recent claims:
1a) There is plenty of science supporting the warming effect of CO2. Clint simply doesn’t understand it.
1b) Arrhenius performed extensive calculations on the effects of CO2 on temperature. His calculations were limited by data and computing power available at the time, but it was NOT a curve fit.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
1c) CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels. This is independent of natural processes. Recognizing there can be multiple processes acting independently would be science.
2) EEI uses flux as a proxy for energy. Integrate flux over the fixed surface area of the earth and the fixed length of a year, and you get energy. The two are directly proportional. We could create a Trenberth Diagram or EEI with all the the average fluxes replaced with annual energies and the diagram would work exactly the same. Flux merely gives us numbers (between ~0 and ~400) that are easy to conceptualize.
3) It is well-known that the global temperature is higher in July and lower in January. It is also well-known *why* this is true. The short answer is that continents heat up and cools down more than oceans. The vast majority of land is in the northern hemisphere. The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance. It turns out that scientists also know something about thermodynamics.
Folkerts, your opinions and beliefs ain’t science.
And when you start off with a false accusation, it only shows how desperate you are.
Hello tim,
1c) “CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels. This is independent of natural processes. Recognizing there can be multiple processes acting independently would be science.”
I would point out that burning fossil fuels replaces o2 with co2.
If you increase the emissivity of a given parcel of air, it will emit more IR for any given Temp thus increasing the rate at which it cools
Thank you, Tim.
“It is well-known that the global temperature is higher in July and lower in January. It is also well-known *why* this is true. The short answer is that continents heat up and cools down more than oceans. The vast majority of land is in the northern hemisphere. The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance. ”
(emphasis added)
Yes, exactly, there are temperature swings because continents heat up and cool down more than oceans.
I think, Tim, you say that when Earth is at Perihelion, and Earth is closer to the sun, Earth is tilted towards sun with the Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters, and, therefore, the Global temperature is lower.
And when Earth is at Aphelion, and Earth is farther from the sun, Earth is tilted towards sun with the Northern Hemisphere’s prevailing continental land, and, therefore, the Global temperature is higher.
So, we have the annual swings in Earth’s Global temperature.
So, it is an established fact that Earth emits more IR outgoing EM energy, when its Global temperature is higher.
And it happens so when Earth is at its farthest on its orbit around sun, when Earth is at Perihelion.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
Not when at Perihelion, but at Aphelion, because Aphelion is the farthest.
This is rich, Tim, in the opening paragraphs, Fourier is referenced as claiming the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse by admitting the rays of the Sun and blocking the ‘dark rays’ from the surface.
That was the belief in the days of Fourier, and for some time afterwards, that IR (dark rays) were synonymous with heat. They actually believed that heat moved through the atmosphere as those dark (heat) rays.
What is even more hilarious was their belief that without GHGs, even with sunlight, the Earth’s surface temperature would drop to -200C. They even thought the Moon has a mean effective temperature of 45C. NASA lists the effective temp at -2.5C and the mean temp at -53C.
In the following paragraph they insinuate that heat moves through air. They are not talking about convection, which is a bulk movement of air, they are talking about heat as radiation.
Then Arrhenius claims the temperature of the Moon is nearly that of the Earth? Duh???
Later, Arrhenius goes about determining ‘absorption coefficients, something that has still not been calculated to this day. Although alarmists quote Arrhenius as a viable source of anthropogenic warming proof, neither he nor they have worked out the actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
He goes on blethering about heat flowing from the Sun and dark heat flowing from the surface. This paper was written before the electron was discovered in 1898 and it would be another 15 years before Bohr disproved Arrhenius et al by revealing the real relationship between heat and radiation.
Later Arrhenius seems somewhat confused as he claims ‘heat’ must be radiated back to space in the same volume as it is absorbed from the Sun. The confusion seems to be in his admission that heat is also carried aloft by ‘ascending current of air’. At the time this paper was written, the Pirani gauge had not yet been invented, and it revealed that the convection was 260 times more efficient at removing heat than radiation.
This energy budget theory ignores the amount of heat naturally dissipated as heated air rises. Any heat dissipated via a natural reduction in pressure, due to gravity, does not have to e radiated back to pace.
Therefore, Arrehenius seems not to be aware of that fact. He goes on to infer that Stefan’s law of radiation measures the heat flow from a surface when it in fact measures only the intensity of radiation.
In summary, the theories of Arrhenius are based on incorrect science and should be dismissed as such. It’s not his fault, he was only going on what was known in his day.
Clint R
YOU: “Folkerts, your opinions and beliefs aint science.”
Wrong! Tim Folkerts does know science and uses well established science. He does not use opinion and beliefs that is what you do.
He supports his claims you do not, ever! You state opinions ridicule and insult any who would disagree with you.
Everything you post about others is your own flaws that you cannot reflect upon. Again because you lack understanding.
You are a cult minded follower of some crackpot blog posters.
You think lower energy IR is reflected by a hotter surface. No experiment has found this to be true, it is not established science, it does show up on blogs of some crackpots. You claim it is a science fact but have zero evidence to support it.
With you posts, in reality who is the one peddling beliefs and opinions? It is you, not Tim Folkerts.
That’s all wrong, Norman. The fact that you keep making up things just proves me right.
You believe Folkerts supports his nonsense? Where is the technical reference that verifies two 315 W/m² fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface emitting 630 W/m²?
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
“If you increase the emissivity of a given parcel of air, it will emit more IR for any given Temp thus increasing the rate at which it cools”
PhilJ. If you increase the emissivity of a parcel of air you will also increase its absOrptivity, by Kirchhoffs law.
Now consider the implications of that.
Smart people have. And it works out to an overall warming.
Nate, you completely missed PhilJ’s point. CO2 emits more IR energy to space than O2, thereby cooling more.
You can’t understand any of this.
“Nate, you completely missed PhilJs point. CO2 emits more IR energy to space than O2, thereby cooling more.”
Which was 0. And it still is, so that is no change.
You are still ignoring the fact that more CO2 molecules also abs0rb more.
And the flux they abs0rb would have gone straight to space otherwise!
As usual you oversimplify a complex problem to the point of saying nothing useful.
Consider flux emitted from the Earth surface at 288 K.
If intercepted by CO2 in the upper atmosphere which is much colder than 288K, then re-emitted to space, do you imagine that it gets somehow amplified by the colder CO2?
That is quite bizarre, given that colder substances emit LESS.
Obviously neither of you have really thought this through.
Nate, you continue to completely missed PhilJ’s point. CO2 emits more IR energy to space than O2, thereby cooling more.
You can’t understand any of this.
And what of the abs0rption you ignore? Doesn’t matter?
Wrong.
Nate, you continue to completely miss PhilJ’s point. CO2 emits more IR energy to space than O2, thereby cooling more.
Emission is NOT absorp.tion.
You can’t understand any of this.
“Emission is NOT absorp.tion.”
Duh! But irrelevant.
If interested in whether a parcel of air warms or cools, just knowing that it is emitting more will not tell you!
You also need to know if it is absor.bing more or less.
It is more.
Why play so thoroughly dumb?
The usual unsupported declarative statements from Clint can be safely ignored..
I know I’ve hit the target when I get ineffective flak from the cult children.
‘Hit the target’
ie intended to annoy (tr0ll) and not to make an effective argument at all.
Got it.
Yes Nate, I know science annoys you.
Not my problem.
If you offered science, you would be able to back it up with sources, links, research papers.
But you don’t. Ever.
It is just you saying whatever you feel ought to be true.
That ain’t science!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686613
Here. Whole bunch of words. No sources. No links. No evidence. No data to support any of it.
Then what are we supposed to learn from this vacuous rant?
Why should anyone believe what you say?
Hint: nobody does.
You can’t understand science, Nate.
Take the simplest example (Point 2), is “flux” the same as “energy”?
You won’t be able to get it right.
“Take the simplest example (Point 2), is flux the same as energy?”
Is a duck a horse?
Nobody but you thinks these are intelligent questions.
Clint R,
Test question:
Why is the Earth cooler when closer to the Sun and warmer when it farther away.
A student in an Atmospheric Sciences class could answer that question.
Why can’t you?
The Cult knows, why don’t you?
Gordon Robertson,
“aq..its a mean of two temperature reading and by no means indicates a real average for a day. Sometimes its not even close.”
What do you mean by sometimes? How good is your statistical knowledge?
Glad you asked.
Sometimes here in Vancouver, Canada, in summer, we will get a high of 30C. At night it might drop to 22C and on other nights it might drop to 15C.
(30C + 22C)/2 = 26C
(30C + 15C)/2 = 22.5C
However, if you had hourly temperatures and calculated both the mean and the median, you might find them quite different. That’s because on the hotter day, there would be more hours of above average temps as indicated by the average, or mean.
As proof of that, on the hotter days, I have been able to walk around in a T-shirt at 3 am whereas that dress would be uncomfortable with the lower average.
The true average should account for the number of hours spent at higher temperatures, in contrast to a day where the temperatures are moderated as the day goes on.
A simple average of high versus low does not tell you much.
“However, if you had hourly temperatures and calculated both the mean and the median, you might find them quite different. Thats because on the hotter day, there would be more hours of above average temps as indicated by the average, or mean.”
Refer to Bindidon, who has conducted statistical comparisons to assess whether using the mean or median significantly impacts the final result (it doesnt).
Binny knows about as much about statistics as a weiner schnitzel, RLH is the statistics expert around here.
All Binny does is sit in front of an Excel app, dressed in his lederhosen and alpine hat, asking his girlfriend how to operate Excel. Every once in a while he yodels out the window, for no apparent reason.
The thing is that Bindidon has done the work, while RLH (and you), who continually asserts this is an issue of merit, continually fails to do the assessment himself.
RLH says there’s an issue here and fails to do the comprehensive review to demonstrate it.
Why?
Is it because RLH prefers to keep the talking point rather than discover the truth?
From memory, Bindidon did a long-term comparison of trends. There are differences on daily and regional basis, but the question asked back then was whether there was a significant difference with long-term global / national (US) trends. This has not been demonstrated in the literature, and as far as I know only Bindidon has attempted to answer that question.
barry…I have little interest in statistical analysis, However, I was forced to take a year long course in probability and statistics during my engineering studies and from that I relate to what RLH is saying. On the other hand, there is a large bs quotient in what Binny is claiming.
You should get it that if you say ‘it’s white’, Binny will automatically say ‘no, it’s black’.
Of course, if you offer a detailed argument, Richard will reply with an inane one-liner. (-:
Waffle.
Either claimants have done some work on what they are saying or they haven’t.
Even if you described a way of assessing whether the hourly and diurnal averaging display significant trend differences with regard to long-term global temps, you would still be doing something useful in the discussion.
One method would be to gather up all or as many stations with hourly data as possible in order to compare the trend differences between the two methods.
Bindidon has done this. Doubting the results is fine, but unless someone does the same or similar work to test the question, then they don’t have much to say.
And yet these very people keep saying things. Without ever doing the work.
In such cases the skeptical thing to do is write off anyone saying stuff who hasn’t done any work on the topic they’re pontificating on.
binny…”Global Cooling ahead, for sure.
13 little weeks thats about three months.
What about looking a bit outside of this minuscule period?”
***
Why should we, cooling is cooling.
Gordon Robertson,
You’ve made it clear that you dont support the conclusions of mainstream science. Now, ask yourself:
Are scientists aware of my concern, and have they addressed it? And, have I done the research to confirm whether they have or not?
This, of course, replies to every skeptic. If the answer to these questions are no, don’t be surprised people label you as a denier.
*applies* to every claimed skeptic.
john…that’s an appeal to authority. I agree it is folly to disregard all scientists and think you have the answers. However, based on your approach, all scientists are right just because they are scientists.
BTW…I am not challenging all scientists, just those who have made statements that make little sense. For example, Einstein defined time as the hands on a clock, which is a ludicrous statement. A clock is a rotary machine synchronized to the rotational period of the Earth. It does not measure time, it measures the length of the Earth’s rotational period. There is no such entity as time to be measured.
All I am doing is questioning inconsistencies in some scientific arguments. I am putting my thoughts out there to be questioned and proved wrong.
Scientists can be seriously dogmatic at times. They cling to age old ideas even though they are obviously wrong. In my field, it is still taught at universities that electric current flows positive to negative. Also, that current can flow through semiconductors via ‘holes’.
What they don’t tell you, unless you read textbooks closely, is that their definition of electric current is an anachronism dating back to the 1920s. The positive to negative theory is based on a ‘positive test charge’ that was hypothesized in the 1920s and obviously does not exist. There are no positive charges flowing in a copper conductor because the positively-charged protons are in the stationary nucleus and cannot move.
The only particle that can move is the electrons, which jumps atoms to atom at a few centimetres per second. It is the electric charge carried by the electron that somehow moves electron to electron at the speed of light. Electric current is the number of those charges passing a point in a circuit per second and those charges are all negative and must flow negative to positive. There are no positive charges that ‘could’ flow positive to negative.
I could go on, giving examples from a vacuum tube. The concept of a hole in semiconductor theory comes from Shockley, in the 1930s. He admits in his book on the subject that the hole is nothing more than a model he created to represent the movement of a hole left when an electron vacates a position in an atom. However, today, in semiconductor theory, we are taught that holes form a current.
That’s absurd. It akin to me digging holes along a line in the garden, then filling them in as I go and claiming the holes are moving along the line. It is the soil being displaced that gives the illusion that the holes are moving and it’s the same in a semiconductor. The only particle that can move in a semiconductor, as in a copper wire, is an electron. If it leaves a hole behind when it moves to another atomic valence band, and the holes appear to move in the opposite direction, what is an empty space in a valence band of an atom going to do?
“I am putting my thoughts out there to be questioned and proved wrong.”
But why do you not pay attention and simply ignore others when they do prove you wrong?
Then return to put out there the very same debunked thoughts again and again?
Good question, Nate. Let’s hope he answers.
nate…”But why do you not pay attention and simply ignore others when they do prove you wrong?”
***
Is it not obvious? No one has taken the time to reply in detail that can address what I am claiming. All I get, is ‘no, you are wrong’, and that is sometimes accompanied by an appeal to authority.
Here’s an example. I claim time does not exist. No one has even attempted to refute my denial with proof that it does exist.
There’s your opening Nate, prove me wrong by showing clearly and scientifically that such an entity as time exists.
“All I get, is no, you are wrong,”
Quite FALSE.
I have responded to your bizarre claims on viruses, on Russia vs Ukraine, on 2LOT, on photons, on relativity, dozens of times, with real evidence, sources,links.
And on most of those occasions you have simply ignored my responses and evidence.
“Heres an example. I claim time does not exist. No one has even attempted to refute my denial with proof that it does exist.”
Look time is an essential part of numerous observation in nature.
Eg time is a part of frequencies, which are fundamental properties of atoms, and light.
So we know that it takes a certain amount of time for a CO2 molecule to stretch and then contract, while another molecule might vibrate a dozen times in the same period.
So we can directly compare the duration of different events.
Your silly demand for proof of its existence is no different from me demanding to prove that YOU exist.
I claim that you are just part of a simulation. Prove me wrong!
Gordon,
The holes actually have a more refined name.
HOMOs and LUMOs
Highest occupied molecular orbital and Lowest unoccupied molecular orbital.
As I predicted, no response from Gordon.
Then he will return later and repeat the false claims.
john…what is it exactly that we skeptics are supposedly denying? I don’t deny that about 1C warming has occurred since 1850. I don’t deny that climates exist and that each climate can unique. I don’t even deny that CO2 can absorb infrared. In fact, I enjoyed reading through Tyndall’s discovery, especially his apparatus.
What I am denying is the cause of the warming as claimed by alarmists. I deny that a trace gas has anything to do with the warming, and if it does, the amount of warming is insignificant. I have not offered that as an uncorroborated opinion, I have supplied proof via the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation.
There was no justifiable reason to presume warming since 1850 was solely caused by anthropogenic emissions. The Little Ice Age was just ending and Akasofu claimed the IPCC erred by not acknowledging re-warming from the LIA.
The Industrial Era began just before the Dalton minimum circa 1790. The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps had already expanded considerably and that expansion surely enlarged during the Dalton minimum. Yet, the IPCC ignored the Dalton minimum, claiming it and other minima, over 400+ years, affected only Europe.
“that’s an appeal to authority.”
No, it is an appeal to check your understanding honestly. John said:
“Now, ask yourself:
Are scientists aware of my concern, and have they addressed it? And, have I done the research to confirm whether they have or not?”
None of that is prescriptive.
Take note of the final sentence.
barry…before John asked me to ask myself, he said….”Youve made it clear that you dont support the conclusions of mainstream science”.
That’s the appeal to authority. John is suggesting that the conclusions of mainstream science is written in stone, hence irrefutable.
A couple of comments…
1)when I am asked to ‘ask myself’, who is asking who? Ergo, how does one ask himself? Think about it. What is the process taking place when someone asks himself something?
According to Jiddu Krishnamurti, human consciousness, the part of which we are aware, is largely conditioned information from others. In other words, it is distorted.
2)All scientists, hopefully being human, are conditioned in the same manner. They tend to draw on other people, namely the instructors (profs), for their basic information, thus paradigms are formed. If no one questions those paradigms, even when they make no sense, the paradigm is regarded as truth.
I am not questioning all science, or even a significant portion of it. I am only questioning science that makes no sense to me. Isaac Newton laid down the foundation for much of modern physics and now his work is being summarily dismissed by paradigm junkies. They are claiming Einstein’s relativity theory of space-time has replaced Newtonian mechanics and that is the highest form of nonsense. Newtonian mechanics is still the basis of all applied physics and relativity plays little or no part, other than in convoluted thought experiments.
Heat is now being dismissed as an energy transport mechanism, rather than an energy form. However, no one can specify which form of energy is being transported. It is obviously thermal energy, aka heat. Furthermore, the 2nd law is being redefined without any thought given to what the 2nd law is stating. That’s because many modern scientists were taught the 2nd law in relation to entropy rather that on the basic definition offered by Clausius.
I am concerned that science is being destroyed by minds who cannot think beyond a paradigm.
“before John asked me to ask myself, he said… ‘Youve made it clear that you dont support the conclusions of mainstream science’.
That’s the appeal to authority.”
That is not remotely an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority asks you to accept something based on the (higher) status of someone else. Clearly this is not happening here, just an acknowledgement of your position against a mainstream view.
This is followed by two questions – also not an appeal to authority.
“Are scientists aware of my concern, and have they addressed it? And, have I done the research to confirm whether they have or not?”
If your answer is “no” then you are not practising skepticism on a scientific topic, you are merely uninformed.
ren…”For Jesus to become Jesus, he first had to become an observer, i.e., objectively observe reality without judgment. In the next stage, we can make conscious decisions”.
***
Ren…that’s essentially what we all must do to get in touch with actuality. Jiddu Krishnamurti, who was non-religious, called it choiceless awareness.
We would not have that capability if it was not already in us at birth. It is an ability built into us and not something we acquire from external sources. I think that’s what Jesus was talking about. We need to discover that ability, even though it is in plain sight at all times.
Interestingly, David Bohm, one of the significant physicists of the 20th century, engaged in several dialogs with Krishamurti, in which he agreed with him. Newton and other scientists had similar thoughts. I think it’s a good idea to keep an open mind and not dismiss what is essentially right in front of us.
So, we have the annual swings in Earths Global temperature.
Earths average surface temperature is 2.24 degrees C higher when the Earth is much farther from Sun (Aphelion).
The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance.
So, we are witnessing a 2.24 degrees C annual swings in global temperature.
–
–
A natural thought begs the question:
What were the global temperature swings ~ 11000 years ago at Holocene’s Optimum.
Were they higher than 2.24 degrees C ?
Of course they were higher, and they were much-much higher, because continents heat up and cools down more than oceans.
The vast majority of land is in the northern hemisphere. The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance.
But about 11000 years ago the distance played a very significant role, because Earths energy solar input also varied about 90 W/m2 during a calendar year.
About 11000 years ago in January, Earth was much farther from Sun (Aphelion). In July, Earth was much closer to Sun (Perihelion). And the difference in solar flux between those two extremes was also about 90 W/m2.
So we have the proofpoint here:
When the global annual temperature swings are higher, then the global average temperature inevitably is lower.
So, at times of Holocene Optimum, instead of the allegedly said sweet warm global climate, there was a much-much colder global climate, than what we have in our era.
Also, since then, Earth is experiencing a slow, 11000 years long continuous orbitally forced WARMING PATTERN.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“So, at times of Holocene Optimum, instead of the allegedly said sweet warm global climate, there was a much-much colder global climate, than what we have in our era.”
Ok, so then, why were sea levels 1 to 2 meters higher than today?
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
“Ok, so then, why were sea levels 1 to 2 meters higher than today?”
Because water, when global climate is colder, water is distributed differently. There is much less water in continents’ rivers, lakes, and soils and all that water ends up in oceans.
When the climate is colder there are much larger the dry areas, like desserts and tundras.
Thus the sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher than today.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But Holocene Optimum was wet. The Sahara deserts were grasslands [rivers and forests, etc]. Sahara became the desert it is, about 5000 years ago.
But before Holocene Optimum, Sahara was much more of a desert than it is today. At glacial Max the world was very dry {and cold}.
Or Holocene Optimum was like all the past interglacial peak periods, but Holocene was weaker than most. Some have argued Holocene isn’t actually an interglacial period, because it was so weak. Or was because it interrupted {for reasons we still don’t fully understand].
Just wandering about, and finding funny stuff.
Understanding deep ocean warming can help improve seasonal weather, climate prediction
https://research.noaa.gov/2020/10/14/research-the-deep-sea-is-slowly-warming/
“New research reveals temperatures in the deep sea fluctuate more than scientists previously thought and a warming trend is now detectable at the bottom of the ocean.
In a new study in AGUs journal Geophysical Research Letters, researchers analyzed a decade of hourly temperature recordings from moorings anchored at four depths in the Atlantic Oceans Argentine Basin off the coast of Uruguay. The depths represent a range around the average ocean depth of 3,682 meters (12,080 feet), with the shallowest at 1,360 meters (4,460 feet) and the deepest at 4,757 meters (15,600 feet). ”
Fairly boring, but, read on.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
Also it should be noticed, that Earth’s 288K average surface temperature, it is actually Earth’s the annual average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth surface is lousy place to get solar energy- particularly for electrical power.
If one was in Orbit, at a distance, where sunlight was 500 watts per square meter. {so that would be a bit further from the Sun than Mars orbital distance].
It would be a better place to harvest electrical power from the Sun than compared to anywhere on Earth’s surface.
In this orbit one would get 24 hours of sunlight per 24 hours.
On Earth at best one averages about 6 hours per 24 hour day.
Or 24 times 500 watts per square meter is 12 Kw hour per 24 hours.
And with say 20% efficiency, 12 times .2 = 2.4 kw of electrical power per square meter per 24 hours.
And best place on Earth would be 6 hours at average of 900 watts per square meter, or 5.4 Kw per 24 hour on average, and with .2 it’s
1.0 kw hours. But say one could get .4 {40%] efficiency, allowing for fantasy: 5.4 x .4 = 2.16 kw of electrical power per 24 hours.
Though what you paying trillion of dollars for, is about a 15% or less efficiency.
Of course the big problem is the 18 hours you can’t get electrical power from the solar panels on the Earth surface. And when electrical power is gotten, it is the time of day, when you don’t need electrical power the most.
Of course the other aspect having solar panels where it’s not the best places- no where in Europe or China are the best places.
But as said, even in best places, it’s not a viable way to get electrical power.
But the Moon and Mars has places in which solar power works.
And in Earth orbit, where solar panels were invented to be used, they also work.
RLH believes we are going into a strong La Nina.
ONI for Jun-Jul-Aug at the start of all previous strong and moderate La Ninas, since the data begins in 1950:
Strong La Ninas:
1973-74: -1.1
1975-76: -1.1
1988-89: -1.3
1998-99: -0.8
1999-00: -1.1
2007-08: -0.5
2010-11: -1.0
Moderate La Ninas:
1955-56: -0.7
1970-71: -0.6
1995-95: -0.2
2011-12: -0.5
2020-21: -0.4
2021-22: -0.4
Jun-Jul-Aug this year: +0.1
The HTE definitely had an impact.
Yeah … and JFK returned from the dead in 2021 at age 100, along with the also-dead JFK jnr, to lead a rally in Dallas supporting Trump.
You really should register your claim with QAnon.
Your attempt to pervert reality is why you need to leave science to adults, Ant.
So QAnon and its far right supporters didn’t make those claims?
RFK Jr (not JFK Jr., who died in a private plane crash) has his heart and head in the right place. He cares about how this new meme of political-correctness is hurting US citizens.
I am a left winger, based on my history, but I support both Trump and RFK Jr. Right now, I have no political stripe since I have abandoned the lot. I have nothing in common with the politics of Trump and RFK Jr. but I identify with their stance, which I regard as more important for democracy than personal feelings re their politics.
My dad, a Brit, and a life-long Labour supporter (left wing) once annoyed me by voting Tory, for similar reasons. Now I understand him, bless his soul. This world is a poorer place without people like my dad.
BTW….I no longer support the left-wing in Canada. I regard them as having sold out to special interest group while abandoning the working class. Here in BC, they have done nothing about sky-rocketing rents while wasting time on prissy nonsense like climate change and covid hysteria.
Just talked to a delightful young lady who was fired from her job as a health care professional for refusing a covid vaccine. Good for her and her integrity. Canada is a better place with people like her in it. On the contrary, it is a far poorer place with the mob of politically-correct sheeple in it.
Not relevant Gordon, but as you’re here I’ll ask you:
Did QAnon and its far right supporters make those claims?
Gordo displays his usual anti-rational world view, as he writes:
No, Gordo, if she was fired, it was because she refused to perform her job, which may also have included the requirement to provide administration of treatment(s) as prescribed by the proper medical professionals involved. If she objected to the job requirements, she should have simply quit and moved on to find another job/career which fit her perspective.
Of course, your comment isn’t about her situation, it’s about the medical profession and the scientific basis there of. You would have us all bend to your world view, even though it ends up injuring or killing many people. It’s been pointed out that most of the people currently dying from COVID have not been vaccinated or who have not kept up with their vaccinations.
Gordo, Here’s the latest data from the WHO
US/World
Deaths for the 28 days ending 18 August 2024: 3,200/4,392
Deaths for the 7 days ending 18 August 2024: 757/997
The US is the leader by far in deaths reported for either 7 or 28 days. Of course, a lot depends on the accuracy of the data reported to the WHO.
swannie…”The US is the leader by far in deaths reported for either 7 or 28 days. Of course, a lot depends on the accuracy of the data reported to the WHO”.
***
That’s the point, Swannie. There was so much hysteria surrounding covid that the numbers got skewed out of all proportion.
It got so bad in the US that if a person died after being in contact with a person who had covid, he was declared to have died from covid. Also, hospitals could make thousands more if the person they were treating was declared as having covid.
The cause of covid deaths was pneumonia, that is the victim died of pneumonia, not a virus. However, there are two basic types of pneumonia: typical and atypical. Typical pneumonia is declared when an identified bacteria or virus infects your body and causes swelling in your lungs. Atypical is declared when the cause is not clear.
Swelling in your lungs is a bad situation. It interferes with your lungs’ ability to take in oxygen but the virus does not cause the swelling, and, most people with healthy immune systems don’t get pneumonia.
It seems clear to me that a virus does not cause either type of pneumonia, that a bacteria is involved. However, the bacteria seems to come from a secondary infection produced by the virus. All of us should be susceptible to pneumonia from a cold or viral infection but it normally only happens with people who have immune problem, COPD, etc.
So, when you have people acting hysterically, they tend to amplify things out of all proportion. That was the case in the US and Canada, and the speed with which covid was declared endemic and dropped like a hot potato suggests strongly that whatever caused those deaths is unknown. Epidemics occur every so often and these days, epidemiologists, with too much time on their hands, must leap to conclusions and amplify the epidemics.
The vaccines did nothing but give bean-counters and theorists a chance to exert power over us and deprive us of our democratic rights. Oh…the vaccine made a heck of a lot of money for drug companies.
Gordo rants again, completely ignoring the facts of COVID-19 which have been gathered since the virus first appeared. Evidence that COVID-19 was a new disease was quickly found from X-Rays of people that showed a different form of lung infection compared with what had usually been found. He blames the COVID-19 lung damage on “pneumonia…causes swelling in your lungs” without any evidence. AIUI, the disease involves actual damage to the cells in the lungs, damage which can linger after the acute phase of the infection has passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19
Gordo’s anti-vax perspective forgets that the Trump administration’s response made things far worse, by denying the severity of the epidemic and promoting useless treatments to the MAGA believers. But, as I pointed out, there are still ~700 people dying each week in the US from the disease, which can be easily diagnosed using the tests now available.
” Just talked to a delightful young lady who was fired from her job as a health care professional for refusing a covid vaccine. Good for her and her integrity. ”
Nener and never has Robertson ‘talked to a delightful young lady who was fired from her job as a health care professional for refusing a covid vaccine’ nor for any other reason.
Because no ‘delightful young lady’ would ever spend even a few seconds with a reckless, boasting charlatan like Robertson.
Antonin Qwerty
” RLH believes we are going into a strong La Nina. ”
Maybe that’s the reason why he no longer posts this link?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Would he post this one?
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
barry…”Gordons error seems to be in thinking that the energy emitted by the warmer object is somehow prevented across its entire spectrum from raising the energy state of any electrons in the cooler surface. As if the warm-object energy is in a different class to the energy-state potential of all the electrons in the cooler surface”.
***
Glad you said ‘seems’. You are getting hung up on an old theory that was hypothesized long before Bohr worked out the real relationship between electrons and radiation. Blackbody theory was proposed circa 1850, by Kircheoff some 50 years before the electron was discovered.
I must give credit to scientists of that era, they did a lot of decent educated guessing as to how atoms worked. However, they were wrong, and that includes Clausius, but only re radiation theory. His 2nd law has stood the test of time, and it should because it is a very basic energy law.
Clausius was among those who thought heat flowed through air as a form of radiation they called heat rays. In the end, he had the good sense to declare that heat transfer via radiation must obey the 2nd law, even though he hypothesized a two-way heat transfer via radiation.
Bohr’s theory proved the old heat radiation theory wrong. I don’t know for sure, but it seems you are going on the blackbody theory that BB’s can absorb and emit all frequencies. You ‘seem’ to be applying that to ordinary surfaces.
That theory is clearly wrong in reality.
The idea prevalent circa 1850 was that an idealized body, the blackbody, could absorb and radiate all frequencies. No one has ever seen such an entity. The closest we can come is super-heated bodies like the Sun or material like iron heated to a very high temperature. But then, the body does not appear black, but moves toward a white light as temperature increases. I am sure that further heating will cause the body to disintegrate as electrons gain enough energy to leave their atoms.
The idea that the Sun absorbs all frequencies seems a bit daft to me.
There is a decent explanation here as to why coal, which is classified as a blackbody, is black at room temperature. Coal in not a simple material, it is an amalgamation of different organic materials which have decomposed and been compressed. The formula for coal is C137 H97O9 N S for bituminous coal and C240 H90O4 N S for high-grade anthracite. In the article, which is actually part of a forum, a physicist explains the peculiarities of carbon, and why coal is black yet a similar carbon unit, diamond, is clear.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-graphite-or-coal-absorb-light-and-not-diamond-I-know-the-structures-I-am-looking-for-specific-detail-Why-does-light-get-absorbed-in-structure-and-others-do-not
Clearly, electrons, a la Bohr’s theory, hold the explanation.
Finishing this off, all elements (atoms) radiate and absorb at discrete frequencies. They have no spectrum per se unless you mean a line spectrum (a series of lines representing discrete frequencies). So, how do we get to a Planck spectrum that is a continuous series of frequencies at various intensities?
Obviously, the electrons in a body like the Sun are radiating at various temperatures. The temperature of the Sun ranges from about 1 million C at the core to 5000C at the surface. Actually, the corona, for some reason, rises back to 1 million C. Go figure. Clearly, something is going on between the surface and the corona to cause electrons to act at a broad range of frequencies. The sum of their individual emission frequencies produces a broader spectrum.
Maybe super-hot plasma from deeper regions is being ejected as the corona.
The Earth’s surface has an infrared spectrum due to the broad range of temperatures and the broad range of emitting materials. However, each electron in each atom of each material can radiate at only one frequency per temperature state of the material. Any spectrum produced is a summation of the individual electron emission frequencies.
If you towed all the ice from the Arctic and Antarctica and packed it around the UK, it would raise no temperatures. Even though the ice is radiating at a hypothesized 315 w/m^2, nothing would be warmed. Why? Because the electrons in the frozen water molecules of ice will not be absorbed by the surrounding environment at a higher temperature.
In fact, if you leave the ice there long enough, it will all melt. Why?? The ice will absorb heat from the surrounding ocean and atmosphere and radiation from the surrounding environment.
2nd law!!!
“Finishing this off, all elements (atoms) radiate and absorb at discrete frequencies. They have no spectrum”
We are talking about objects – surfaces – not gas molecules, which do radiate and absorb at discrete frequencies.
Surfaces radiate and absorb across a broad range of frequencies. A blackbody is merely an idealised version of this where emissivity = 1.
Real surfaces absorb and emit at close to 1. Even emitting at 0.5, there is still a broad spectrum of frequencies emitted and absorbed, just less effectively.
This is where you err, as I said. You treat surface as if they radiate and absorb only at the peak frequency, instead of realising they are capable of emitting and absorbing at a broad range.
This is all part of your confusion between heat and radiation. They are not equivalent.
Look at the broad spectrum emissivity of the earth, measured by satellites.
https://tinyurl.com/yy9pd8uy
This is not even the full spectrum, the peak is on the left.
As soon as a surface electron loses energy and moves to a lower energy state, all it needs is any of a range of photon frequencies to move it up to a higher energy state.
The atmosphere radiates at many frequencies, and there is plenty of spectral overlap at Earth temperatures for the surface to absorb the radiation. Nothing prevents a photon from the atmosphere of the right energy exciting surface molecules.
All that is required is for there to be overlap in the emissive properties of the sending and the receiving object. Doesn’t matter if one is warmer than the other, because it is not heat being transferred but tiny packets of energy.
Heat is the net result of all these transfers, and the transfer of heat is hot to cold.
A single photon exchange is not a transfer of heat, it’s a transfer of energy.
This is what you get wrong. What’s our perennial maxim?
EMR is not heat!
barry…”Surfaces radiate and absorb across a broad range of frequencies. A blackbody is merely an idealised version of this where emissivity = 1″.
***
I am not talking only about gases. The surface is made up of individual elements, like Si, K, Al, Fe, Cu, etc., and each element can offer only a line spectrum. No atomic element has a broadband spectrum, any broadband emission spectra must come from a summation of many different elements. That is compounded by different temperatures for different elements.
No one was aware to the slightest degree, when blackbody theory became popular, that electrons existed and what part they played in emission spectra. Blackbody theory is an ad hoc theory based on the incorrect physics of the day.
There is no practical application for blackbody theory in the modern world, in fact, the theory has only confused people into thinking heat can be transferred both ways between a colder and hotter object via radiation.
Blackbody theory was based on bodies at thermal equilibrium and was never intended to deal with bodies of different temperatures. It is an anachronism and should be discarded.
“As soon as a surface electron loses energy and moves to a lower energy state, all it needs is any of a range of photon frequencies to move it up to a higher energy state”.
***
Barry, you are quick to claim I am wrong about radiation, then you make this statement that totally contradicts Bohr’ theory. He was clear that electrons in a certain energy orbital can absorb and emit at only one frequency.
I don’t know exactly what that’s about but based on my experience in electronics and resonance theory I think it is likely about an electron orbiting at a very high angular frequency and requiring an EM field of similar frequency to excite it. The EM frequency itself was generated by another electron orbiting at a similar high, albeit lower frequency.
Resonance in this case would be EM with a frequency coinciding (being in phase with) an electron’s angular frequency and exciting it. Resonance curves are usually very sharp in rise, meaning the excitation frequency falls in a very narrow band of frequencies. Since hydrogen’s line spectra fall with a fraction of a cycle, that indicates how narrow the excitation and must be.
I can see a lower frequency from a cooler object’s electrons not having the required excitation frequency but I am wondering about higher frequency radiation from stronger/hotter sources. Higher frequencies should have a similar resonance requirement but is it a multiple (say octave, or double) frequency that is required?
The point to get is that the resonance curve’s amplitude from electron’s in a cooler object is lacking in energy to cause excitation in an electron in a hotter object. It might have the required frequency to giggle the electron a bit but apparently it requires a good jolt to get an electron to jump.
UV had the ability to cause a maximal jump in an electron but can UV from a cooler object affect an electron in a hotter body orbiting at Xray frequencies?
Molecules in a surface behave differently to gas molecules. Their excitation, they way they bond and the way atomic lattices are perturbed broadens out their emission spectrum. The interaction of the elements broadens their emission spectrum, and even atomic lattices can absorb energy.
Surfaces do not have only the emissivity of their constituent atoms.
The graph of Earth emissivities (including different materials on the Earth’s surface – ice, stone, water, soil) is there for you to see. Satellites measure the broadband spectra directly.
Thus, a surface can absorb a broad range of radiation frequency. The emissivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface greatly overlap. They absorb each others radiation. The net result is that the atmosphere absorbs more radiation from the surface than the other way around, so the exchange of heat is from surface to atmosphere – hot to cold.
The absolute amount of radiation, or even the ratio emitted and absorbed can change, but as a long as the net result is as above, heat will always be flowing from the object receiving more bulk radiation than the other receives.
Earth surface emission chart from this paper.
“Presented here is the global surface IR emissivity data retrieved from the last 5 years of Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) measurements observed from the MetOp-A satellite.”
barry…from the abstract, and that is all you get, is this statement…
“Monthly mean surface properties (i.e., skin temperature Ts and emissivity spectra εν).
***
How does one extract an emissivity from an unknown surface composition?
This paper sounds like even more subjective analysis using models.
“How does one extract an emissivity from an unknown surface composition?”
If you read the paper – or even just looked at the graph I linked – you would know that they identified different materials they were measuring the emissivity of.
That link downloads the paper.
So, the answer to the question up above:
“Are scientists aware of my concern, and have they addressed it? And, have I done the research to confirm whether they have or not?”
Yes they have, and you have not done the research to confirm whether they have or not.
It’s handed to you on a plate – there is a link – but you are a denier, so you just ignore it.
barry…there was no link I could find to the paper, just an abstract. I wanted to read the paper to see what they were on about.
Try this:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120017029/downloads/20120017029.pdf
So, it’s possible Starship first stage is successful caught in 2 to 3 weeks. And within 6 seeks New Glenn rocket could successful launch payload AND have it’s first stage caught by a drone ship. And launch it, again, before Christmas of 2024 and that first stage could be caught, again.
And if Starship catches it’s first stage, it could launch some more Starships, before Christmas.
And could have robotic lander landing on Moon before Christmas.
Rocket Lab could launch some more rockets before Christmas.
And maybe Trump wins, the Ukraine War ends, And Israel kills all the significant terrorist leadership.
But what will happen in 2025?
SpaceX New Starship Flight 5 Launch IN DATE, the Countdown Begins!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrnGh9NLH3o
Well, it’s basically what I am talking about, I don’t imagine there is a “plan” regarding FAA and/or NASA. Though Jeff Bezos has plans.
One aspect of delay with Starship, not mentioned much, is test 4 launch was about getting data. Data was the payload, it was said.
And maybe they got a lot more data than they hoped they would get. And it could take some time to go over the data.
I am sure NASA wants more then Boeing SLS, they want competition. But I don’t think it’s just about Starship and New Glenn rockets.
Of course also it has to, also be about the global satellite internet.
But in terms of rockets there are Rocket Lab and many, many more, rockets. And someone might even do something wild, like build a sea dragon type rocket.
The main problem with rockets has been lack of market- and global satellite internet, is that market, but also as get more and cheaper rockets, it makes more markets.
A market could be, that people to want to use space telescopes, rather than using telescopes from the ground or backyard.
But also exploring the Moon, though scientifically interesting, it also about creating new markets.
A settlement on Mars is just another market, but it seems it going to take a lot longer, than other markets- endless markets.
We’ve clearly seen that the cult rejects science. In fact, they don’t even understand what “science” is. They believe “science” is whatever their religious beliefs are. They believe in a “consensus” of their fellow cultists.
That ain’t science.
Science, in simplest terms, is reality. Science means concepts are demonstrable, repeatable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and do NOT violate the laws of physics.
So when the cult asks for “links, research papers, or peer-reviewed sources”, what they are saying is they will only accept crap that their cult puts out. They have no appreciation for actual science, aka reality. They fully accept that “cold” can warm “hot”, passenger jets fly backward, radiative fluxes simply add, all infrared is “heat”, etc.
That ain’t science.
Please demonstrate, repeat, test, verify and falsify your “HTE”.
Ant, please demonstrate you have the maturity and knowledge to understand.
You stalk here as a child of the cult, with no interest in learning. That’s not an insult, it’s reality. Want a simple test?
Can ice cubes boil water? Do passenger jets fly backward? Can two 315 W/m² fluxes arriving a surface result in the surface emitting 630 W/m²?
All you had to say was “I don’t know how to”.
See Ant, you stalk here as a child of the cult, with no interest in learning.
Thanks for proving me right.
Of course I’m interested in learning. I’m asking you to teach me.
Please teacher, would you demonstrate, repeat, test, verify and falsify your HTE. Thanking you in expectation.
Verify that you are sincere by starting here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686873
Let’s just assume, for the sake, that Clint R’s no GHG blah blah blah is correct. Now he can proceed to teach us.
I’ve already answered those questions for you many times, Clinty Poo.
(1) If you mean “can ice take water from below the boiling point of water to boiling point”, no.
If you simply mean “can ice cause the bubbles associated with boiling”, then yes, as demonstrated here:
https://www.instructables.com/Boiling-Using-Ice-Experiment/
(2) No, passenger jets cannot fly backwards.
(3) The emission of a body depends on its temperature, which you have no specified, so there is insufficient information.
Now … your turn.
Please demonstrate, repeat, test, verify and falsify your HTE.
You’re not going to look for more excuses are you Clinty Poo?
Ant, the only one you got right is #2.
Find a responsible adult to explain #1 and #3 to you. Your understanding of such simple reality is a prerequisite for any further education.
Also, your immature “Clinty Poo” doesn’t help your case. It just proves me right, again.
So the video was a lie, was it Clinty Poo?
AQ has already declared his penchant for being limp wristed. Better to humour him before he calls in the homophobe police.
How did you manage to drag that into this conversation Gordy?
You really should get your mind off the subject.
BTW … All police are ‘homophobe police’, just like all conservatives are homophobe conservatives.
aq…”How did you manage to drag that into this conversation Gordy?”
***
The same way you dragged off-hand comments about Clint into the thread. Clint and I are buddies. We have our differences and go at each other with offhand remarks but it’s quite another thing when an alarmist attacks us.
What off-hand comments? He is the one who raised the nonsense of planes flying backwards, not me.
Ant proves me right again, with his incompetence and immaturity.
I never get tired of being right….
“Can two 315 W/m fluxes arriving a surface result in the surface emitting 630 W/m?”
Of course. Two 315W/m fluxes of arriving sunlight will result in 630 W/m total arriving, so (in steady-state) 630 W/m will also be emitted.
This has been explained dozens of times. I am not sure what about this is so confusing to you.
Interesting that Folkerts is specifying “sunlight”, when I didn’t.
That’s how he works his deception. Cult children will fall for it.
And, as usual, he has no technical reference to support his nonsense.
Interesting that Clint is now excluding sunlight, when he didnt mention it before.
The exact quote. “Can two 315 W/m fluxes arriving a surface result in the surface emitting 630 W/m?”
I showed that yes, they can. Clint is now trying to move the goalposts, as if he had specified fluxes from ice or some such.
folkerts, confusing simple issues is part of deception. You do it so well, and so often.
But, it only proves me right.
Clint, confusing simple issues is part of poor understanding. You do it so often.
You asked if something was possible. I showed that it was. End of story.
Wrong folkerts. What you showed is that you can pervert the issue.
“Wrong folkerts.”
I say two 315 W/m^2 beams of sunlight CAN be added to make a 630 W/m^2 beam of sunlight.
Are you seriously trying to argue that I am wrong about that? That two 315 W/m^2 beams of sunlight CANNOT be added to make a 630 W/m^2 beam of sunlight.
Those are the only two choices.
Clint
When do you think you might play the ball, instead of playing the man? Demonstrate, repeat, test, verify and falsify your HTE.
folkerts, where is your viable technical reference to support such nonsense?
If that were true, then you could boil water with ice cubes.
https://www.instructables.com/Boiling-Using-Ice-Experiment/
“folkerts, where is your viable technical reference to support such nonsense?”
Are you claiming that it is “nonsense” that 2 sunbeams are brighter and deliver more power than a single sunbeam? I suspect you would not appreciate it if I reflected 20 sunbeams onto you skin at the same spot.
The ‘viable technical reference’ is conservation of energy. If one sun beam provides 315 joules of energy to a 1 m^2 surface in 1 second, then two such beams provide 630 J of energy in 1 second. Or simply your skin getting hotter.
“If that were true, then you could boil water with ice cubes.”
Since so far I have only discussed sunlight, ice cubes are not even under discussion. Once you acknowledge that sunbeams add, then we can move on yo your misunderstanding about thermal radiation from ice.
folkerts doesn’t understand the physics, and Ant doesn’t even understand the issue!
How do you help such ignorance?
You can’t….
This is my comment which you claimed was wrong:
If you mean can ice take water from below the boiling point of water to boiling point, no.
If you simply mean can ice cause the bubbles associated with boiling, then yes, as demonstrated here:
https://www.instructables.com/Boiling-Using-Ice-Experiment/
Tell me Clint, what was wrong with my comment. Please reference the video in answering.
I predict you will continue your avoidance.
Ant, you’re a child of the cult. You have no interest in reality, science, or learning. This is just another perfect example.
You found something to throw against the wall, without understanding any of it. I have learned not to waste time with you, and people like you, but I have time today to waste. So I will explain how incompetent you are, but will not engage in your typical all-day back-and-forth. This will be my last comment on this issue, so you will have the last word.
Your video has NOTHING to do with the issue. The issue is folkerts’ bogus claim that radiative fluxes simply add. If that were true, ice cubes could boil water. Your video does not involve ice raising the temperature of water. In your video, the water is already at the boiling temperature. It was brought to that temperature by a burner. In an inclosure, pressure builds up to prevent boiling, even though the temperature is still at original boiling point. In thermodynamics you learn that the boiling point of water changes with pressure. But, this is all over your head and you can’t learn.
So when ice is used to cool the container, the pressure drops, allowing the water to boil again. The ice did NOT raise the temperature of the water. Ice can NOT raise the temperature of water. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface. But, this is all over your head and you can’t learn.
Now, find some other nonsense to throw against the wall. That’s all you can do.
“If you mean can ice take water from below the boiling point of water to boiling point, NO.”
Did you not understand that Clint? Do you have comprehension issues? At no stage did I say the ice raises the temperature of the water.
You linked to a comment with THREE questions:
Can ice cubes boil water?
Do passenger jets fly backward?
Can two 315 W/m fluxes arriving a surface result in the surface emitting 630 W/m?
So in what sense is this not one of your THREE issues?
And the real issue:
Please demonstrate, repeat, test, verify and falsify your HTE.
If heating water outside in Alaska in winter and it was -20 degrees F outside, and the water was just below boiling point, then we placed a slab of ice at 32 F, a few inches above the pot, what would happen Clint?
CLINT: “The issue is folkerts bogus claim that radiative fluxes simply add. If that were true, ice cubes could boil water. “
The problem (for the umpteenth time) is that Clint still can’t distinguish between EMITTED fluxes and RECEIVED fluxes. When challenged, he retreats to accusations that it is the OTHERS who don’t understand.
Consider a surface with half a dome of 0 C ice above it. The ice EMITS 315 W/m^2 and the surface RECEIVES 157.5 W/m^2 from that half of the dome (reduced due to geometry and the inverse square law). Now add the other half of the dome. This ice also EMITS 315 W/m^2 and the surface also RECEIVES 157.5 W/m^2 from this other half of the dome.
The RECEIVED fluxes simply add. 157.5 + 157.5 = 315 W/m^2 of flux ARRIVING at the surface from the united dome @ 0 C emitting 315 W/m^2.
If you think that the arriving fluxes of 157.5 W/m^2 and 157.5 W/m^2 for the two halves of the dome DON’T simply add to give 315 W/m^2, then tell us how much flux YOU think will be arriving.
It’s always funny when the cult kids team up to throw crap against the wall.
Ant wanted me to specifically address his comment about the video. When I did, he went off in a new direction.
folkerts jumps in to demonstrate his ongoing confusion about “emitting” vx. “arriving”. This issue has always been about “arriving”.
But the winner is Nate. He’s so confused he’s asking a question that debunks his cult “science”. He’s got water and ice together! Any cultist knows ice would have boiled all the water away….
CLINT CLAIMS “This issue has always been about “arriving”.”
But fluxes DO simply add when talking about arriving fluxes. Two sunbeams shining on the same spot are brighter and make a surface hotter than a single sunbeam. My two 157.5 W/m^2 fluxes do simply add to give 315 W/m^2 of flux from ice. Twenty 30 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at the same spot simply add to be a 600 W/m^2 flux.
Until you acknowledge that ARRIVING fluxes simply add, you are not even at an entry level of understanding.
Folkerts, the issue is so simple.
Two fluxes, each 315 W/m², arriving the same surface do NOT result in the surface emitting 630 W/m².
You don’t the science, so you have to keep perverting the issue.
What will you try next?
You don’t understand the science.
So, Clint, assume two 315 W/m^2 fluxes DO arrive at and get absorbed by a surface.
1) How much total arrives?
a) more than 630 W/m^2
b) less than 630 W/m^2
c) exactly 630 W/m^2
2) If 630 W/m^2 arrives, then when it reaches steady-state, how much is emitted by the surface.
a) more than 630 W/m^2
b) less than 630 W/m^2
c) exactly 630 W/m^2
Explain your answers.
Wrong again, folkerts. Your “assumption” would not be valid in all situations. You’re “assuming” all infrared is always absorbed. That’s NOT valid. That’s the false science that would result in ice cubes being able to boil water.
You don’t understand science.
Try jumping off a 40-story building, “assuming” gravity won’t affect you….
What will you try next?
“Your assumption would not be valid in all situations.”
Who cares? In THIS example they are abs.orbed.
And just one example is sufficient to falsify your entire narrative that fluxes don’t add.
“Youre assuming all infrared is always absorbed.”
Obviously he did not assume any such thing!
Notice how Nate is quickly willing to twist, spin, distort reality to fit his cult beliefs.
He’s even willing to imply that an assumption is “proof”!
Science and reality mean nothing to the cult.
> Science and reality
I thought you said that science was reality, Puffman.
“Youre assuming all infrared is always abs.orbed.
Show us where he stated that!
It is clear that his body is black body, or close enough to one.
I think all of us know very well that not all materials are black bodies.
And non-black bodies do not abs.orb all IR.
So makes absolutely no sense for him to assume that ‘all infrared is always abs.orbed.’
You are wrong about that.
This is even better than I expected. They can’t do anymore than throw crap against the wall.
If they had anything, they would produce it. If their beliefs were reality, they would provide a viable technical reference that two fluxes, each 315 W/m², arriving the same surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m².
But they don’t have it. Their nonsense ain’t science.
What will you try next?
“Youre “assuming” all infrared is always absorbed. ”
No, but in this specific discussion we have BOTH been assuming blackbodies to keep the calculations simple. For example, the “315 W/m^2” number is based on blackbody radiation @ 0 C. We could use any emissivity we want, but it would get complicated in a hurry. And would detract from the main points.
“Thats the false science that would result in ice cubes being able to boil water.”
No. Even if the body is a perfect blackbody and absorbs all incoming radiation, that would NOT result in ice cubes being able to boil water. You can’t keep your ‘false sciences’ straight!
The two main points above apply for any emissivity.
* Fluxes ARRIVING AT a surface simply add.
* This does NOT lead to colder surfaces (eg ice) being able to warm other surfaces to higher temperatures (eg boil water).
folkerts, your endless blah-blah is crap.
You’ve got NOTHING.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1687287
That’s the point, the cult are not willing to discuss science without reference to authority figures and a need for peer reviewed proof.
They don’t get it that peer review means nothing. The process involves a journal editor passing a paper to one person for review and as Roy has pointed out, the reviewer may have no idea what the paper is about.
Peer review, as it is applied today is actually a form of censorship. Initially, it was intended to weed out papers from people who were incompetent and offered equally incompetent papers. Today, it has out-lived that need and is used primarily to block papers from skeptics.
This is not a blog aimed at professionals. Roy has opened it up to anyone who wants to comment, which is good. I’d like to see climate alarmists offer their views on the science, to discuss it scientifically, but that is not happening. Alarmists use the blog as a forum to advertise the views of alarmists scientists and the alarmist media.
“Peer review, as it is applied today is actually a form of censorship. Initially, it was intended to weed out papers from people who were incompetent and offered equally incompetent papers. Today, it has out-lived that need and is used primarily to block papers from skeptics.”
On the contrary, peer review is nearly absent from many predatory journals.
The difference between today and a decade or more ago is the proliferation of for-profit journals that have little incentive to reject incompetent papers, because they want the large fees paid by the authors. In these journals there is no effective peer review.
Then the denialst community can point to a crappy paper that they like and say it was ‘published’, as if that makes it right!
It doesnt.
Glaciers may lay down submarine sediment banks that hinder access of warming waters – they may literally stabilise themselves against warming:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/06/how-the-maelstrom-under-greenlands-glaciers-could-slow-future-sea-level-rise
elliott appears to be a PR rep for the Guardian and their unabashed promotion of alarmist climate propaganda.
Elliott’s mom should ground him and take away his computer priveleges.
Elliott has not explained how water adjacent to ice is preventing warming in adjacent water. I realize this article is about Greenland, however, as polar expert Duncan Wingham, himself an alarmist, claimed about glaciers in the Antarctic, it’s far too cold for glaciers to melt in Antarctica.
It’s the same for Greenland. The eco-weenies writing the article claim that rock sediments from the glacier toe is preventing ‘ever hotter’ oceans from melting the glacier toe. I am for sending these weenies to Greenland, even in summer, and have them swim in this ‘ever hotter’ ocean. The water temperature rarely exceeds 0C, and the ice does not melt due to the amount of salt in the water.
They are using a submersible, have them don a wet suit and swim in this ‘hotter’ water.
The only warming in Antarctica, and it is insignificant, is in the northern end of the Antarctic Peninsula, which is close to the latitude of the tip of South America. The warming of the water is not due to anthropogenic sources but due to ocean currents bringing the warmer water from further north.
Still, the alarmists continue to present propaganda that glacier in Antarctica are melting. Now they have found some pseudo-science that the glaciers actually prevent themselves from melting.
One of the team leader stated…”As the first measurements came in…. I cried a little bit, because it was really exciting to see, and finally the drudgery of planning this for years was paying off.
Sound like an objective team. [/sarc off]
BTW way, the caves they talk about are created as the glacier toe is thrust further out into the ocean by the enormous mass of ice behind it. The ice is still attached to the glacier and these rocket-scientists are running their sub under millions of tons of glacier that could shear at any moment and stomp their sub permanently into the ocean mud.
Why is it I know this after one year of geology and these space cadets are totally unaware of it? Incompetents like that should not be allowed into an expensive machine like that and we should not be subjected to their emotional and non-objective conclusions.
13 A-words so far in the thread.
All by the same commenter.
Did I miss it? I don’t see any mention of the “real” source of the heat
Why El Nios Originate from Geologic, Not Atmospheric, Sources Plate climatology
Written by James E. Kamis on 11SEPT2015
the 1998 and 2015 El Nios are so similar. If the atmosphere has radically changed these El Nios should be different, not absolutely identical.
In an attempt to somehow explain this giant disconnect, climate scientists have been furiously modifying their computer-generated climate models. To date the updated climate models have failed to spit out a believable explanation for this disconnect. Why? Their computer models utilize historical and current day atmospheric El Nio data. This atmospheric data is an effect of, and not the cause of El Nios.
All El Nios have originated at the same deep ocean fixed heat point source located east of the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island area. Recent deep-ocean temperature data from publications by Kessler et al proves that such a hot spot exists in this area. Additionally, very new data from a National Science Foundation
*** This is nonsense. Temperature probes dragged right over these sea-bottom smokers have trouble measuring any temperature rise. They are too isolated to have a measurable impact on deep-ocean temperatures, let alone the mixed layer temperatures at the top of the ocean, which is where El Nino warmth occurs. In fact, when El Nino warmth happens in the upper 100 meters or so, the water BELOW that is unusually cool. El Nino/La Nina are two different wintertime states of the climate system (a “bifurcation”) that the system has “trouble choosing between” every year. -Roy
It’s good to see you jump in on this rubbish.
I just wish you would do it more often.
When you see a sharp sudden step in the data it is not real
https://i.postimg.cc/MKcDZc3K/Em-Ob-Iay-XMAECk-Zp.jpg
Apparently you believe that each vote is added to the computer tally one at a time as it is counted.
That’s the way I saw it on election night. I was puzzled when the vote counting was put off till the morning. When I tuned in later, the Democrats had made an amazing comeback.
I guess that gave them more time to stuff the ballot boxes.
The only ones caught tampering with ballots were Republicans.
It has been explained many times why that happened. Dems in Covid 2020 took advantage of early or mail-in voting, while Repubs were encouraged by their leaders to vote in-person.
Mail in or early voting ballots were counted last in many cases.
Now, use your logic skills, Gordon.
It will be the same this year, Pennsylvania will have Trump with the early lead, because Philadelphia takes longer to count the vote and comes in heavily democratic.
There is no Atlantic or eastern Pacific hurricane activity. There is a very weak disturbance over the Yucatan. What happened?
In the western Pacific Yagi is headed straight for Hanoi.
Disturbance over Yucatan has 40% chance cyclone formation.
It’s highest chance we had in a while.
It became “potential” cyclone six, and could head to boca chica – everyone interested in what is happenning at the Star Base.
Also 2 disturbance, one with 60% chance and other with 0% within 48 hrs, both about a 1/2 way point to Africa.
swannie…”Gordo displays his usual anti-rational world view, as he writes:
Just talked to a delightful young lady who was fired from her job as a health care professional for refusing a covid vaccine. Good for her and her integrity.
No, Gordo, if she was fired, it was because she refused to perform her job, which may also have included the requirement to provide administration of treatment(s) as prescribed by the proper medical professionals involved”.
***
Once again, Swannie sticks his foot in this mouth without doing basic research. 2500 BC nurses were fired for refusing the covid vaccination.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/about-2500-health-care-workers-lost-jobs-over-refusal-to-vaccinate
The party who fired the nurses, the NDP, was once a bastion of the working class. Older NDP parties/governments would have not even considered firing nurses for standing up for their own rights as Canadians. This newer version is riddled with political correctness and minority groups, who are now running the party.
The young lady to whom I referred offered her explanation. There is no proof that the RNA-PCR test for covid is valid, hence the vaccination based on the same bad theory is invalid.
***I am not claiming there is no covid virus only that not enough information is present to develop a test or a vaccine.***
The proof follows…
I have gone into this in-depth. The RNA-PCR test is based on a faulty assumption by Dr. Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV. In fact, and to his credit, he never claimed to have discovered a virus, only to have inferred one. Montagnier claimed at the time that he did not think AIDS was caused just by a virus, he thought there were other factors involved. That was never reported widely.
When Montagnier applied the gold standard at the time for identifying a virus, he failed to see a virus, as required, on an electron microscope. He should have stopped there but for some reason went on to apply retroviral theory based on RNA, which has never been proved to be from a virus. In fact, a pioneer in the retroviral field, in the early 1970s, warned that RNA was not reliable for virus identification because RNA is such a widespread molecules in the human body.
Years after receiving the Nobel, Montagnier changed his mind and claimed HIV would not harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS was caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. However, the damage was done. Since he inferred a virus based on RNA theory every virus since then has been based on the same inference.
The clincher IMHO was the inventor of the PCR method for DNA amplification, Kary Mullis, being adamant that PCR could not be used diagnostically in that manner. His reasoning was clear, if HIV could not be seen with an electron microscope, amplifying it would not allow it to be seen. If it was hidden in a mass of cells, amplifying the amalgam would produce an equally obfuscated mess.
PCR does not amplify like a microscope, it amplifies the number of DNA strands. RNA first has to be converted to DNA before amplification. When the DNA is amplified, it is still not clear how that is related to a virus. They are not looking for a virus but for RNA, converted to DNA. If the DNA reaches a certain number of replication, a virus is declared. At no time is a virus seen or detected, other than by inference.
When covid was reported in January 2020 by Wuhan scientists they admitted they had not isolated a virus but had applied the method developed by Montagnier. That is, they inferred a virus. Even Christian Drosten, credited with the covid test admitted he had not isolated covid but had simply based his test on reports from Wuhan.
It seems to me that Drosten’s PCR-based test is the same one developed by Fauci and Ho for HIV.
It is clear that no covid virus has been properly isolated even though there are fake virus photos on the Net claiming to be covid. That means the test and the vaccine are based on false reports of a virus and are essentially useless. On the Net, there are many photos of cellular masses claiming to e a virus but none meet the basic criterion for a virus.
> I have gone into this in-depth.
640 words deep.
Another grand rant from GORDO. Meanwhile, another ~100 people in the US probably died from COVID-19 infection in the last 24 hours.
How many died from the usual seasonal flu?
IOW, are they including all flu cases/deaths under COVID?
Kinda tells you something, huh?
The many studies on mortality through the COVID period take all this into account. You haven’t bothered informing yourself (except maybe through particular media, instead of medical journals), which is why you don’t know this.
There is a tight correlation between the excess number of people dying in 2020, 2021 and 2022 that matches not only the increased number of deaths during this period, but also the timing of the waves of COVID deaths. The mortality well above normal matches the official deaths from COVID and the time when those excess deaths occurred extremely well.
Excess deaths is a metric that is completely separated from cause of death, and provides a conclusive corroboration of the fatality of COVID.
Once you properly understand this correlation, rejecting the conclusion is pure denialism.
Thanks for confirming you can’t answer the simple questions, barry.
Kinda tells you something, huh?
Get off your high horse, Clint R. That isn’t a reply to Barry.
JW, as usual, you don’t understand any of this.
But keep stalking me. There’s always a chance you might learn something.
swannie…the real tragedy is that people are dying and we have no means of helping them. There is no such thing as a new virus that suddenly appears and starts epidemics.
They compare the covid epidemic to the Spanish flu that followed WW I. That was not caused by a virus per se, but due to the horrific conditions in trenches. Very sick soldiers took their infections home with them and there were no real antidotes. I compare the Spanish flue to the bubonic plague, a problem caused by endemic sanitary conditions of the time.
The covid hysteria had an underlying problem but it was not a virus. it was people failing to look after their health or those unfortunate enough to have poor heath. The worst part was our leaders succumbing to hysteria and failing act rationally.
I know there were reports of perfectly healthy people contracting covid and dying, but I seriously question their actual health. A chronic lack of sleep leads to a depressed immune system and as a young man I was often in a state of sleep deprivation. I contracted a lot of sore throats from being run down.
Gordo distorts science again, writing:
Bacteria and viruses mutate, presenting new versions to infect other life forms. That’s a perfect example of evolution in which the most successful life forms are the the ones which procreate fastest and, as a result, spread thru the environment to out compete other life forms and dominate. COVID-19 appears to be one such example, apparently jumping from an animal reservoir (bats?) to a large population of humans in China. The Chinese population had no existing immunity to the virus, so it spread rapidly and then moved out world wide.
As for your other comment regarding the Spanish Flue of 1918, The evidence suggests it spread from US Army training camps in Kansas, from wince it was then carried to Europe by the newly trained troops as they entered the War.
Gordon,
Viruses are not identified by isolation and photography, because they are
“A virus is a chain of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) which lives in a host cell, uses parts of the cellular machinery to reproduce, and releases the replicated nucleic acid chains to infect more cells.”
from
https://biologydictionary.net/virus/#google_vignette
PCR analysis is the correct state of the art method to identify viruses.
I was in the same boat, get the vaccine or maybe HR will be contacting you.
It’s a fair requirement, I do not want to be served by a health care professional who does not have an updated vaccine card.
I was in the US Navy, vaccinations were not optional.
Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2
Wiki? Get serious, Tim.
Nowhere do they tell you how the virus was isolated so it could be seen on an electron microscope. If it had been isolated, there would be no need to base it on RNA that require amplification by PCR after conversion to DNA. If you can see the virus you can extract DNA or RNA from it directly.
The photos accompanying the article are obviously fake. For one, they are coloured and don’t have the scale marker that accompanies EM micrographs. For another, viruses have the same density meaning their shapes should be fairly round and the same size. These micrographs show sizes and shapes over a broad range, some looking almost rectangular while others are too small.
Remember, density = mass/volume. For the same density, the ratio should have masses of equal volume or, at least, masses with symmetrical volumes. I am not seeing that in the micrographs.
Here’s an article about Dr. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean. He successfully defended his position in a German Supreme Court that no scientific proof exists to support the existence of a measles virus. He has never claimed that measles does not exist, only that no proof exists that it is caused by a virus.
https://davidicke.com/2020/07/23/dr-stefan-lanka-2020-article-busts-the-virus-misconception/
Lanka argued successfully that healthy cell samples in labs do not die from a virus but from the way the samples are prepared. He claimed that no such viral study has run a control study to see if the cells would survive on their own.The cells are pre-starved to ensure they will die and treated with antibiotics to protect them from bacteria.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Gordon,
How do you tell virus strains apart from images from an electron microscope?
“The photos accompanying the article are obviously fake.”
If the observations don’t fit your theory, then they must be FAKE!
Gordon is sounding more and more like a Flat Earther.
“If it had been isolated, there would be no need to base it on RNA that require amplification by PCR after conversion to DNA. If you can see the virus you can extract DNA or RNA from it directly.”
There is nothing gained by seeing the virus, which may look like hundreds of other ones. Detecting its genetic code is much more useful for telling you which virus you have.
In any case ‘seeing’ would be extremely expensive, requiring a $1M scanning electron microscope, and very itty bitty amount of RNA extracted.
With PCR, just need some basic biology lab tools, and get large amounts of DNA in a very short time.
Obviously for large scale testing, the latter is preferable.
Rejection of this useful technology, that many many people have spent years perfecting makes no sense.
“n. He successfully defended his position in a German Supreme Court that no scientific proof exists to support the existence of a measles virus.”
FALSE!
https://fullfact.org/health/stefan-lanka-measles-german-court/
“This is not true. Germanys federal court did not rule on this. The case in the 2010s concerned whether proof of its existence had to be provided in a SINGLE publication to earn a reward.”
The proof was provided but in the form of more than one single publication.
aq…”Did QAnon and its far right supporters make those claims?”
***
aq…could you try…just try a little…to reply with some science. I mean, if it causes a nosebleed or something, you may have to back off. But…if using real science just makes you giddy, or makes you want to dress in womens’ clothing, presuming you don’t already, bear with it and we skeptics will help you through it.
It’s not really that hard in a basic sense and I am sure you will find it refreshing as opposed to the alarmist clap-trap with which you have been impregnated.
When I lived in New Zealand for a while, I worked with an Aussie in an electronics outfit. He was a real good bloke albeit significantly older than me. Every morning when I went in to work, he’d be at is desk and I’d address him with a series of insults, like ‘hey you Aussie convict, can we get some work out you today’.
He’d just ignore me but shortly thereafter he’d appear at my desk with a slurry of insults. He’d call me an Eskimo b****ard, etc., and the amusing thing was how long he’d go on till he ran out of breath. I had a great time working with him. I found a lot of the Kiwis to have a similar sense of humour although many were conservative and overly straight.
Mike Flynn is from Darwin and I got a kick out of him too. I think people tended to take him far too seriously. I got his humour and enjoyed it. It was very dry at times and that does not translate well for the uninitiated.
aq…I had never heard of QAnon and looked them up out of curiosity. I wanted to see what we skeptics are being compared to.
It took a while to get the gist of it because Google is littered with propaganda about them. I had visualized some Nazi conspiracy group but I came across some videos produced by QAnon and realized I had already seen them without knowing who produced them.
The movement against them is more amusing than anything. For years, the National Enquirer tabloid spread outright lies and no one took an interest never mind trying to ban them. Suddenly, you have a group spreading information trying to expose suppression of speech and other infringements of democratic freedoms and they are labelled as right-wing conspiracists.
Go figure, I know nothing about this group but thus far, what I have seen of them is fair comment, not conspiracy theory. Why has Google and Facebook banned them? Why can’t people think for themselves and self-censor without needing Big Brother to do it for them?
Here’s an example of fair comment from QAnon. They advised that Zelensky has banned the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. I have seen nothing about that in the mainstream news but I finally found a reference on CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/24/europe/ukraine-zelensky-orthodox-church-ban-intl/index.html
“Zelensky referenced the bill in his nightly address, saying Ukrainian orthodoxy today is taking a step toward liberation from the devils of Moscow.”
Based on that logic the Catholic priests who helped the oppressed, including escapers and Jews in WW II should have been shot. Come to think of it, they were. Seems the Ukraine now regards that as kosher.
What??? A church is now the enemy? I keep telling anyone who will listen that the problem in the Ukraine is not the Russians but Zelensky and Ukrainian nationalists. They are the ones who systematically oppressed Russian speaking people trapped in the Ukraine and who deposed a pro-Russian Ukrainian president in 2014, setting off the current conflict with Russia.
I got the church info first through QAnon. As I said, I had seen their stuff before without realizing what it was. The videos were mainly about covid hysteria but they were by legitimate health care professionals. Of course, climate alarmists would not understand people who can think for themselves. Their solution is to ban them and negate skeptical views as misinformation.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/russia-bans-ukrainian-greek-catholic-church-catholic-ministries-occupied-region-ukraine
This came first. What? A church is now the enemy?
And within Russia itself:
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/russia-christians-banned-from-discussing-faith-outside-church
and:
https://providencemag.com/2023/01/religious-repression-in-putins-russia/
and:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40635267
The Patriarchate in Moscow is not a religious organization, but a branch of the FSB/KGB. Western European security services have known this for years, and treat them accordingly. It is striking how often they will establish congregational houses near sensitive NATO installations. I note that Ukraine has already prosecuted and in some cases convicted spies linked to the Moscow Patriarchate. It seems promising, if they had lived in Russia and spied for Ukraine, they would just had fallen out of a window.
rune…what is the Ukraine doing about their own anti-democratic nationalists? They are armed and a serious nuisance. In 2014, they used a relatively peaceful protest to shoot at the police, then they ran off a democratically-elected Ukrainian president. That’s why the Russians are in there now, to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians.
Each year this mob celebrates WWII war criminal with a candlelight vigil. There are photos flaunted of war criminal Stepan Bandera and they glorify the SS Galacia, a Ukrainian division that fought with the Nazis. Bandera was wanted at Nuremberg to answer for war crimes yet he is celebrated today by Ukrainian nationalists some of whom sit in the Ukrainian parliament.
I know one thing, if anyone here in Canada tried to have a candelight vigil to celebrate Nazis, they’d be doing it from insuide a penitentiary. Recently, our government was embarrassed when they invited a Ukrainian to sit in Parliament. He was givem a standing ovation by all memebers of parliament. It was found immediately afterward that he was one of the Nazis who fought against the Allies in WWII.
I am not defending Putin and his politics, even though I think a good amount of it is based on necessity. If they went to a democracy, the oligarchs and the Russian mafia would run amok. We should have helped them in 1990 to move toward democracy but instead we sent Wall Street types like Bill Browder to fleece them.
I notice the other day that the Ukrainian Azov battalion has reformed. They were obliterated by the Russians. Azov was censured by the US Congress because they flaunt Nazism. They wear Nazi symbols on their uniforms and on their bodies with tattooes and they have the symbols on their flags and crests.
Until Ukraine cleans up their act, they don’t deserve help from the West. They are regularly rated the most corrupt country in Europe.
aq…we are not talking about Russia, we are talking about the Ukraine, who the West hold up as a democratic country. Zelensky has been a dictator since the Russians invaded and he was going in that direction beforehand.
I have made it clear that I do not support Putin’s policies even though I understand what he is up against following the dissolution of the USSR. In 1915, Sun Yet San tried to form a democracy in China and failed because the Chinese were suspicious of such a form of government. We tend to think that oppressed peasants would welcome democracy but in their suppression they form their own way of life which has been detrimental to women. Democracy strikes them as odd.
“I keep telling anyone who will listen that the problem in the Ukraine is not the Russians but Zelensky and Ukrainian nationalists.”
You are trying to tell me I am not permitted to rebut that comment?
Heads up … they haven’t been called “The” Ukraine for decades.
But there’s conservatism for you.
–Heads up they havent been called The Ukraine for decades.
But theres conservatism for you.–
Perhaps you can explain Canadian conservatism.
WHAT?? Does someone refer to Canada as “The Canada”?
“runewhat is the Ukraine doing about their own anti-democratic nationalists?”
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Russia signed a treaty that accepted this, in exchange for their nukes.
So whatever one thinks is a problem with their internal politics, it is their problem, not Russia’s.
This is no justification for Russia to invade its sovereign neighbor, and bomb the sh*t out of its cities!
aq…”WHAT?? Does someone refer to Canada as The Canada?”
***
You are not well versed in history are you? The Ukraine began as a region in the USSR. It was called The Ukraine much like the area of Canada between the Rocky Mountain and Manitoba is called ‘the Prairies’.
In case that is beyond you, should the Canadian prairies become incorporated into a country, should we call it Prairies rather than The Prairies?
The Ukraine is essentially a a slavic equivalent of ‘the’ Prairies. It has always been known as ‘the Ukraine’ and just because a load of kossac dancers, ripped on vodka, decide to drop ‘the’ is not my concern.
No Gordon, neither Russian nor Ukrainian has a definite article in their language. So there has NEVER been a “the” in their own name. That is an English concoction, and we corrected our mistake decades ago.
And thanks for displaying your unabashed racism for all to see.
Gordon,
Burma is no longer called Burma.
Czechoslovakia split into two countries.
Yugoslavia has been spit up into several countries.
East Germany and West Germany no longer exist as separate countries.
There is no USSR anymore.
Things change.
Get over it.
Now, in your view, does Ukraine have sovereignty as a country, as Russia agreed to in a 1994 treaty, or not?
“In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.”
If not, why not?
aq…I speak English and there is a ‘the’ in our language. I don’t care how foreigners pronounce the names of their countries, in English, it is ‘the Ukraine’ for reasons I mentioned.
One of the worst mistakes of Gorbachev and Yeltsin was allowing Ukrainians to form their own country.
BTW, Krushchev was Ukrainian by birth and he bent over backwards to do what he could for the Ukraine in the 1950s. He was the one who gave them Crimea and Putin had the sense to take it back. It must be understood that Crimea was awarded to the Ukraine when it was part of the USSR. There was never a mandate allowing them to take everything they garnered under the USSR when they left.
Yeltsin was an alcoholic and Gorbachev was terminally naive. He thought he could appease the West by breaking up the former USSR but he misjudged us. The minute the USSR was declared defunct, Wall Street thugs were lining up and slobbering over Russian natural resources. McCarthyists retained their lifelong mistrust and hatred of Russians even though Gorbachev tried to ingratiate them with his naivete. He seriously thought he was dealing with people of integrity who wished him well, and that we’d help Russia move toward a democracy.
nate…Burma is still Burma to me. It is being run by thugs who are bullying the people of Burma. Many of those thugs and their descendants willingly fought with the Japanese in World War II against the Allies.
As far as sovereignty is concerned, I don’t think the Ukraine deserves to be recognized or supported by the West after the shameful way they enabled a coup of a sitting President in 2014. The Ukraine had several elected Presidents whose authenticity was questioned by the West but the 2014 president had the blessing of the rest of the world. He was overthrown by armed thugs and any country who allows such anti-democratic behavior does not deserve support by countries who advocate democracy.
His crime. The EU offered the Ukraine membership but on a financial basis that would seriously have harmed the ordinary Ukrainian. Russia offered him a much better offer and he took it.
Let’s face it, the West does not give a hoot about the Ukraine, they want into the Ukraine to get closer to the Russian border with nuclear weapons. Speaking of getting over it, you need to get over your naivete of world politics.
As you believe everything should be defined by history, I guess you always refer to Canada as The Dominion of Canada (which it actually still is). “Dominion” of course meaning the object of domination.
“I have seen nothing about that in the mainstream news but I finally found a reference on CNN.”
Readers of le Monde knew that the Ukraine Parliament had voted on this is August and passed the bill to Zelensky.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/20/ukraine-mps-vote-to-ban-russia-linked-orthodox-church_6718913_4.html#
Readers of The Guardian knew about the bill in October 2023.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/20/ukrainian-parliament-votes-to-ban-orthodox-church-over-alleged-links-with-russia
The international press often does a better job than the US media of covering international events. But Fox also covered this in October last year.
Fox also covered this last year:
“While it has been grossly underreported in the U.S. press, Russia has been waging a brutal campaign against Christians and religious minorities in Ukraine.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/putin-orthodox-church-forge-unholy-alliance-take-over-ukraine
Gordon, while Qanon may have pointed to the events in
Ukraine, I doubt it would have provided any of the context to understand what is actually happening, giving a balanced view.
For my part, while I am not a fan of religion generally, I am against banning it. However, there appear to be extenuating circumstances in this case, and I am in no position to judge the truth of it.
What happened in Ukraine in 2014 has no relevance. Several fair elections have been held after 2014, both for the parliament and the president. The fact that a nation has allegedly had a coup d’tat once in the past, does not invalidate later fair and democratically conducted elections. And far-right – or Nazi-sympathizing parties – have practically no support. Ukraine has been steeped in corruption, as all former Soviet republics have been. Putin, unlike Zelensky, is not interested in doing anything about this. It is through various forms of corruption and threats of war that he tries to re-establish the Russian empire that was dismantled in 1990. And that is what the Ukraine war is about, and not about protecting the Russian-speaking population.
Rune Valaker
Thank you for your intervention, fair enough.
*
Robertson is a disgusting, absolutely cowardly liar.
He would never want to live for a minute in the dictatorship that Putin and the Moscow nomenclature maintain in the most brutal way.
*
Neither would ever do the ultra-right and ultra-left parties in Europe, funded by the Putin regime in Germany, France, Italy and elsewhere, who advocate an end to the bloody war that Russia is waging in Ukraine at the expense of recruited Russian minorities, and which has now cost the lives of over 10,000 Ukrainian civilians.
*
And Robertson’s endless ‘hints’ on this blog about the laughable Azov batalion and a few Ukrainian Nazis are incredibly ridiculous: there are, since the end of WW II, far more Nazis per km^2 in South and even North America than in Ukraine.
*
Robertson is a contrarian braggart of the stupydest kind we can imagine.
Anyone who credulously believes his trash 100% deserves it.
I am so happy that I have been blessed with a free mind and the awareness of how a mind becomes biased and hateful. That is, I am so happy I don’t have Binny’s stagnant mind.
I have no interest in living In Russia but that does not stop me being aware of the plight of ordinary Russians who have suffered through centuries of Czars then a brutal regime of Stalin. Binny confuses my words about the Ukraine war as an endorsement of Putin, however, Gorbachev, who was well respected in the West, claimed that Putin is a good guy who could just as easily have reverted to his old KJB ways and decided not to.
I wonder if Binny even begins to understand that humanitarianism is about all people.
I know nothing about Putin or how he thinks. Nor do I care because there is nothing I can do about it. I simply see no sense in cutting him off from dialog while enabling Ukrainian thugs, especially when Putin has his finger on a button that could blow much of Europe and the West off the map.
The irony is that Trump, a right-winger, has no problem talking to Putin, yet the Democrats, claiming to be Liberals and progressives, not only can’t talk to him, they have isolated him much like the McCarthyist’s of the 1950s. The Democrats have become the biggest danger to this planet with their inane policies.
rune…”What happened in Ukraine in 2014 has no relevance. ….The fact that a nation has allegedly had a coup dtat once in the past, does not invalidate later fair and democratically conducted elections”.
***
Allegedly had a coup??? What do you call it when a sitting President, who was democratically elected in a fair election, observed by the world, has to flee for his life before armed insurgents?
That’s partly why the Russians invaded, the President was pro-Russian re rejecting the EU proposal for joining NATO, and represented millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Ukraine. When he was run off in a coup, they revolted. Here in the West, those revolters were represented as Russian ingrates who were nothing more than trouble makers. The Western media hid the truth from us as to why they revolted.
It took Putin 8 years but he’d finally had enough when the Kyiv government sent in the Azov battalion, who openly displayed Nazi symbols on their helmets, flags, and even as tattoos on their skin. The US Congress had already censured them for their Nazi rhetoric. Putin declared that he was invading the Ukraine for two reasons: to establish a vote for the Russian speaking people and to eliminate the Azov battalion.
He has eliminated Azov and is being blocked from a vote due to Zelenski’s stubbornness. There has never been proof that the invasion was to take over the Ukraine. That is propaganda from the Western media and politician. If Putin does expand, then I will be opposed to his actions. In fact, I was opposed to the invasion till I watched ‘Ukraine on Fire’ by Oliver Stone and became aware of the sad state of affairs in the Ukraine dating back to 1929.
You claim the 2014 coup is irrelevant. It would not be considered irrelevant here in Canada if our Prime Minister was forced to leave the country by armed insurgents. Especially while the army and police stand by and do nothing.
There is no allegation whatsoever. In fact, the US and the EU were plotting a new leader to replace the deposed leader and arguing over who it should be. The meaning is clear, the so-called free world enabled thugs to perform a coup in a so-called democratic country.
We are used to that in banana republics, but not in a European nation deemed to e democratic.
As far as the pro-Nazi crowd, the Ukrainian nationalists, having no political clout, they don’t need it when they are free to run around as armed vigilantes, threatening and eliminating anyone who opposes them. The only reason Zelensky, a Jew, is still alive is that he is enabling them.
They can’t get elected as a majority but that does not stop them acting as hooligans. The US with their CIA must be aware of Ukrainian nationalists and have decided not to expose them. The pre-CIA, as the OSS, helped Ukrainian Nazi sympathizer Stepan Bandera, and other Nazis, escape Nuremberg and hid them from the Russians who wanted him for his war crimes.
I am not claiming the CIA is wrong. They saw ex-Nazis as a source of information against Stalin’s communist Russia. However, I think it is wrong if the US government is overlooking fascists in the Ukraine who are allowed to overthrow a democratically-elected president.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-aug-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-aug-2024/
UAH 6.0 LT Global anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020: comparing cascaded triple 12/10/8 month running averages (means versus medians)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umE0x_ObQqkafV33CqwRkzXHwMVQWJEJ/view
The trends (in C/decade) must be compared within the cascades’ active window (Mar 1980 – Aug 2023) because there is no data outside of it.
UAH source: 0.139 +- 0.006
Cascaded mean: 0.140 +- 0.004
Cascaded median: 0.137 +- 0.004
Difference: 0.003.
*
As I have explained so often with far more complex evaluations of hourly data from the German Weather Service and USCRN, there is no significant difference between
– the middle of Tmin and Tmax
– the median
– the mean of all 24 hourly recordings.
*
Here is as an example, for the USCRN hourly data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
the daily comparison of middle, median and mean, averaged over all years (2002 – 2023) and all active USCRN stations in that period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
Please just ignore stupid claims about lines instead of points in my diagrams, they are utter nonsense. The claims’ author forgets that they should actually apply to his cascade plots too: he should also represent them as points instead of lines connecting them.
After experiencing past statistical offerings from Binny I politely decline to offer comment on his hourly data. Let’s just say that based on Binny’s statistical analysis, he should not quit his day job.
“they should actually apply to his cascade plots too”
That’s not how filters (cascaded or not) work.
About Robertson’s eternal lies concerning Lanka and the measles virus
*
I have all the relevant information on the legal dispute between Dr. Stefan Lanka and David Bardens, from the Ravensburg Regional Court up to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court and the final judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, which solely rejected Bardens’s complaint against the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court’s refusal to allow an appeal, but was brazenly and shamelessly abused by Lanka as confirmation of his claim on the non-existence of the measles virus.
*
I still need a little time to bring the original German texts and their English translations together.
From all this it is absolutely clear that Lanka is a blatant liar and Robertson is gullible and dumb enough to spread such lies.
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
What Binny is actually saying is that the German Supreme Court are a load of liars. They were the ones who accepted Lanka’s argument that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate that a measles virus exists.
Part of Lanka’s argument in court was that no researcher has run a control experiment to verify that cells, alleged to be killed by a virus, would not, in fact, die by themselves due to the treatment they undergo pre-experiment. A virus is claimed to kill the healthy cells, in a test tube, with the cell death being offered as proof of a virus.
Cells removed from their natural environment will die naturally, but in viral studies, the cells are deliberately starved, I presume to make them more susceptible to infection, and treated with antibiotics to ensure no bacterial infection. In their cleverness, viral researchers have set the cells up to die naturally, hence it is not the alleged virus killing them.
The German Supreme Court had appointed their own scientific expert and he agreed with Lanka, who had an independent lab test his hypothesis. Of course, Binny, now being an expert on viruses has called not only Lanka a liar, but the German Supreme Court who over-turned the lower court verdict.
No matter what Binny alleges, the lower court decision was overturned, and Bardens, who claimed the prize offered by Lanka, was forced to pay court costs. Lanka’s 100,000 Euro prize has still not been paid out. I doubt that it ever will due to the tight wording of the prize details. Lanka has carefully worded it based on his considerable research and expertise in viral science.
Lanka is not claiming that measles does not exist, only that the proof offered of a measles virus was not offered realistically. The research was faulty.
nate…”Ukraine is a sovereign nation”.
***
Then why don’t they behave like the democratic sovereign nation they claim to be and stop oppressing Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine?
You fail to grasp that Russian-speaking people trapped in countries like the Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, are being systematically oppressed by nationalists in those countries. In the Ukraine, there is a history of abject violence dating back to 1929 committed by Ukrainian nationalists, namely the UON. Look it up on Wiki.
In 1929, the Ukraine was a soviet in the USSR. The nationalists stoopidly decided to use terrorist techniques aimed at getting independence and did not get it that Stalin would seek revenge by starving the entire Ukraine.
During WW II, the UON thought they could get independence by siding with the Nazis. Today, descendants of the UON still hold candlelight vigils to honour Nazi war criminals like Stepan Bandera and the SS Galacia, a Nazi Ukrainian SS battalion.
bob d…”Its a fair requirement, I do not want to be served by a health care professional who does not have an updated vaccine card.
I was in the US Navy, vaccinations were not optional”.
***
How’s it going, Bob?
The covid vaccine is not a vaccine per se, it is an experimental modification of human RNA, called mRNA, that is designed to enter a cells and change the composition. Although those pushing mRNA denied that was the purpose a study came out of Sweden shortly after the vaccine appeared claiming it went straight to the liver and began modifying cells.
I regarded it as a potentially dangerous modifier of human cells that had not been adequately researched. In fact, a pioneer expert in mRNA, Robert Malone, pointed out that mRNA cannot prevent a covid infection. When I found out that the so-called vaccine producer, Pfizer, had been fined over 5 BILLION dollars for misrepresenting their products, I became seriously concerned. That concern was compounded when I learned Pfizer had been given immunity from prosecution if the vaccine failed.
A real vaccine is designed to inject samples of an invasive element into the body so the immune system can develop immunity to it. No known vaccine is designed to interfere with cells directly.
We still have no idea how much the alleged vaccines have harmed the human body. That’s because the producer, Pfizer, are not required to release detailed issues. We may never know for decades what damage the mRNA has caused.
Gordon,
where are you getting all this information?
The mRNA vaccine make the body produce part of the virus, so the immune system can recognize the real virus and produce anti-bodies against it.
bob…the RNA in mRNA is a reference to the RNA THOUGHT to be from that virus. There is no proof whatsoever that RNA is related to HIV, covid, or any other virus.
Gordon,
There is a class of viruses called RNA viruses that have a strand of RNA that takes over a cells metabolism to manufacture copies of the virus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus
What does the m in mRNA stand for?
A simple test question.
You are way out of your lane.
Gordon Robertson
Since about 5 billion people have received Covid vaccine you would think that if it was very harmful some side-effects would have manifested by now. There were some negative side effects on some people but I do not know what time frame is needed to keep watching for very harmful effects.
https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20240424-q-a-current-global-access-to-the-covid-19-vaccine.cfm
norman…they have.healthy young men have died of cariovascular issues immediately after having a shot.
Just a sample…
https://vaccinadead.com/pfizer-biontech/
BTW…I have to go to such sites because Google at al have banned them. The thing to do is take the info from such sites and corroborate it independently.
All vaccines are experimental, as you put it, until tested. This one was thoroughly tested.
“A real vaccine”
It seems you are against medical innovations, and think only the ‘old fashioned’ vaccines should be used.
I don’t why you think any vaccines for viral infections should ever be used, given that you don’t believe viruses cause infectious disease.
nate…the covid vaccine was rushed out in 6 months. Normal issuance of such a vaccine takes 6 years.
The claims made by Pfizer were preposterous. They claimed the vaccine to be 90% effective against covid. Here in Canada, less that 1/10th of 1% of the population had died or were extremely sick. How can anyone make such a claim as Pfizer’s when the vaccine had obviously not been tested on a real, significant population?
What would one expect from a company who has een fined over 5 BILLION dollars for misrepresenting their products? Furthermore, they were granted immunity from prosecution by the US government if the vaccine failed or caused any damage.
The vaccine is based on mRNA (modified RNA). Robert Malone is a pioneer and expert on mRNA, and when he claimed that mRNA could not prevent a covid infection, he was censored. Here in BC, Canada, after the vaccine was into double-dose level, the government revealed that 70% of hospital cases and death involved those who were double-vaccinated. That corroborates Malone’s claim.
“They claimed the vaccine to be 90% effective against covid. Here in Canada, less that 1/10th of 1% of the population had died or were extremely sick. ”
Effective at what is what you don’t know.
“The vaccine is based on mRNA (modified RNA). Robert Malone is a pioneer and expert on mRNA, and when he claimed that mRNA could not prevent a covid infection, he was censored. Here in BC, Canada, after the vaccine was into double-dose level, the government revealed that 70% of hospital cases and death involved those who were double-vaccinated. That corroborates Malones claim.”
Source for these factoids please.
Robert Malone claims he invented the mRNA vaccine! Yet weirdly now denying they work! Sounds like cour grapes that he didn’t get $$ from it.
sour grapes
Nate says:
”Robert Malone claims he invented the mRNA vaccine! Yet weirdly now denying they work! Sounds like cour grapes that he didnt get $$ from it.”
”All vaccines are experimental, as you put it, until tested. This one was thoroughly tested.”
Nate’s strawman factory is in full production mode. Malone didn’t invent any vaccines he invented the technology that underlies how the mRNA vaccines are manufactured.
And it certainly isn’t the case the Covid vaccines were ”thoroughly tested”. No one with qualifications in that area is claiming that and in fact it is an absolutely established fact that the COVID vaccine was given an ”emergency authorization”.
Today its not just approved but it is recommended for everybody. Thats the issue. Everything needs to be evaluated from risk benefit analysis. Nate claims they prevent the spread of COVID and we know thats not true. Nate claims they are safe for everybody and we don’t know it that is true or not.
Everything is political, politicians kissing up to corporations and doing their biddings completely throwing out the window of people making their own decisions based upon not science but what benefits big pharm.
I got the covid19 vaccinations. I also started experiencing the first signs of arthritis within 2 months of my 2nd Moderna shot. Arthritis is an auto-immune disorder and the sort of thing that Robert Malone is concerned about from mRNA technology as you now are producing spike proteins through your entire body and its an invitation for your immune system to see these proteins as invaders.
Well OK, I was in a high risk Covid category, got the vaccine, and would do it again. I didn’t get covid until 10 months after my vaccine. I may have been very lucky I didn’t get it before my vaccine. but that is my own risk analysis getting arthritis, if I did from the vaccine, seems a reasonable tradeoff for not getting covid while the dangerous strains of it were running around in the window when death rates were still high. But if I could be the impossible, a wise teenager, I would have said screw it.
And if say the vaccines only became available this month (Moderna finally got its full, non-emergency, approval this month) I probably would say screw it in that there is no data to indicate that Covid is worse than a case of the flu. I do get a flu vaccine but I didn’t start those until 50 years after they became available.
What we are really dealing with here is a cult that thinks they know what is good for everybody else. . .and Nate is a major evangelizer for that cult.
Bill accepts the real benefit that science provides.
Somehow he is not part of the cult or doing what his Daddy told him.
Gordon,
“The vaccine is based on mRNA (modified RNA).”
It’s messenger RNA.
Stop looking foolish if you can.
Nate says:
”Bill accepts the real benefit that science provides.
Somehow he is not part of the cult or doing what his Daddy told him.”
Absolutely Nate. I am a huge proponent of science. But science is not what your daddy tells you.
I parsed a huge amount of data myself to estimate my risk and the risk for my family and never bought into the idea that everybody should get the vaccine because the data did not support that narrative. . .and still doesn’t today. Your reply above merely confirms, again, what I have been saying about your idea of what science is.
“parsed a huge amount of data myself to estimate my risk and the risk for my family”
Good on you. So you trusted the data that some ‘Daddy’ provided, and you trusted the methods they used, created by some other ‘Daddy’. And you benefited from decades of fundamental science, a Big Daddy.
So you can stop the constant rants about mainstream science and anyone accepting its general validity, because when the rubber hits the road, you welcome its benefits.
nate says:
”Good on you. So you trusted the data that some Daddy provided, and you trusted the methods they used, created by some other Daddy. And you benefited from decades of fundamental science, a Big Daddy.”
Not the same thing Nate.
First of most data collection is done mostly by independent civil servants or teams of apprentices whose motivations haven’t yet been despoiled into political hay making. It’s mostly grunt work, supervised and witnessed.
Datasets that haven’t been modified are usually trustworthy to the extent of the trustworthiness of the means of collection. Even an academic knows if he fakes data and gets caught that will be the end of his career.
Also for most of the temperature records you have multiple means of ground truthing the data. I haven’t relied upon on a single ice core or dataset in my ongoing examination of the orbital forcing record.
What you do find a lot of in the policy arena is an intentional blindness to contrary information where you can plead ignorance as a defense. Professionals live under standards that require a minimum amount of due diligence before reaching conclusions. Even then they sometimes miss something. So its always worth checking multiple sources.
A good example of a well designed experiment is the Seim and Olson work. Its well documented and measured and it shows no additional warming of the heated surface despite actually observing the Tyndall IR scattering. Its well done because somebody who doesn’t trust it can relatively easily replicate the experiment. Additionally, there are numerous documented attempts that all show the same basic results. Like Vaughn Pratt who was surprised at the results.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”So you can stop the constant rants about mainstream science and anyone accepting its general validity, because when the rubber hits the road, you welcome its benefits.”
I have never talked about mainstream science. Its mainstream media science that I am ranting about. Mainstream media science is fake science. Its fake science like Anthony Fauci telling the population that masks don’t work because he was trying to make sure all the hospital workers had access to masks. A feeble and ill advised lie even if his intentions were good. What he accomplished with it was a huge backlash where his credibility was trashed.
We have gone around on this with you spouting mainstream media science and not being able to find a single peer reviewed paper that establishes that media science you believe as real science when challenged. Just because something has the label ”science” on it that doesn’t make it science.
“A good example of a well designed experiment is the Seim and Olson work.”
Bwa ha ha ha!
Again, several people have pointed out the serious flaws with this experiment,even ots authors! So naturally you fall deeper in love with it, as any contrarion must!
“spouting mainstream media science and not being able to find a single peer reviewed paper that establishes that media science you believe as real science when challenged”
Bla bla bla bla, bullsh*t.
Just endless excuses to portray yourself as a brilliant, solid citizen, while your opponents are slimy gutter rats.
Nate says:
” Bill says: ”A good example of a well designed experiment is the Seim and Olson work.”
Bwa ha ha ha!
Again, several people have pointed out the serious flaws with this experiment,even ots authors! So naturally you fall deeper in love with it, as any contrarion must!”
You are the science denier Nate. This experiment has been replicated and you simply are denying the result.
The big myth is that the Tyndall experiment proved that CO2 heated the surface when all he proved was CO2 absorbed heat.
You think the experiment is flawed when it clearly is not and replication has shown it not to be flawed. Tyndall only showed scattered IR via CO2 absorbing heat from the flame. He never even attempted to show warming of the heated surface.
Yet the myth is so heavily embedded in science that Google’s experimental generative AI even believes Tyndall proved that CO2 warmed the heated surface when deeper research shows that to be a falsehood. Search Google AI with the question: “did tyndall show warming of the heated surface”
It returns this answer: ”Yes, John Tyndall’s experiments demonstrated the warming of the Earth’s surface by showing that certain gases, like water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb and radiate heat, effectively trapping heat in the atmosphere and causing a warming effect, which is now understood as the greenhouse effect; essentially proving that the heated surface of the Earth is warmed further by the atmosphere due to these gases.”
LMAO!!!
If you think it is flawed you should replicate it not deny it. Obviously you cherry pick which science you are going to believe based upon some belief in a fealty owned to your daddy who told you what to believe.
Nate says:
”Bla bla bla bla, bullsh*t.
Just endless excuses to portray yourself as a brilliant, solid citizen, while your opponents are slimy gutter rats.”
————————–
Well you are certainly more than welcome to prove anything you have said say about:
1) An orbit is NOT a rotation. Keeping in mind here confirming the consequent is a logical fallacy.
2) That Tyndall proved the CO2 he saw absorbing heat heated the flame.
3) that orbital eccentricity variation only has one cycle of 100,000 years duration when in fact it is constantly being reshaped as countless other objects in the universe screw with your perfect ideal of one object out there with a 100,000 year orbital period does all the work on eccentricity variation.
Thats a nice sample of the nonsense you spew around here. You are welcome to prove any of it.
rustworthiness of the means of collection. “Even an academic knows if he fakes data and gets caught that will be the end of his career.”
Yep. A point I have made many times, which makes implausible all the claims from your team that the data cannot be trusted, and that politics has tainted it.
Enough BS, Bill.
You continually misrepresent the lengthy debates that we have had as me not presenting scientific evidence, when in fact I have presented lots of it!
This proves again that you do not listen or learn from any of our discussions.
You just stubbornly deepen your prior beliefs and pretend your arguments have never been rebutted.
“1.An orbit is NOT a rotation. Keeping in mind”
First tell us your definition of ‘rotation’, and show us your source for that definition.
Until you do that, you have no argument.
Nate says:
”Yep. A point I have made many times, which makes implausible all the claims from your team that the data cannot be trusted, and that politics has tainted it.”
Strawman! I do not recall saying there are dataset observations I don’t trust Nate. Obviously all datasets have errors but generally they don’t amount to a lot. The exception of course are modeled datasets datasets inferred by proxies lacking strong statistical correlations.
Obviously you are trying to associate me with somebody who has suggested that original data is faked. . .”your team”. I don’t have a team like you do. I am not a ”group thinker” like you. So stop projecting your own shortcomings on me.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”You continually misrepresent the lengthy debates that we have had as me not presenting scientific evidence, when in fact I have presented lots of it!”
Thats simply not true. I listed 3 topics you haven’t produced evidence for. I never said you never have a scientific source for anything. Produce one credible piece of evidence that confirms any of the 3 items I listed and I will admit I was wrong because at the moment I am operating on what you have produced for my viewing, not what you might be able to produce. If you aren’t lying it should be a piece of cake for you to come up with one convincing and replicable and/or verifiable thing to support any of your assertions on any of those 3 items.
“I listed 3 topics you havent produced evidence for.”
Wrong. Prove it.
Answer my question for 1, else no further discussion is needed.
There you go proof that Nate doesn’t even comprehend the most basic tenet of science that you cannot prove something doesn’t exist.
But he is desperate. He can’t post a single link proving he has previously provided any one of the 3 things he I have challenged him on above that he claims he has provided.
Instead he wants me to prove he never did it. LMAO!!
Even Nate knows he is lying and is desperately trying to deflect from that fact.
First tell us your definition of rotation, and show us your source for that definition.
It is painfully obvious that you have no answer! Thus argument 1 is over.
“2) That Tyndall proved the CO2 he saw absorbing heat heated the flame.”
Quote him claiming that.
“3) that orbital eccentricity variation only has one cycle of 100,000 years duration
Your pet project. You have yet to offer any evidence to support your speculation.
Nate says:
”First tell us your definition of rotation, and show us your source for that definition.
It is painfully obvious that you have no answer! Thus argument 1 is over.”
Nate suffers from wishful thinking:
Oxford dictionary:
Rotation:
noun
the action of rotating around an axis or center.
“the moon moves in the same direction as the earth’s rotation”
OK so now that your request has been satisfied where is your proof the dictionary is wrong?
And Nate will be failing again as soon as you read on.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”2) That Tyndall proved the CO2 he saw absorbing heat heated the flame.”
Quote him claiming that.
————————-
He never did. It was your argument that the observed scattering of IR should have warmed S&O’s heated plate and that because it hadn’t the experiment must be in error. I can’t recall if you ever connected that to Tyndall, but that has been NASA’s argument, and its been bdgwx’s argument here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684667
If Tyndall’s experiment isn’t what underlies your claim that S&O’s experiment was flawed then provide the evidence that you did rely on.
And below as you keep reading you will find Nate will fail yet again:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” ”3) that orbital eccentricity variation only has one cycle of 100,000 years duration”
Your pet project. You have yet to offer any evidence to support your speculation.”
————————-
My pet project lies on a reference I gave you in the last month.
https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
Figure 2 shows that the 100,000 year orbital cycle is but one of several. Several including a major one at 2,500 years.
If you disagree where is your source that supports your claim that this 2,500 year cycle doesn’t exist?
What does it take to get you to support your claims and not try to turn around the burden of proof? Obviously you have nothing to spew but hot air.
“Rotation:
noun
the action of rotating around an axis or center.
the moon moves in the same direction as the earths rotation
Very funny!
Sorry, NO. It uses the word ‘rotating’ in the definition!
That leaves you to go find the definition of ‘rotating’!
Look obviously you are not going to find a definition that supports your narrative.
“I cant recall if you ever connected that to Tyndall,”
Good, I never said it. And Tyndall never said it. So we can dispense with that strawman.
What Tyndall showed is that GHG abs.orb IR. And that is the key to understanding the greenhouse effect.
As he correctly noted:
“Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet
“https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
Figure 2 shows that the 100,000 year orbital cycle is but one of several. Several including a major one at 2,500 years.”
The graph is of Earth’s temperature variation, not eccentricity variation!
Only one peak at 100,000 years is labelled eccentricity variation.
Clearly you havent read carefully.
Again, this is YOUR pet project, not mine. And so far you have found no evidence to support your claim.
Nate says:
Rotation:
noun
the action of rotating around an axis or center.
the moon moves in the same direction as the earths rotation
Very funny!
Sorry, NO. It uses the word rotating in the definition!
———————-
what don’t you understand about that Nate. You wanted definition of rotation, not rotating.
The definition even uses the moon as an example. If you don’t like the word rotating just substitute in The motion of an object that goes around an axis or center.
All you are doing is deflecting and you haven’t answered by question. You claim the moon isn’t rotating and you haven’t provided any proof of that. And you never will because you have no proof of that. Your argument isn’t based in science. . .its based in what your daddy told you. At least I am using a dictionary. You think what your daddy told you for the purpose of getting the math simple enough for you to handle it is some kind of magic Buck Rogers decoder ring that tells you that the moon going around the earth isn’t a rotation.
Now that’s what is so hilarious about your take on the subject.
Nate says:
As he correctly noted:
Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
Well you haven’t provided a source for what you say he noted. But nevertheless I agree with the statement.
I have long agreed that some kind of greenhouse gas is a necessity for the atmosphere to exhibit a greenhouse effect but Tyndall didn’t establish the variability of the GHE which is our only concern.
So I will remind others in here who claim Tyndall proved that CO2 causes and controls the greenhouse effect that they are wrong and you agree.
Its good to have finally gotten that admission out of you.
Nate says:
”The graph is of Earths temperature variation, not eccentricity variation!
Only one peak at 100,000 years is labelled eccentricity variation.”
————————-
They are all labeled as orbital variations Nate until you get to earth’s spin and that is so noted.
If you go to the text they indicated that they don’t know what causes those variations. . .they only note their estimated periodicity. Since NASA says all eccentricity variations are due to primarily to Saturn and Jupiter here:
”the pull of gravity from our solar systems two largest gas giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, causes the shape of Earths orbit to vary from nearly circular to slightly elliptical.”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
the article is far from complete with regards to sources and acknowledges a lack of knowledge surrounding these processes.
Further so far every peak and valley over the past 900 years that I have looked at match up to instrument and proxy records.
Its an area of research into climate change that is intentionally lacking if we have any genuine interest in actually understanding climate change and that is the problem I am highlighting in bright red. Nothing more, nothing less.
Its quite a scandal why we rely on an early 20th century scientist completely devoid of computer assistance to hand wave these natural variations away while spending trillions on climate change mitigation of the presumption all climate change is related to CO2.
Its a complete abrogation of adequate due diligence in assigning all climate change to CO2 and deceiving the public as to the level of the science.
Here is an example of the problem: https://tinyurl.com/586hf3h3
This wood for trees graph shows the same accelerated warming occurring 1905-1945 as is occurring today. UAH in red has been added to the graph for information but not aligned as a temperature continuum.
All the peaks and valleys in this graphic is in time with orbital motion of the gas giants. . .though a quantitative match is not made here nor anywhere else.
that implies the light blue line is better aligned than UAH warming or the end of the instrument records as to a non-orbital
effect (or at least any effect from Saturn and Jupiter that doesn’t include some kind of nudging by those planets.)
But I suppose you believe its all just a coincidence that the location of saturn and jupiter may have aligned properly to cause these identical pair of warming events. We do know it isn’t CO2 though.
So clearly you haven’t read up on this adequately and I am not claiming to have solved the riddle. But you seem to have decided to believe somebody else has solved the riddle and you don’t have a reference to where that has been solved that doesn’t just wave a hand at this information.
“what dont you understand about that Nate. You wanted definition of rotation, not rotating.”
Yep. Stop playing dumb. You cannot define rotation, or find a definition that supports your narrative.
If you have that much trouble even defining rotation, then you have no argument. Sorry you lose that one.
Tyndall’s quote is easily Googled.
“So I will remind others in here who claim Tyndall proved that CO2 causes and controls the greenhouse effect that they are wrong and you agree.”
False. If that’s what you got from his statement and work, and my post, then you clearly missed the boat!
What is wrong with your reading comprehension!?
“If you go to the text they indicated that they dont know what causes those variations. . .they only note their estimated periodicity.”
Yep!
And yet you claimed, without a shred of evidence, that it must have been eccentricity!
Only one peak at 100,000 y is labeled eccentricity.
So this is quite a self-goal.
“the pull of gravity from our solar systems two largest gas giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, causes the shape of Earths orbit to vary from nearly circular to slightly elliptical.”
Yes, over a 100,000 years. Your speculation that it may ALSO happen over years, or decades, or one century, are just that, speculation.
I have explained this several times, the perturbations theory requires that the those large planets give Earth’s orbit thousands of small nudges, that over a long time produce those orbital changes that are observed to be, e.g. 100,000 years.
There is no evidence that a SINGLE nudge from these planets is enough to cause a significant change in temperature or climate of the Earth.
Why? Because Jupiter passed the Earth on one side of its orbit, say in Winter. Then a few years later it passes Earth in summer. So it undoes whatever it did the previous pass.
Same with Saturn.
I still suggest you do a back of the envelope calculation to test your speculations.
Calculated perturbation of inner planet orbital eccentricity. Very long time scales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)#/media/File:Eccentricity_rocky_planets.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)
Nate says:September 14, 2024 at 12:06 PM
”Yep. Stop playing dumb. You cannot define rotation, or find a definition that supports your narrative.”
———————-
I just did twice to satisfy your nit picking. And you have produced absolutely nothing and trying to use the excuse that my definitions are unacceptable to you in order to obfuscate the fact you are not operating from science.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” ”So I will remind others in here who claim Tyndall proved that CO2 causes and controls the greenhouse effect that they are wrong and you agree.”
False. If thats what you got from his statement and work, and my post, then you clearly missed the boat!”
—————
You just said Tyndall said nothing about that. If he didn’t then obviously didn’t prove what he didn’t state. Obviously you agree its false. Seems it’s more than a reading comprehension problem for you.
Nate says:
If you go to the text they indicated that they dont know what causes those variations. . .they only note their estimated periodicity.
Yep!
And yet you claimed, without a shred of evidence, that it must have been eccentricity!
——————–
did I? Its listed under Orbital variations. And the only global one is the eccentricity variable with the tilt and precession variables being affects on polar ice that affect albedo. But eccentricity will trigger both global insolation and albedo, making eccentricity the dominate variable. There are multiple sources supporting that.
You acknowledge ”nudges” by Saturn and Jupiter. Those are orbital variations. And they are not quantified as to their individual climate effects (temperature effects of individual nudges)
And of course your wiki article you link says:
”On-going mutual perturbations of the planets cause long-term quasi-periodic variations in their orbital elements, most apparent when two planets’ orbital periods are nearly in sync. For instance, five orbits of Jupiter (59.31 years) is nearly equal to two of Saturn (58.91 years). This causes large perturbations of both, with a period of 918 years. . .”
The other planets have less impact than Jupiter and Saturn combined and appear to serve to change the amplitude and frequency of the peaks of Jupiter and Saturn supercycle depending upon if these other cycles are aiding it or dampening it or how the timing matches up.
One can also see this 900 year cycle, with expected variations from other planets, in ice core data provided by the CO2 coalition.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
10 events in ~9,000 years.
Also the Moburg 2005 study lays out the possibility of an approximate ~900 year cycle from the peak of the Medieval Warm Period and the present. . .which looking forward looks like a primary forcing peak for the next several decades.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-current-warming-trend-is-neither-unusual-nor-unprecedented-part-2/
I will leave it there for now but there is much much more.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
There is no evidence that a SINGLE nudge from these planets is enough to cause a significant change in temperature or climate of the Earth.
Why? Because Jupiter passed the Earth on one side of its orbit, say in Winter. Then a few years later it passes Earth in summer. So it undoes whatever it did the previous pass.
Same with Saturn.
———————————-
Egads Nate! If thats true how do the thousands of nudges end up as an ice age? Have you lost your mind?
Obviously in your ecowarrior zeal you are ignoring the larger picture that connects the nudges together into significant ice ages.
As they say, you can lead a Bill to links of knowledge but you can’t make him read or comprehend it.
The article I provided, and the one you provided, make abundantly clear That the eccentricity variation is over a very long period, 100,000 years.
No evidence for shorter. Sorry.
Now continue to get high on your own supply, just don’t involve me in it.
“Yep. Stop playing dumb. You cannot define rotation, or find a definition that supports your narrative.
–
I just did twice to satisfy your nit picking.”
So you think you provided a satisfactory definition? Pullleeez!
It does nothing to help your argument, but does help mine, because it clearly shows that you have no clear definition of ‘rotate’ or ‘rotation’ that agrees with your narrative.
Here is a question, when a naval engineer reads a manual, instructing her how to dismantle a nuclear missile, and it states: “rotate the part 106 degrees CW around point P”, is she free to interpret that to mean ‘move the part on an elliptical path of any eccentricity, around point P”?
Hint: Thankfully, the instruction “Rotate the part 106 degrees CW around point P” has no ambiguity in its meaning. It is quite precise!
Caption of your CO2 Coalition graph.
“The one thing constant about temperature is that it is never constant. We find it rising and falling no matter what time scale we observe, be it hundreds of years or tens of millions of years. This chart, showing the 10,000 years of temperature changes since the end of the last ice age confirms this truism. Here we see quite large temperature swings much greater than what has been observed in the last 150 or so years. Each one of those moves up or down were caused entirely by natural forces. ”
What they fail to mention is that these are temperature change of Greenland. Not the whole Earth!
Yet they are implying that the T changes we have observed for the whole Earth in the last 150 years are small by comparison!
They are smaller, BECAUSE IT IS THE WHOLE EARTH, not Greenland.
Some people are susceptible to being misled by such propaganda.
I see why you didn’t provide a link for your definition.
When I look it up at Oxford, I get this:
Rotation (noun)
“the action of an object moving in a circle around a central fixed point,
the daily rotation of the earth on its axis.”
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rotation#:~:text=%2Fro%CA%8A%CB%88te%C9%AA%CA%83n%2F,the%20earth%20on%20its%20axis
Nate says:
”The article I provided, and the one you provided, make abundantly clear That the eccentricity variation is over a very long period, 100,000 years.”
———-
Indeed you get a daddy sez there but no direction to any available calculations to verify the fact.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”So you think you provided a satisfactory definition? Pullleeez!”
——————-
I have support from a dictionary Nate. You are still avoiding providing a shred of proof for your definition.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate sez:
”Here is a question, when a naval engineer reads a manual, instructing her how to dismantle a nuclear missile, and it states: rotate the part 106 degrees CW around point P, is she free to interpret that to mean move the part on an elliptical path of any eccentricity, around point P?
Hint: Thankfully, the instruction Rotate the part 106 degrees CW around point P has no ambiguity in its meaning. It is quite precise!”
—————————
I don’t know what problem you are trying to explain here. Longitude in space from the sun doesn’t change because an orbit is elliptical. You are making up false dilemmas here as you have consistently been doing in this forum for years on this topic. You should just quit rather than continue to humiliate yourself.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”What they fail to mention is that these are temperature change of Greenland. Not the whole Earth!”
——————-
Come on Nate this fact is true for every proxy and every instrument record. You are trying to deny what is right in front of your face.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate sez:
Yet they are implying that the T changes we have observed for the whole Earth in the last 150 years are small by comparison!
They are smaller, BECAUSE IT IS THE WHOLE EARTH, not Greenland.
—————————-
Nice declaration. Did your daddy tell you that?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”the action of an object moving in a circle around a central fixed point,
the daily rotation of the earth on its axis.”
————————-
Its consistent with my definition. It doesn’t include any of the nonsense additions that your daddy told you to believe. . .like it ”must” be circular, or the orbit is a ”translation”, or that the their are perturbations that make it imperfect, or that because the moon librates its not a rotation, etc.
Nate says:
”I see why you didnt provide a link for your definition.”
It is just what comes up on top searching ”rotation definition” from Google Chrome.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=5f79ce677043d4b2&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS980US980&q=rotation&si=ACC90nwZKElgOcNXBU934ENhMNgqi8qLXlCQrva8gNbrvT_qwLRaQIYHGBbWmxev9-ur5H03KtiFZslFFS5BAfWH587dBvvrYk5diPlPS-L1YwY1KF7JOHo%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwj8j9ud78WIAxW5O0QIHcUlOX4Q2v4IegQIIRBG&biw=1539&bih=643&dpr=1
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages Learn more
rotation
/rōˈtāSHən/
noun
noun: rotation; plural noun: rotations
the action of rotating around an axis or center.
“the moon moves in the same direction as the earth’s rotation”
I see your definition doesn’t put any of the additional conditions on the definition that you want to put on to exclude orbits. Too bad, you lose.
“Indeed you get a daddy sez there but no direction to any available calculations to verify the fact.”
FALSE. I showed you the graph with calculated eccentricity variation of the inner planets. The references are right there in the article.
A particularly weak set of excuses this time. None really address the points I have made. You are off your game.
You have no answer for the dictionary definition I give that makes it clear that ‘rotation’ is circular motion.
You have no answer for my point that the instruction to rotate something can have no ambiguity in its meaning!
You have no answer for my point about calculated eccentricity variation.
Oh well!
And this:
What they fail to mention is that these are temperature change of Greenland. Not the whole Earth!
–
Come on Nate this fact is true for every proxy and every instrument record. You are trying to deny what is right in front of your face.”
is again, the famous ‘Bill says stuff’ that is unsupportable!
What is right in front of your face is that it is the temperature of Greenland! Not the whole Earth!
Nate says:
”FALSE. I showed you the graph with calculated eccentricity variation of the inner planets. The references are right there in the article.”
———————-
Which tells us nothing at all. Its a cycle of approximately 80,000 years. Not even near the 100,000 year cycle you have claimed. Perhaps he doesn’t have Planet X figures in his run.
Additionally, we have simulator here you have just knee jerk decided to believe in because you found it on wikipedia.
But thanks for that anyway it should help with my research especially if I can track down the details of this run.
But its a simulator for which we have zero input parameters. One cannot conclude any temperature effects from it because nobody has built a model of those temperature effects that cause effects in Greenland or for the Globe in the first half of the 20th century. All you are telling me is we don’t know. . .which is the precise point I am making. . .we don’t know and should know with a decent budget dedicated to actually knowing.
It also appears to only show orbit perturbations of long duration (variables of the line thickness) which appear to be around 200 years between samples.
If so thats not going to be adequate. I figure we need a minimum resolution of about 60 degrees of the sky to get close actual variability and the full nudging effect.
You need at least 2 year resolution capture the maximum temperature effects for the feedback nudging process and capture the 20 year trends everybody is fully focused on. Jupiter travels 60degrees of the sky in 2 years. what we need to learn about is that 918 year super cycle that corresponds to variation at both poles. Interestingly Neptune and Uranus have a super cycle of a about 3300-3600 years. The two combined could have a 4 planet super cycle of some unknown period, integer multiples of both that correspond to a given small segment of the sky.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”You have no answer for the dictionary definition I give that makes it clear that rotation is circular motion.”
———————–
I haven’t claimed that a motion in a circle is not a rotation Nate. So thats a strawman.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”You have no answer for my point that the instruction to rotate something can have no ambiguity in its meaning!”
————————–
Yes I did. I pointed out that in an elliptical orbit around the sun one can plot a longitudinal compass from the sun center and know exactly where that is in the orbit.
You are essentially claiming that if the earth doesn’t travel at exactly the same rate around the center then it’s not a rotation.
there is no ambiguity here except in your own mind.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”What they fail to mention is that these are temperature change of Greenland. Not the whole Earth!”
—————–
So you can also have natural climate change regionally. How to do back that fact into an argument there is no natural global change?
If you examine other proxies you will find similar patterns. Having the argument right now with Sig on the latest post by Roy.
“Which tells us nothing at all. Its a cycle of approximately 80,000 years. Not even near the 100,000 year cycle you have claimed.”
Nah. you cannot read a graph. It is perfectly consistent with 100,000 years.
Regardless, there is nothing of a much shorter duration to see here. Nothing to support your speculation that these perturbations are responsible for any of our recent century or shorter T variation.
Look, this calculation of perturbations is mathematically very sophisticated. You simply don’t have the math skills to do the work. Let the experts do it.
Nate says:
You have no answer for the dictionary definition I give that makes it clear that rotation is circular motion.
I havent claimed that a motion in a circle is not a rotation Nate. So thats a strawman.”
Stop playing very very dumb! You have claimed that non-circular motion can be a rotation!
But can offer no definition of rotation or rotate that agrees with you!
Sorry, it simply aint sufficient for you to claim ‘I, Bill, know a rotation when I see it!” which is essentially all you have offered in the way of a definition.
Sorry, no Auditors would accept such a ‘non-definition’ for any of the financial terms, like Revenue, or Fiduciary, in an Auditors report!
If you cannot even DEFINE rotation then you have no argument!
Hence this argument for you is at a dead-end.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
You have no answer for my point that the instruction to rotate something can have no ambiguity in its meaning!
Yes I did. I pointed out that in an elliptical orbit around the sun one can plot a longitudinal compass from the sun center and know exactly where that is in the orbit.
You are essentially claiming that if the earth doesnt travel at exactly the same rate around the center then its not a rotation.
there is no ambiguity here except in your own mind.
“Nate says:
You have no answer for my point that the instruction to rotate something can have no ambiguity in its meaning!
Yes I did. I pointed out that in an elliptical orbit around the sun one can plot a longitudinal compass from the sun center and know exactly where that is in the orbit.”
That does not address the point I made at all! I gave an example of an instruction to an engineer to ‘rotate’ a part on a nuclear missile.
You simply have ignored this perfectly clear example of why that instruction can have no ambiguity.
You have simply ducked the logic and common sense illustrated by this straightforward example.
“So you can also have natural climate change regionally. How to do back that fact into an argument there is no natural global change?”
Duh. Because the graph is not global!
“If you examine other proxies you will find similar patterns. Having the argument right now with Sig on the latest post by Roy.”
FALSE. Sig is kicking your ass on this argument. For one he showed that even in Greenland, better proxies do not show your 900 year periodicity.
And further, other global proxies do not support your claims.
So as I noted, this “other proxies you will find similar patterns” is yet another example of
‘Bill sez stuff that cannot be supported’.
Then doubles down, and triples down on it.
Nate says:
”Nah. you cannot read a graph. It is perfectly consistent with 100,000 years.”
——————————————
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)#/media/File:Eccentricity_rocky_planets.jpg
I am looking at half a cycle that starts at a peak at 13,000years ago and bottoms in 27,000 years.
How is that consistent with 100,000 years?
Nate says:
”Stop playing very very dumb! You have claimed that non-circular motion can be a rotation!”
————————
Yes and I gave you a definition that is consistent with that claim. Your definition doesn’t rule it out.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says
”Sorry, no Auditors would accept such a non-definition for any of the financial terms, like Revenue, or Fiduciary, in an Auditors report!”
——————-
Wrong! Revenue and Fiduciary are two terms that have multiple definitions as defined by various laws and practice standards which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Your argument is way naive. DREMT made it clear to you that the term ‘rotation’ is not used consistently except in cases of narrow focus. Here you are in denial of reality.
So your daddy told you which definition to believe. You have no argument.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says
”Bill said: ”Yes I did. I pointed out that in an elliptical orbit around the sun one can plot a longitudinal compass from the sun center and know exactly where that is in the orbit.
You are essentially claiming that if the earth doesn’t travel at exactly the same rate around the center then its not a rotation.”
there is no ambiguity here except in your own mind.”
Sure there is. As I pointed out a planet position is determined by its degrees longitude and latitude and distance from the sun.
Its future position is determined by its speed.
That’s all definable as evidenced by your acknowledgement of a gravity simulator.
Perhaps its just you who would be confused with instructions to rotate an object planet around the earth. But we have NASA doing it all the time with satellite missile assemblies without a lot of horrible confusion. And some could be armed with nuclear missiles. You claiming you don’t know what that means is hilarious. I will have to try that on a typical 3rd grader and see if it that confuses him. LMAO!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”You have no answer for my point that the instruction to rotate something can have no ambiguity in its meaning! You simply have ignored this perfectly clear example of why that instruction can have no ambiguity. You have simply ducked the logic and common sense illustrated by this straightforward example.”
That does not address the point I made at all! I gave an example of an instruction to an engineer to rotate a part on a nuclear missile.”
————————
Seems to me you would have a problem putting a nuclear missile in orbit rotating around earth complaining you don’t have sufficient instructions in how to do it. Not sure how many would be complaining about not understanding what rotate means in that context.
Nate says:
” ”So you can also have natural climate change regionally. How to do back that fact into an argument there is no natural global change?”
Duh. Because the graph is not global!”
———————
Thats a logic error. If its hot in Greenland you can’t say its NOT hot everywhere else on average.
So your conclusion is illogical. And you are making illogical inferences.
Nate says:
”Bill said:”If you examine other proxies you will find similar patterns. Having the argument right now with Sig on the latest post by Roy.”
FALSE. Sig is kicking your ass on this argument. For one he showed that even in Greenland, better proxies do not show your 900 year periodicity.”
———————-
We covered the named 900 year periodicities Nate. And the multi-proxy graph using the interactive feature on Carbon Brief says:
The Minoan Warm Period peaked in 970BC
The Roman Optimum peaked in 30BC
And the MWP peaked in 870AD
thats not exactly kicking my ass on the 918 year cycle since the two gaps average 920 years.
And since eccentricity variables are global one cannot diminish them simply because the axial tilt and precession variables are too long term to consider by your own arguments.
You have already lost this argument the moment you recognized the 918 year Jupiter/Saturn super cycle. I discovered that on my own quite easily.
For several weeks since that discovery I have been trying to find
who else knows about it. You have been helpful in showing me a source that agrees with the 900year plus cycle.
Keep up the good work and keep helping bashing Sig with your findings.
“Seems to me you would have a problem putting a nuclear missile in orbit rotating around earth complaining you dont have sufficient instructions in how to do it. Not sure how many would be complaining about not understanding what rotate means in that context.”
Stoopid.
You are simply in denial that the instruction ‘rotate an object 106 degrees around point P’ has an explicit, unambiguous meaning.
Do you seriously believe it means ‘move the part in an elliptical path of any eccentricity around point P’?
Still unable to offer a useful sensible definition of rotation that works.
And No, ‘Bill knows a rotation when he sees it’ is not a useful definition of rotation.
Sorry no useful definition, then you have no argument.
So you can also have natural climate change regionally. How to do back that fact into an argument there is no natural global change?
Duh. Because the graph is not global!
Thats a logic error. If its hot in Greenland you cant say its NOT hot everywhere else on average.
So your conclusion is illogical. And you are making illogical inferences.”
Nor can I say if unicorns exist or not.
That is not my job either.
You made the specific claim that there is Global periodicity of 900 years, correlated to planets. As noted, this is you saying stuff that you cannot support with evidence.
Your failure.
Sorry, Sig can take care of himself in his argument with you, as he continues to prove you wrong, and nuts.
Nate says:
”You made the specific claim that there is Global periodicity of 900 years, correlated to planets. As noted, this is you saying stuff that you cannot support with evidence.”
Sure I can. The variables in Greenland ice is a measure of global temperatures not temperatures of the greenland surface. Polar amplification or deamplification isn’t a factor.
Hunter guy wrote:
Wrong as usual, Hunter guy. The Greenland Ice Core data is based on measurements of delta 18O in the ice. That variable reflects the temperatures in the source areas for the water in the falling snow, as well as the temperatures at the time the snow forms and falls out of the atmosphere.
Have you read Richard Alley’s book about the ice core data from Greenland yet?
https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/core-climate-history
Swanson Google AI says this:
”Oxygen-18 (18O) gets into ice cores through a process of condensation and precipitation as water vapor moves from the equator to the poles:
Evaporation
In warmer regions, water with the lighter isotope oxygen-16 (16O) evaporates more easily than 18O.
Condensation
As water vapor moves toward the poles, it cools and condenses, and the heavier 18O condenses and falls out of the atmosphere first.
Precipitation
The water vapor that reaches the poles precipitates as snow, which eventually becomes ice.”
———————-
As you can see the temperature of greenland doesn’t matter. If its cold there and it causes more O18 to preferentially precipitates out than O16 it will be in the ice indicating it was warmer in Greenland when it was supposed to be cold that precipitated it out.
O16 evaporating faster than O18 out of the oceans so you have richness of O16 to start with in the water vapor, O16 becomes richer as the cells move the water toward the poles by preferentially condensing out O18.
Finally the richest version of O16 falls on Greenland and becomes more permanent ice. the richer it is the warmer the world was.
Google AI Continues:
Ice core analysis
Scientists can analyze the ratio of 18O to 16O in ice cores to determine past temperatures. The fewer heavy isotopes in the ice core, the lower the ancient temperature.
——————
That would be lower ancient global ocean temperature.
Is Google AI wrong? I have seen it be wrong some small percent of time. It relies a lot on Wikipedia for one source of misinformation but Wiki seems to be mostly wrong on political issues where the wrong side is doing the editing. This issue seems rather cut and dried and only the people who think they are informed are misinformed.
“The variables in Greenland ice is a measure of global temperatures not temperatures of the greenland surface. Polar amplification or deamplification isnt a factor.”
Bill, you seem to think debate means creative writing. Just saying lots of stuff that you cannot support with facts or evidence.
That is incorrect.
Hunter guy wrote:
No, the delta 18O value is the result of the temperature near the point at which the snow precipitates out of the atmosphere.
Have you read Richard Alley’s book yet or are you going to just cherry pick more stuff from Google instead? Here, let me help you out:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/276609983792
https://www.ebay.com/itm/304946572763
So Swanson and Nate both claim Google AI is wrong.
Search google on: what determines o18 in ice cores.
If you get the google ai it explains it and provides links. I quoted it above. Below that there will be more links. Here is one:
https://pages.uoregon.edu/rdorsey/geo334/O-isotopes.html#:~:text=Glacial%20ice%20is%20therefore%20made,more%20enriched%20in%2018O.
So Swanson wants me to buy a book on Ebay that only allegedly tells a different story than hundreds of references on this topic. And he can’t do better than that. LMAO!!!
How shattering it must be to see your arctic amplification disappear in a poof of smoke. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to this topic as opposed to just parroting what your daddy told you.
Nate says:
”Stoopid.
You are simply in denial that the instruction rotate an object 106 degrees around point P has an explicit, unambiguous meaning.”
No I am not. give me the data for the rotation, axis distance, current longitude of the objects position on the ellipse, the eccentricity factor between zero and one. and I will unambiguously rotate it around the given shape.
“No I am not. give me the data for the rotation, axis distance, current longitude of the objects position on the ellipse, the eccentricity factor between zero and one.”
Sure, one could give you all that information. But that entirely misses the point.
That the instruction “rotate the object CW 106 degrees around point P.” does not include any of that information, yet it is unambiguous what the instruction means, to anyone of average IQ.
It does not mean move the object on an elliptical path of any eccentricity!
Hunter guy is so intent on spreading his flawed view of the temperature records in Greenland’s ice cores, he misses the basic theory from his reference:Global Ocean-Ice Water Budget
Figure A – Notice that the 18O depletion increases with latitude moving toward polar climates. It also increases as temperatures drop.
Why don’t you read Alley’s book, he worked first hand on the drilling of the ice cores in Greenland.
You are a real piece of work Nate.
If you aren’t given any instructions on what to turn it to; I would suggest grabbing the knob and turning it.
E. Swanson says:
”Figure A Notice that the 18O depletion increases with latitude moving toward polar climates. It also increases as temperatures drop.”
Yep and when it drops via precipitation on top of the spot of the ice core how much is left is what they use to determine the temperature for the days of precipitation in the layer.
Tell me something I don’t already know.
Nate says:
Sure, one could give you all that information. But that entirely misses the point.
That the instruction rotate the object CW 106 degrees around point P. does not include any of that information, yet it is unambiguous what the instruction means, to anyone of average IQ.
It does not mean move the object on an elliptical path of any eccentricity!
———————-
Sure it does Nate. 106 degrees on an elongated ellipse is on the exact same meridian that it is on a circle. They both have 360 degrees with the meridians of 1 degree spaced equally apart. If its controlled by a handle or a knob you just rotate the handle 106 degrees.
“Sure it does Nate”
Nope. You are wrong.
And predisposed to continue beating a dead horse indefinitely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_illus.svg
Study this diagram illustrating rotation.
Even you can understand that by rotating around a point, the body maintains its distance from the point.
Hunter guy wrote:
Perhaps you still haven’t understood that the snow also sublimes, which is a function of temperature. The colder it is on the top of Greenland, the less the number of 18O atoms which leave the snow. Thus, the delta 18O fraction captured in the snow represents the temperature at the point of deposition over the year. As a result, the ice core data is regional, not global, data.
E. Swanson says:
Perhaps you still havent understood that the snow also sublimes, which is a function of temperature. The colder it is on the top of Greenland, the less the number of 18O atoms which leave the snow. Thus, the delta 18O fraction captured in the snow represents the temperature at the point of deposition over the year. As a result, the ice core data is regional, not global, data.
——————
you are a real piece of work swanson just making that up.
Yes snow sublimes but you got the result wrong. It starts with heavy water at the equator. The heavy water fraction is reduced by evaporation and sublimination and precipitation globally. The fact that it does at the poles doesn’t change the o18 depletion that already occurred over the rest of the globe.
Nate says:
Study this diagram illustrating rotation.
Even you can understand that by rotating around a point, the body maintains its distance from the point.
——————
I am not going to keep going over the same ”my daddy told me so” points with you. There are different definitions for rotations. We have shown you repetitively. You putting on a blindfold, pretending to not have seen them, and parroting your daddy isn’t a valid argument about what kind of motion an orbit is. . .not to speak of you trying to define what kind of motion is is several ways that are all even more inconsistent with accepted definitions.
“We have shown you repetitively”
Again excuses but no answers.
No defintion agrees with your narrative!
Nothing you show supports your narrative.
So just keep on beating that dead horse, anyway. Its what you must do!
“and parroting your daddy isnt a valid argument”
This is just the usual ‘Bill has nothing to offer’ so needs to trash his opponents actual sources and evidence!
Which source and evidence?
All you ever do is try to call it a different motion that you keep changing the name of and can never support with evidence.
Still unable to provide a definition of ‘rotation’ or ‘rotate’ that supports your narrative.
Yet still beating that poor dead horse!
Still refusing to accept the reality that an engineer reading an instruction to ‘rotate an object CCW around point P’ knows exactly what to do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#/media/File:Rotation_illus.svg
In your ludicrous narrative, she cannot know what to do without being given additional information about eccentricity, direction of major axis, etc!
“Which source and evidence?”
Look throughout this thread!
And so we begin the next round of Bill falsely declaring that I never provide links or evidence!
Hunter guy pontificated again:
Here’s a quote and references which say the opposite:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1157707
16 V. Masson-Delmotteet al., Science309, 118 (2005).
17 W. Dansgaardet al., in Climatic Processes and Climate Sensitivity, vol. Maurice Ewing 5, J. E. Hansen, T. Takahashi, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1984), pp. 288298.
18 J. Jouzelet al., Quat. Sci. Rev.26, 1 (2007).
Again, the point is that the ice core data does not reflect global temperatures.
Sorry for you that you can’t take the time to read Alley’s book. You might learn something about the data.
Do you have any source for the discussion of how they determined they should ignore O18 depletion that occurs on the trip from the equator that permeates the literature of the 1990’s
What you are saying is that all we should consider is sublimination in determining what ice core data represents. Seems to be one of the typical political decisions we see are government making in many arenas.
Do you think they will also bury the literature wrt orbital forcing and the effects calculated by Milankovic which has been largely buried without comment as well.
Sounds like masks really don’t work. . .unless its a government official that is wearing one.
I withdraw my previous comments this seems to be more about a Swanson misinterpretation than any official hanky panky.
Hunter guy, you can’t “withdraw” from the discussion about the ice core data which you have been wrongly describing for quite a while now. The δ18O evidence from several ice cores collected over Greenland has been shown to be a function of the surface temperatures near the drill site. You have yet to provide ANY EVIDENCE to support your claims. You are just blowing smoke as you throw stuff at the walls, producing nothing other than disinformation and anti-scientific crap.
swanson your link is to a single ice core in north greenland. and only involves the younger dryas period when sea level was 120 meters lower than today. that doesn’t override the prolific literature written before this became a hot potato political issue.
Hunter guy thinks he can ignore the entire weight of scientific evidence regarding the Greenland Ice Cores. My link pointed out that the data from ice those cores represented local temperatures, which Hunter doesn’t want to talk about, as it defeats his claims regarding global temperatures. Of course, he ignores the references taken from the paper, which are also part of the scientific case. He then gets the facts about sea level wrong as well, confusing the lower level at LGM with that at the Younger Dryas event some 10,000 years later after lots of ice sheet melt.
Have you read Richard Alley’s book yet?
Swanson says:
”Hunter guy thinks he can ignore the entire weight of scientific evidence regarding the Greenland Ice Cores. My link pointed out that the data from ice those cores represented local temperatures”
Thats laughable.
Its an investigation of two sharp climate effects in one ice core that occurred at the beginning of the Holocene. The abstract declares a that ”Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions”
The author even explains that this was preceded by rare conditions that may have triggered the event.
Now Swanson reads that and believes it didn’t switch mode and it has always been like that and that changes everything that science believed up to that point.
And no I am going to buy a book of a guy, Alley, that tries to slow walk his own work to push a political narrative when his own work isn’t even substantively different than the work he wanted to push. All it amounted to was an unfocused attack on a climate skeptic as a member of the gang that gets off on that kind of stuff. Near as I can tell all he objected to was zooming in on natural climate change to a degree where folks with less than perfect vision can actually see the scale of the change.
I can see clearly why you like him being a member of your political team.
If I read anything from him it will be a peer reviewed paper, not a novel.
Milankovic’s work remains buried and despite being listed in several catalogs its always labeled as ”unavailable”. Am I surprised in today’s political environment? Nope!
Wow, impressive demonstration of how Bill is able to deny direct evidence placed right before his eyes! And all the standard excuses he employs.
It is thus impossible to have any honest debate with this guy.
Hunter guy refuses to accept the results of decades of scientific investigation. The paper I linked to just showed the results of a new analysis of an ice core which allowed more accurate resolution of the data, focusing on the well known Younger Dryas period. Hunter ignores the fact that the paper an analysis which was “state of the art” when published in 2008 and had 10 authors. I would expect that there have been other reports about that ice core’s data, but do not have any other references, as they appear to be from sources behind pay walls.
Hunter then calls Alley’s book “a novel”, as if it was a work of fiction, even as Hunter doesn’t say he actually read it. Of course, Hunter then jumps to the conclusion that Alley’s book is politically motivated, which is laughable, again given that he hasn’t actually read it. Hunter wants “peer reviewed” papers, many of which Alley includes in his references.
I think Nate’s reply nails it. Hunter isn’t interested in the facts or real world research.
Nate says:
”Wow, impressive demonstration of how Bill is able to deny direct evidence placed right before his eyes! And all the standard excuses he employs.
It is thus impossible to have any honest debate with this guy.’
Not true I acknowledged that twice for a short period of time during younger dryas type events some 10,000 years ago they detected a ”switch” to local climate effects dominating in the ice core.
But all that suggests is some modest degree of uncertainty in ice core data as to what it represents.
If you guys actually acknowledged all the uncertainties in the natural climate change space this forum would have a decidedly different flavor from my way or the highway.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter ignores the fact that the paper an analysis which was state of the art when published in 2008 and had 10 authors. I would expect that there have been other reports about that ice cores data, but do not have any other references, as they appear to be from sources behind pay walls.”
Studies that influence public policy should not be behind a paywall. . .especially considering the public most likely funded those studies. So that excuse simply feeds public skepticism.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter then calls Alleys book a novel, as if it was a work of fiction, even as Hunter doesnt say he actually read it. Of course, Hunter then jumps to the conclusion that Alleys book is politically motivated, which is laughable, again given that he hasnt actually read it. Hunter wants peer reviewed papers, many of which Alley includes in his references.”
Its certainly not laughable. There isn’t any statistically material differences between the multi-proxy study and Don Easterbrooks study when one considers the known error margins these studies operate under. Thus Alley’s attack on Easterbrook and only be characterized as a personal attack on a difference of political perspectives. The argument here is clearly under what should be a professionally prepared risk-benefit analysis has been completely foregone in this very political environment where skeptics are considered to be deniers when in fact the only deniers are those who shun intelligent analysis of risk/benefit and uncertainty.
Climate is complicated so it doesn’t surprise me that numerous exceptional events can be found in our proxy data none of which have been established as an existential threat. In that analysis its clear that cooling has been more risky and most likely to cause starvation.
This fact was placed before Bill’s eyes:
“The δ18O record is a proxy for past air temperature at the ice core site (16, 17). Although the magnitude of Greenland δ18O changes can be influenced by changing site and source temperatures and by snowfall seasonality (16, 18, 19), the timing of δ18O changes is dominated by the changing site temperature (18).”
And it can found in the cited references.
Hunter guy, here’s a comment by Easterbrook, 2009:
https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/12/agu-day-2-the-role-of-co2-in-the-earths-history/
Perhaps Hunter is referring to a later commentary:
https://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-defends-the-indefensible/
Who knows what Hunter is referring to, as he gives no links or data.
E. Swanson says:
”Who knows what Hunter is referring to, as he gives no links or data.”
All you need to do is ask.
https://tinyurl.com/bdhtv4f4 which of course you already knew because you brought the topic up some time ago.
Alley said: So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.
Perhaps he fired from the hip but the fact is the multi-proxy record being offered doesn’t materially differ from Easterbrook’s graph. So he said something hastily because of his political orientation when in fact Easterbrook’s data came from Alley.
Bottom line one should never believe unsupported narratives from anybody who has a political motive to say what they said.
Its exactly the same thing as asking Exxon what their viewpoint is of CO2 is. Would you believe Exxon? If not then why would your believe somebody who works for the equivalent of Exxon in the Climate industrial/Institutional Complex? Expecially one that hastily fires from the hip on his own data presentation simply because it was being used by a skeptic?
I could understand it if there was a lot of subsequent work that disputed the results. But all I see is confirmation of that work.
Such a conclusion of Alley would far better apply to your presentation if you can’t support it beyond what is written here in the link you gave me. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1157707
Hunter guy posts another example of his usual misinformation. The main point is that the Greenland ice cores represent local temperatures, not global values. Hausfather’s commentary does not refer to global temperatures either, as I read it. Hausfather makes this point when he wrote:
Of course, Hunter guy next drifts off topic, commenting about “anybody who has a political motive to say what they said”. Sorry, you can’t seriously compare the scientific efforts of the ice core drillers with the oil drillers, who are only interested in making a large profit from their efforts and the Hell with the Planet.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter guy posts another example of his usual misinformation. The main point is that the Greenland ice cores represent local temperatures, not global values.
————————
Swanson you haven’t even begun to establish this claim of yours.
Your reference says: ”The deuterium excess, a proxy of Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions and initiated a more gradual change (over 50 years) of the Greenland air temperature, as recorded by stable water isotopes.”
It clearly states that during the Younger Dryas event some 12,000 years ago there was a climate shift from the normal NH weather patterns. there is no claim that the ice core itself was primarily sourced by arctic waters. To be a global representation some arctic precipitation needs to be included in the ice core. If it weren’t then it wouldn’t be a global temperature proxy. If its not a global temperature proxy then what is it good for?
Swanson says:
”Climate models show faster warming in the Arctic than the rest of the world a phenomenon known as arctic amplification and similar to what has been observed over the past few decades.”
Indeed Swanson and our temperature records include that effect in global mean temperature.
Swanson says:
”Of course, Hunter guy next drifts off topic, commenting about anybody who has a political motive to say what they said. Sorry, you cant seriously compare the scientific efforts of the ice core drillers with the oil drillers, who are only interested in making a large profit from their efforts and the Hell with the Planet.”
LOL! There are a lot of people who will say the hell with the planet to keep their jobs. Oil companies don’t seem to be having problems with people buy their products.
But scientists have been attacked as deniers, denied budgets for their projects, don’t have an alternative employer, had their publications blocked by discriminatory peer review, have had their reputations attacked unfairly and more. Many lesser men and women will cave to that.
What needs to be done in my view is to move the bulk of climate change funding under the purview of the civil service, a service that was concocted during the last era of massive corruption to take politics out of government services. Instead of having the foxes guarding the chicken coop bring an end to the NSF and transfer their responsibilities to independent career civil servants.
Then I would form regional stakeholder panels in cooperation with the individual states supported by science teams and have governors appoint members of the panel to make recommendations based in science reviewed by experts employed by the stakeholder panels to provide recommendations for regulations and establish objectives for the Department of State in international negotiations.
Its clear we need a process of science and policy making that is independent of external motivations, lobbying, and with a degree of accountability.
swannie…”Bacteria and viruses mutate, presenting new versions to infect other life forms. Thats a perfect example of evolution in which the most successful life forms are the the ones which procreate fastest…”
***
That is not evolution, Swannie, it is simply genetics, which applies only to one species of bacteria or virus. Evolution is a serious generalization of thought-experiments wherein one species evolves from another.
Stefan Lanka has studied and worked with viruses at an in-depth level. He has gone back in the history of viruses from day one and traced the knowledge to present day. He is not convinced that any virus behaves as an infectious device and no one has ever proved it does.
The proof of viral infection has been done in a lab, in a test tube, where healthy cells are subjected to a suspected virus. If the cells die, that confirms the theory, however, Lanka has recently proved that the cells will die anyway due to pre-treatment. According to Lanka, in all virus confirmations he has studied, no researcher did a control study to see if the cells would have died anyway.
This is serious stuff. Something is obviously infecting and harming people but we simply cannot ascribe that to a virus when there is no direct proof. Something else could be at work that we are missing.
If we could track a virus through a cell and watch it do its work, that would be one thing. However, the infectious theory is nothing more than a hypothesis and agreed to by consensus. It may be the case, but we need better research to prove it. The danger, according to Lanka, is that viral inference (since the 1950s) is now done using DNA theory that is not clearly understood.
The idea that only the strongest survive is pulp fiction, similar to the quaint notion of natural selection in which an unnamed intelligence controls evolution.
Let’s face it, evolution theory is nothing more than a fantasy dreamed up by a 19th century twit, Darwin. I call him a twit based on his real life behavior which was exceedingly eccentric.
Gordon,
“Stefan Lanka has studied and worked with viruses at an in-depth level. He has gone back in the history of viruses from day one and traced the knowledge to present day. He is not convinced that any virus behaves as an infectious device and no one has ever proved it does.”
Yes and thousands of others have studied and worked with viruses at an in-depth level, and have concluded that they are the cause of many infectious diseases.
Science is NEVER what one person only says it is. Because that one person could be wrong or insane or have ulterior motives.
And science has to be replicated many many times, before it becomes reliable.
Gordon’s twisted behavior just amazes me.
I am aware of what you claim, Nate, but I am wondering why not one of them can refute what Lanka is claiming.
When Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for discovering the PCR method for DNA amplification, was writing a paper in a lab he needed a citation to prove HIV causes AIDS. He called over to a colleague and he got the response, ‘everybody knows it does’. That was not good enough for Mullis and he went looking for sources of a citation.
He searched for 10 years and did not find one paper that PROVED HIV causes AIDS. At one point, he heard that Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, was speaking near him and decided to approach him directly for a source. He confronted Montagnier and even he could not give him a source, rather he abruptly excused himself as being late for a meeting. However, Montagnier did suggest he look at simian (ape) studies.
The reason Montagnier could not offer him a citation is that Montagnier did not isolate HIV, he inferred it using RNA theory. He had tried to isolate it using an electron microscope but he freely admitted he saw no virus.
Later, Montagnier admitted that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. I fully expect to hear the same about covid at some point. Furthermore, he claimed that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
john…how about attempting a response to the points I am making?
“not one of them can refute what Lanka is claiming.”
Do some checking before claiming such, Gordon. That makes no sense!
“When Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for”
Again you have another individual who disagrees with thousands of others. You assume HE must be right for some reason.
The very fact that the anti-viral therapy, that reduces the viral load to near 0, has prevented millions of deaths cannot be explained unless the virus is the cause of AIDS.
Looks like an epidemic of one source disease.
Maybe it’s a virus.
Gordon Robertson
Lanka is a crackpot snd evil! He peddles his stuff to promote alternative medicine. In earlier days people called these con-men snake oil salesmen. Gullible people, like you, believed their lies and false claims. They got rich of of suckers like you! You probably buy healing supplies from the alt medical community. I know you take massive doses of Vitamin C till you get the runs.
I was on a site the other day run by one of those alternative medicine types. I found it quite refreshing, especially her explanation of why she is now in that field.
She was an MD and practicing as such. However, she found it very confining due to the rules imposed on her by regulatory bodies. She felt stifled by the narrow-mindeness so she packed her career in as a physician and went into alternative medicine.
You speak of that field as evil but you fail to see the evil in standard medicine. It is literally run, especially in the US, by the pharmaceutical companies. It is not to their benefit if the population is healthy.
Pfizer has been fined over 5 BILLION dollars for illicitly promoting and lying about their products. Same with Johnson & Johnson (3 billion) and Bristol Meyers-Squibb (3 billion). Think of how much profit these criminals are making if they can afford to pay that much in fines.
I am not claiming for one instant that drugs are not necessary in many cases, I am merely commenting on the exaggerated need for many of them and the lies told by drug companies to enable their profit-mongering.
There are physicians in traditional medicine blindly supporting those pirates. One doctor I came across is urging seniors to challenge the medicines they are prescribed, some of them having to take 30 different drugs.
Come on, Norman, open up your brain a bit, all is not well on the Western front. Some physicians are packing it in because they no longer wish to be bound to an industry controlled by Big Pharma. Some are being run off because they won’t fall in line.
Here’s an example. There is a blood thinner called Apixaban. A study was commissioned by Pfizer in which 6000 patients with atrial fibrillation were divided into two groups of 3000. One group received a specific dose of Apixaban while the other received a variable dose of Aspirin, a know but inexpensive blood thinner.
BTW…thinning blood is a means of preventing strokes that can occur when the heart becomes irregular for too long. In afib, the heart’s electrical timing becomes irregular and the heart does not pump blood efficiently. That allows blood…in some people…to pool and in such a condition it can form blood clots. If such a clot reaches the brain it can cause a stroke by blocking blood vessels.
The Pfizer study represents cheating right off the bat. Why is Apixaban prescribed at a known dosage but Aspirin is offered from 81 mg to 324 mg? It is doubtful that the lower dosage will thin blood enough in the long term to prevent a stroke. Why were the patients not offered an equivalent amount of Aspirin?
Anyway, with only partial results available, they terminated the study claiming that Apixaban is 50% better at preventing strokes than Aspirin. The data revealed that about 90 patients out of 3000 (about 3%) got strokes while 130 out of 3000 about (4.3%) on Aspirin got strokes.
The basis of their claim is based on this trivial difference. In other words, for all intents and purposes, Aspirin is as good as Apixaban but Pfizer has claimed it is only 50% as good. Where they got the 50% is not clear.
The study did not clarify the cardiovascular condition of the patients in each group nor how prone they might be to having a stroke. And they underplayed the effect of Apixaban producing internal and external bleeding.
This sort of misinformation is the forte of Big Pharma. They lied about the effect of antiviral drugs on HIV. The earliest, AZT, had been discontinued as a cancer chemo drug due to its extreme toxicity. Their HAART antivirals were introduced at a time in the 1990s when HIV and AIDS was on the decline, yet physicians today bray about how HIV/AIDS has een cured by drugs.
Abject lies.
“HIV/AIDS has een cured by drugs.
Abject lies.”
Prove that, Gordon.
Robertson’s endlessly shown mix of ignorance and arrogance becomes now reckless and dishonest. Look at his bullshit:
” What Binny is actually saying is that the German Supreme Court are a load of liars. ”
No, I didn’t say that at all, neither ‘actually’ nor in any other sense. Robertson is simply too cowardly to face up to his own web of lies.
*
Robertson’s further distortion of the facts:
” They were the ones who accepted Lanka’s argument that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate that a measles virus exists. ”
*
The German Federal Court of Justice has never, ever accepted any argument from Lanka. Simply because this court did not debate any technical let alone political arguments in the case of Lanka vs. Bardens.
As I explained above clearly and unambiguously (see my comment posted on September 8, 2024 at 5:32 PM), the Federal Supreme Court did not decide on facts but solely on the form, namely on David Bardens’ complaint against the denial of leave to appeal imposed by the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court.
Nothing more and nothing less: Everything else is a blatant lie spread by Lanka, blogs sympathetic to him and contrarian braggarts like Robertson.
Here is the evidence (which ignorant people like Robertson would never be able to find).
*
Part I: the Federal Court of Justice’s ruling
German original, saved on an Internet page (ironically by antivax people who completely misunderstood it)
https://impfen-nein-danke.de/u/BGH+I_ZR__62-16.pdf
Translation into English by Google
” On December 1, 2016, the I. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, through the presiding judge Prof. Dr. Büscher, the judges Prof. Dr. Schaffert, Dr. Kirchhoff, Prof. Dr. Koch and Feddersen,
decided:
The plaintiff's appeal against the non-admission of the appeal in the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart – 12th Civil Senate – of February 16, 2016 is rejected because
– the legal matter has no fundamental significance,
– the complaints based on the violation of fundamental procedural rights are not valid
and
– the development of the law or the securing of uniform case law do not otherwise require a decision by the appeal court (Section 543, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
No further justification is required in accordance with Section 544, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2, Clause 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal proceedings (Section 97, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Value in dispute: €100,000 ”
*
As anyone can see: the sentence ruled doesn’t have anything to do with Lanke and his measles virus denial.
*
Part II: Lanka’s lie about the Supreme Court’s ruling
Here is now a web page written on 20. January 2017 by Dr. Stefan Lanka, originally stored in a Russian ‘.ru’ domain:
https://www.anonymousnews.org/gesundheit/pharma-luege-aufgeflogen-bgh-urteil-bestaetigt-masern-viren-existieren-nicht/
Pharma-Lüge aufgeflogen – BGH-Urteil bestätigt: Masern-Viren existieren nicht
No need to translate anything written in the document, its title speaks for itself:
Pharmaceutical lie exposed Supreme Court ruling confirms: measles viruses do not exist
*
When I get some idle time again, I’ll post the judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, definitely proving that even this appeal ruling did not have anything to do with whether or not Stuttgart’s Justices agreed the existence of the measles virus.
On the contrary, the ruling was exclusively restricted on the fact that while Lanka’s contradictor Bardens did very well present proofs of its existence, these were unfortunately not exactly those which Lanka had requested.
*
But… in their ruling’s paragraph 114, Stuttgart’s Justices unambiguously wrote:
” The Regional Court’s assessment of the evidence to the effect that, based on the expert opinion obtained, it was proven that the publications submitted by the plaintiff as a whole provided evidence of the existence and pathogenic properties of the measles virus and that the determination of the diameter in the form requested by the defendant had also been successful, cannot be challenged in the end. ”
https://openjur.de/u/892340.html
**
But don’t think that a contrarian boy like Robertson will accept anything I wrote above.
In one day, one week, one month or so, he very certainly will resort to the old, utterly wrong Lanka/measles stuff he keeps in his notes, and post that old stuff again.
Bindidon
I think Gordon Robertson is a serial liar. He lies so much he does not know the difference between lies and truth. He thinks NASA is a bunch of dishonest liars. He sees everyone around him as dishonest liars because that is what he is.
Many times people have told him the truth about the Lanka case. He ignores it and keeps peddling the lies he got from some bad blog site. He thinks believing in lies that contradict established truth makes him a genius. In reality it just makes him a liar. He has no shame. He will not reflect and change his lies. He will wait until the issue dies down then he peddles his lies again. You attempt to correct him but it has not worked to this date. Liars are difficult to change, especially when they do not know the difference between lie and truth. I consider Gordon to be a serial liar because you and others have corrected his false narrative but it does not alter his dishonest posting. I wish he might change but in several years it does not seem likely.
Nice rant, Norman. But you are missing something.
You and Bindi have the same problem as Gordon. You and Bindi are just in a different cult. While Gordon is in his own cult, you and Bindi tend to belong to the NASA cult — you both believe Moon is spinning. You reject all science to the contrary.
You rightly accuse Gordon of perverting reality, but what do you think your “insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations” are? That is perverting reality.
All three of you could benefit from some good, long-term therapy.
Clint R
You are the same as Gordon. You just make up stuff. When asked for evidence you divert in childish insults and never supply what is requested. You can believe the Moon does not rotate on its axis. That is your choice. No evidence will convince you otherwise.
You make up many things and support zero.
You can’t understand tidal locking, tidal torque. Scientists do understand these and have developed equations for them. You can keep going with your made up unsupported opinions. On this blog I learn some very valuable lessons. People are not capable of self-reflection (including you Clint R) and there are many who are not interested in the Truth. Just their ego based opinions. You are one of those. No matter how much evidence you are given you never accept it. The worst you you NEVER provide any to support your delusions.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestialhtml/node54.html
Read this article all the way through. Near the end they explain the Moon’s synchronous rotation based upon tidal torque (something you cannot understand, I am sure the math in the link is beyond your level of understanding so you will just reject it as you usually do).
Norman, you usual insults and false accusations, combined with your adherence to your cult beliefs and rejection of basic physics, only proves me right.
I never get tired of being right.
Clint R
Babbling on and on about insults and cults is all you know how to do. You do not understand the link I offered so you go into defensive mode. Pretending to have hurt feelings and such and diverting away from the fact you can’t comprehend the math in the link nor understand the content. You are not trained in any physics. You act more like a bot than a human. Repeating the same things over and over and providing no evidence for your babbling comments of nothingness.
If you are human, ask yourself, what value am I providing to this blog calling scientist cult minded and giving my incorrect opinions on things. Not understanding flux at all. Not understanding insulation. Making up false claims that IR from a cold body reflects off of a hotter one. You provide zero evidence for this. I have also read it on crackpot blogs but no established science ever has made such a claim. Yet you call your rants established science and reality? Based upon what?
Also if you don’t like the insults don’t bug in when you are not wanted! I was talking to Bindidon about Gordon’s lies and you butt in. You are an attention whore no doubt. You crave response from people and do not care that it makes you look like a fool. it is the recognition that your post results in a response that your mind craves.
If you were able to face reality, Norman, you would realize that you can’t respond to me without making a false accusation. Your insults and false accusations are triggered by your hatred of reality. I’m the one that debunks your false beliefs, so you direct your hatred at me.
You have no real knowledge of physics. I can tell by the links you provide, trying to fake it. Often you don’t even understand the links you find. You’re a fraud.
For example, in the link you supplied (above), can you explain why Earth can NOT produce a torque on Moon? No, you can’t. Do you know what orbital motion is? Can you provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”? No, you can’t. You’re a fraud.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Norman…I have never claimed NASA are liars in general. NASA is a big outfit and they have many divisions. One of them is NASA GISS and they are terminal liars. NASA also have PR divisions led by naive rookies with university degrees who cannot think for themselves.
I will agree with you on one thing, anyone who thinks in terms of cults is likely dealing with a form of paranoia. Paranoia is not just the vernacular word we use for fear, it is a serious mental disorder associated with schizophrenia. In fact, there is a branch of schizophrenia termed paranoid schizophrenia.
The word phobia is also a word used to describe a serious incapacitating condition that represents a fear so strong that people are literally unable to function. It can freeze their limbs so they cannot move. People so afflicted will be unable to cross a bridge, for example, and the moment they try they freeze up and literally cannot move. Such a condition is associated with extreme panic disorder and PTSD.
Homosexuals and their enablers think it is kosher to brand people homophobic if they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle even slightly. The word homophobic means the people to whom it is directed are so afraid of homosexuals that they literally are so immobilized by fear that they cannot function. The word homophobic then is rooted in hatred, the very emotion homosexuals are fighting against.
Words like cult, paranoia, and phobia must be used carefully and meaningfully, and when applied outside those conditions they are directed by hate. Clint is a very angry person for some reason and those are his way of expressing hatred.
However, you tend to dabble in hatred yourself when you brand me a serial liar. I understand what motivates you, it is your inability to debate me on a scientific basis. So, like Clint, you resort to mud slinging.
Gordon, one time you’re trying to suck up to me by claiming that we’re friends. Next you claim I’m a “very angry person”.
Get professional help.
clint…I still regard us as friends and friends should not take umbrage at well placed criticism. You do have anger issues and I would be remiss as a friend if I did not point that out. If you have constructive criticism of me I am all ears…not to say that my ears are that big.
After I referred to you as a friend, you took another shot at me as being in my own cult. I’m OK with that. I just wish we could be on the same page as skeptics.
I have a relative who I love dearly but she has extreme anger issues, so much so, that she is not currently talking to me. If I am angry with someone, it may fester for a day or so and I get over.
The human brain is capable of immense growth with regard to consciousness. I admire you for sticking up for your principles and for introducing ideas like HTE and the non-spinning Moon. Let’s focus on science like that rather than quibbling over small details and allow our brains to expand.
On the other hand, taking a shot once in a while is no big deal but it is better accomplished using wit and humour.
Gordon Robertson
When i label you a serial liar it is not toward hatred of you. It is because you are. You continue to lie about the Lanka case even when corrected many times about what the Court actualy stated.
If you want proof Lanka is an evil con-man deluding the gullible for self gain, consider taking a person with measles to unvaccinated people who can be of good health and see if the condition spreads. Viruses are real and cause disease and vaccinations work to greatly reduce virus infectoions and disease! Give it up with the peddling of snake oil!
Sorry gordon, but YOU are the one with an anger-management problem, not me. Want just one example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1584186
Norman is the same. I could give numerous examples, from both of you, insulting and falsely accusing me, in comment after comment. It’s amazing that neither of you can see how similar you are. Neither of you can answer basic physics problems. Neither of you can learn. Both of you are filled with hate. You clog the blog with long rants that few even read. Your comments are always are far ahead of everyone else’s in word-count.
You have serious issues. With friends like you, I don’t need enemies. I doubt that you even have a friend.
binny once again present a carefully cherry-picked account of the court proceedings. He fails to acknowledge that the ruling presented by the lower court was dismissed and that the plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs.
Therefore, Lanka was justified in claiming the measles virus has not been proved.
Lanka had stipulated in his offer of a reward that the proof of a measles virus had to appear in one publication and the lower court allowed the plaintiff’s reps to cherry-pick from 6 different papers. A quote offered by Binny above is not from the court’s opinion but from the opinions of the plantiff’s reps.
Lanka also specified that the size of the virus had to be declared and that was not met. Instead the plaintiff’s reps specified a size of 300 nm to 1000 nm whereas a retrovirus is known to exist at a much smaller size.
Lanka’s points are valuable to the scientific community and any researcher worth his salt would take pains to prove him wrong by actually isolating the virus. They can’t or won’t do it therefore they are forced to cherry pick existing papers.
binny…all of your time seems to be idle time. It’s obvious that you have read the pertinent info in the article and refused to reveal it. Here are the conclusions from the Lanka paper…
Conclusions
The six publications presented in the trial are the most important publications on the “measles virus.” Since there are no other publications besides these six publications that attempt to use scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: All national and international statements on the suspected measles virus, the infectiousness of measles, and the benefits and safety of the measles vaccination have been stripped of their scientific basis and thus their legal basis.
In response to inquiries triggered by the measles virus competition, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission can explain the increased rate of vaccine damage from the measles vaccination in particular and why and how this vaccination in particular is causing increased autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell components (ribosomes, the protein factories of cells). Since the measles vaccination consists of “whole measles viruses”, this vaccine contains cell-specific structures. This explains why the measles vaccination triggers more frequent and stronger allergies and autoimmune reactions than other vaccinations. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated several times that the RKI’s claim about ribosomes in the measles viruses refutes the claims of the existence of a measles virus.
During the proceedings, it was also recorded that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectiology, the RKI, failed to conduct and publish studies on the alleged measles virus, contrary to its legal mandate in Section 4 of the Infection Protection Act (IfSG). The RKI claims that it has conducted internal investigations into the measles virus, but refuses to hand over or publish the results.
> Since there are no other publications besides these six publications
See for yourself:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123916/
Perhaps there are more than six publications and Lanka simply got away because of a technicality, i.e. as the sweepstake maker he had the right to design a redhibitory scheme.
And Robertson continues to manipulate the blog, (1) by moving the goal post and (2) by lying again about what I wrote.
” binny once again present a carefully cherry-picked account of the court proceedings. ”
*
No: I did NOT present a carefully cherry-picked account of the court proceedings.
I did nothing else than to reply, in my comment above (September 9, 2024 at 1:23 PM), to Robertson’s lies written somewhere upthread (September 9, 2024 at 1:23 PM):
” What Binny is actually saying is that the German Supreme Court are a load of liars. ”
Robertson not only shows once more how good he is at writing reckless, dirty insults against justices he never did read anything of what they wrote.
He furthermore clearly invents what never did happen:
” They were the ones who accepted Lankas argument that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate that a measles virus exists. ”
I repeat: never did the German Justices accept that. Neither at the Supreme Court in Karlsruhe nor at the High Regional Court in Stuttgart.
*
Robertson simply is not fair enough to admit neither his lie let alone Lanka’s blatant misrepresentation of the facts:
” Pharma-Lüge aufgeflogen – BGH-Urteil bestätigt: Masern-Viren existieren nicht ”
i.e.
” Pharmaceutical lie exposed Supreme Court ruling confirms: measles viruses do not exist ”
*
Instead, Robertson again manipulates the blog, by writing:
” Therefore, Lanka was justified in claiming the measles virus has not been proved. ”
Exactly the contrary is the case, as shows the ruling of the appeal court in Stuttgart.
What they said was ONLY that plaintiff Barden did not provide exactly what Lanka expected, and NOT that Lanka’s claims about the inextsitence of the measles virus were right.
*
Moreover, Robertson lies again when writing:
” A quote offered by Binny above is not from the court’s opinion but from the opinions of the plantiff’s reps. ”
This shows us how Robertson ticks: he brazenly turns what is clearly exposed into its contrary.
I wrote:
” But… in their ruling’s paragraph 114, Stuttgart’s Justices unambiguously wrote:
” The Regional Court’s assessment of the evidence to the effect that, based on the expert opinion obtained, it was proven that the publications submitted by the plaintiff as a whole provided evidence of the existence and pathogenic properties of the measles virus and that the determination of the diameter in the form requested by the defendant had also been successful, cannot be challenged in the end. ” ”
with a hint to the source:
https://openjur.de/u/892340.html
This is of course what the Justices in Stuttgart sentenced:
OLG Stuttgart, Urteil vom 16.02.2016 – 12 U 63/15
and by no means what some plaintiff’s reps could have told somewhere.
*
Anyone interested can use Google Translator to obtain an English version of Stuttgart’s ruling.
Binny the bottom-line is that the Justices over-turned the lower court decision that agreed with the plaintiff. Lanka had asked the proof of a virus be contained in one scientific paper yet the lower court allowed the plaintiff’s reps to quote from 6 different papers.
Furthermore, Lanka stipulated that the size of the virus be clearly declared and that was not done. Instead, the plaintiff’s reps claimed a range from 1500 nm – 3000 nm which is miles too big for a virus.
Another thing claimed by Lanka was that no control group was used to see if the healthy cells would die on their own. Not one study used a control group for any virus study and that opens a can of worms. It means no virus claim can be confirmed unless they rule out the fact that the healthy cells used would not die on their own.
What I want to know is why it is necessary in a lab to starve healthy cells then treat them with antibiotics, which will eventually kill them. Seems to me that those who have claimed a virus have not done it scientifically.
If you follow Lanka’s research and reasoning, from the 18th century on, the study of viruses has been incredibly murky. As late as 1935, one scientist declared that no virus could meet the standards of Koch’s Postulate. Then in the 1950s, when DNA research began, viral science switched to it without further proof that a virus could meet Koch’s Postulate.
Lanka is not claiming there is no measles virus, only that the science done to claim one is incomplete. Therefore, children are being given vaccinations that can harm them since the vaccinations are based on an unknown quantity.
I have no opinion either way on whether vaccinations work or not, but if I had a child, I’d be very concerned that he/she was being vaccinated based on a science that is incomplete.
I know the argument pro-vaccination, that it has reduced deaths globally, but that info comes with an implication that the vaccinations cleared up viral infections It is well known that polio spiked in 1910, to a level exceeding that of 1950 and it has gone away and spiked several times before the vaccination was introduced.
One thing we are missing is the state of peoples’ health since 1950, which has improved dramatically. Is it a better immune system and a lack of world wars that has lead to that?
I think it is totally wrong to vaccinate newborns. It was reported recently that all newborns in the US receive a shot for a sexually-related virus that is alleged and not proved.
Gordon,
“I think it is totally wrong to vaccinate newborns. It was reported recently that all newborns in the US receive a shot for a sexually-related virus that is alleged and not proved.”
Are you talking about Hepatitus B?
That disease is endemic and transmitted by several ways, not only sexually.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1687319
I’m embarrassed for him:
https://i.postimg.cc/cL29kcm4/temp-Imagedq-K8-Kv.avif.
You are embarrassed for me??? You have not, as far as I know, posted one decent scientific rebuttal but Clint and I have posted hundreds. You are not only revealing your lack of scientific ability but your lack of maturity as far as dealing with people.
I have spent a life in which I have had to defend myself on the streets against unwarranted physical attacks. That’s what matters. When the law is not there to protect you, it is mandatory that you learn how to defend and protect yourself. In fact, the law has no meaning in a dark street at 3 am.
All the rest, including words, are of no threat to anyone other than those who have fragile images/egos to defend. Nothing Clint has ever said to me was taken in the context that he was trying to harm me. I took it as him venting and I am now asking, hey bro, what’s with the anger?
In fact, I am asking everyone on Roy’s blog, what’s with the anger and the insults? I ask myself that all the time, not only on this blog but of the world in general.
I can’t believe that you would react with such hostility to someone trying to be a decent human being rather than an arrogant twit who hides behind a URL address, throwing insults.
BTW….there is a difference between an insult and a witticism. Let’s have more wit and less vulgarity.
” … and less vulgarity. ”
For example, by naming people ‘a$$hole’ or ‘cheating S O B’ on this blog, or by calling Germany’s main Justices ‘a pack of liars’, as Robertson did upthread.
Noo, Binny, it was YOU who called the justices a pack of liars. They upheld Lanka’s appeal, reaffirming his claim that the measles virus has never been properly isolated. It was you who affirmed their ruling was wrong hence they are liars.
I was very impressed with the logic and rule of law the Justices applied.
Now Robertson really becomes dement.
I wrote upthread:
Bindidon says:
September 8, 2024 at 5:32 PM
” About Robertson’s eternal lies concerning Lanka and the measles virus
*
I have all the relevant information on the legal dispute between Dr. Stefan Lanka and David Bardens, from the Ravensburg Regional Court up to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court and the final judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, which solely rejected Bardens’s complaint against the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court’s refusal to allow an appeal, but was brazenly and shamelessly abused by Lanka as confirmation of his claim on the non-existence of the measles virus.
*
I still need a little time to bring the original German texts and their English translations together.
From all this it is absolutely clear that Lanka is a blatant liar and Robertson is gullible and dumb enough to spread such lies.
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it. ”
***
And here is his answer a few hours later:
Look at what he wrote:
Gordon Robertson says:
September 8, 2024 at 8:24 PM
” What Binny is actually saying is that the German Supreme Court are a load of liars. They were the ones who accepted Lankas argument that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate that a measles virus exists. ”
Where did I say that in my comment at 5:32 PM?
***
Slowly but surely, I ask myself why Roy Spencer did ban Swen~son because Robertson and Clint R post antiscientific and polemic 100 times worse than Swen~son.
Bindi, you can’t provide one time I’ve got the science wrong. But you, on the other hand, have been wrong about Moon for years. You STILL have no clue what orbital motion is. You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You’ve got NOTHING.
That’s why you have to falsely accuse me.
“They upheld Lankas appeal”
Yes.
“reaffirming his claim that the measles virus has never been properly isolated.”
Totally FALSE, Gordon. Did you not read their ruling?
Explicitly the ruling was on whether the ‘single publication’ criteria was met. It was not met. He used more than one publication to demonstrate the existence of the measles virus.
IOW, they did not do what you claimed.
Nate
Robertson’s manipulation begins with:
” Binny the bottom-line is that the Justices over-turned the lower court decision that agreed with the plaintiff. ”
Wrong.
The bottom line is that the Stuttgart judges who heard Lanka’s appeal against the Ravensburg ruling did not judge on the content, but solely on the form, as they themselves stated very lengthily in their ruling:
https://openjur.de/u/892340.html
His next manipulation is:
” Lanka is not claiming there is no measles virus, only that the science done to claim one is incomplete. ”
*
This is an absolute lie, see Lanka’s wrong, illegal misrepresentation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karlsruhe I had mentioned upthread.
Look at the web page written on 20. January 2017 by Dr. Stefan Lanka, originally stored in a Russian .ru domain:
https://www.anonymousnews.org/gesundheit/pharma-luege-aufgeflogen-bgh-urteil-bestaetigt-masern-viren-existieren-nicht/
” Pharma-Lüge aufgeflogen – BGH-Urteil bestätigt: Masern-Viren existieren nicht ”
i.e.
” Pharmaceutical lie exposed Supreme Court ruling confirms: measles viruses do not exist ”
Bindi, you can’t provide one time I’ve got the science wrong. But you, on the other hand, have been wrong about Moon for years. You STILL have no clue what orbital motion is. You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You’ve got NOTHING.
That’s why you have to falsely accuse me.
Step up and provide your valid science Bindi. You don’t want to be just another wasted commenter like gordon, Norman and the rest, do you?
aq…”I guess you always refer to Canada as The Dominion of Canada”
***
nah!!! Real Canadians don’t pay any attention to that royalty stuff. Canada is actually now a commonwealth realm, meaning we are loosely joined to a commonwealth of nations, including Oz, with the puppet monarch Charles as a figurehead.
You might note that Canada is in North America, making us as much Americans as the US. The US is also ‘IN’ America, not America itself.
Thanks for admitting to your hypocrisy.
You need to cheer up, AQ. Any humour under the moroseness
You have seen plenty of my humour. Expecting me to show humour right now, when you have said nothing remotely humourous, is just you realising your hypocrisy and looking for an escape. If my comment is an indication of moroseness, then you must be one of the darkest people I’ve ever come across.
clint…”Sorry gordon, but YOU are the one with an anger-management problem, not me. Want just one example:”
***
You are so serious, I was just joshing.
Tell me something, why did you start all this my attacking me for no reason? It’s all water under the bridge, I am just curious.
And why are you letting your ego/self-image get in the way? Do some good science and let’s get on with some humour.
Here you are again pretending you are the funniest person alive.
Did you get caught falsely accusing me again, gordon?
Please stop clogging this blog.
bob d…”There is a class of viruses called RNA viruses that have a strand of RNA that takes over a cells metabolism to manufacture copies of the virus”.
***
Bob…there is not a shred of evidence to corroborate that statement and the only reason it is being claimed is that the viruses in question cannot be seen on an electron microscope. Ergo, they must be inferred.
Because noted biologist, Gordon, is fully aware of all evidence!
Bwa ha ha ha!
Gordon,
I guess you didn’t study Biology when you walked through the campus.
And yes, there are plenty of pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes.
Gordon,
Do you understand what inferred means?
“noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning:”
The PLANETARY (Tsat /Te.correct) CRITERION.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Well, I’m not quite on the HT boat with Javier just yet. The regional signals tend to suggest this is just natural variation in the clouds, and we already know the effect is occurring mainly in the shortwave, as is the entire post-2000 warming.
Why suddenly cloud effects? Why not? 🙂
We really need a high-aerosol volcanic injection into the stratosphere to truly test the delayed-seasonal theory. Doesn’t have to be 1815 Tambora causing the 1816 Year Without Summer again, but some measurable increases in stratospheric particulates and associated global temperature trends would teach us a lot.
” The regional signals tend to suggest this is just natural variation in the clouds… ”
Some valuable source confirming this assertion?
By the way… ‘tend to suggest’ ?
You yourself would certainly laugh at any alarmist who would make a claim in this way.
Polar Vortex at South Pole is still organized, but max wind speed has dropped to 280 mph. The first signs of formation at North Pole are visible:
https://postimg.cc/18vKkK7W
Just in time for the upcoming Equinox, Sept 22. Last year, a vortex could be seen at both poles, briefly.
Old news:
Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere
Aug. 2, 2022
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere
…
Milln analyzed data from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument on NASAs Aura satellite, which measures atmospheric gases, including water vapor and ozone. After the Tonga volcano erupted, the MLS team started seeing water vapor readings that were off the charts. We had to carefully inspect all the measurements in the plume to make sure they were trustworthy, said Milln.
…
–A Lasting Impression
Volcanic eruptions rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years that NASA has been taking measurements, only two other eruptions the 2008 Kasatochi event in Alaska and the 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile sent appreciable amounts of water vapor to such high altitudes. But those were mere blips compared to the Tonga event, and the water vapor from both previous eruptions dissipated quickly. The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.—
…
“The sheer amount of water injected into the stratosphere was likely only possible because the underwater volcanos caldera a basin-shaped depression usually formed after magma erupts or drains from a shallow chamber beneath the volcano was at just the right depth in the ocean: about 490 feet (150 meters) down. Any shallower, and there wouldnt have been enough seawater superheated by the erupting magma to account for the stratospheric water vapor values Milln and his colleagues saw. Any deeper, and the immense pressures in the oceans depths could have muted the eruption.”
So it has to be the right depth to make all this steam, and there been bigger one at greater depth that are muted by all cold water.
Muted perhaps, but not magically disappeared.
Some reading for you:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/07/05/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/
Please read not only the main post by Javier Vins, but also the comments of those who disagree with his assumptions.
It seems when you are in an Ice Age, adding lots of water to stratosphere from volcanic eruption, could cause a brief period of warming.
In most of Earth’s history, we weren’t in an Ice Age and the world was wetter, and such eruptions would seem to have less of an effect.
Our Ocean is still quite cold {average temperature of about 3.5 C}, and our Ice Age will continue- or the added water vapor in stratosphere will reduce over time.
On September 30, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the last coal-fired power station in the United Kingdom, closed for good.
Erratum: Closes.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/13/high-court-blocks-cumbria-plan-for-first-new-uk-coalmine-in-30-years
Rain in Eastern Europe: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/16/climate-scientists-troubled-by-damage-from-floods-ravaging-central-europe
In my neighborhood, there’s a storm pushing on shore over South Carolina. While it didn’t grow to tropical storm status, it’s gong to dump lots of rain as it formed over the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. The latest projections are for as much as 4 to 8 inches with up to 10 inches possible for some locations over the SC/NC coastal plain.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/145252.shtml?rainqpf#contents
Storm Lashes the Carolinas With Historic Amounts of Rain
“Debby brought more than a foot of rain across some parts of the Carolinas in August, and forecasters did not initially expect that much rain to fall on Monday. But by early afternoon, some locations in North Carolina had already seen nearly 15 inches of rain, catching residents, officials and forecasters by surprise.
More than 18 inches of rain fell in Carolina Beach between midnight Sunday and Monday afternoon. Forecasters in Wilmington called the likelihood of that amount of rain occurring in only 12 hours a one-in-a-thousand-year event.”
“The fire department in Wilmington made multiple water rescues in Carolina Beach and Kure Beach, where the water was waist-deep, according to a post on its Facebook page. New Hanover County Fire Rescue said in a social media post that it saved two people trapped in a car.”
“WECT, a television station in Wilmington, showed footage of cars and cargo vans stuck in floodwaters, as well as road closures in the area. Several roads in Brunswick County collapsed or partially collapsed on Monday, according to posts made on Facebook by the Brunswick County Sheriffs Office.”
“Officials in Southport, about 30 miles south of Wilmington, closed the roads to all incoming traffic on Monday and told residents to shelter in place at their homes or places of work, according to the citys Facebook posts.”
—
Wow!!
Hunter guy still can’t understand that when discussing the motions of physical bodies, one needs to understand DYNAMICS.
“Dynamics is distinguished from kinematics, which describes motion, without regard to its causes, in terms of position, velocity, and acceleration, and kinetics, which is concerned with the effect of forces and torques on the motion of bodies having mass. The foundations of dynamics were laid at the end of the 16th century by Galileo, who, by experimenting with a smooth ball rolling down an inclined plane, derived the law of motion for falling bodies; he was also the first to recognize that force is the cause of changes in the velocity of a body, a fact formulated by Isaac Newton in the 17th century in his second law of motion. This law states that the force acting on a body is equal to the rate of change of the bodys momentum. See also Newtons laws of motion.”
The motions of a body in orbit must be described using dynamics, not kinematics. Several years ago, DRsEMT didn’t understand that.
For a body in free space, there are 6 degrees of freedom, 3 of which are translations and 3 are rotations. Orbits are translations, not rotations, though there are some who use the word “rotation” when speaking only of the orbit of a celestial body.
Swanson if you aren’t supposed to discuss the moon in terms of kinematics then why are you at the end doing just that?
You can only have a perfectly circular orbit if forces external to the rotating system never change.
Ever changing forces outside the earth/moon 2 object barycenter system would cause a moon traveling in a circle around a planet accelerate and change that orbit to an elliptical shape.
So you are in the non-enviable position of denying systematically that a rotation is a rotation because it doesn’t move in a perfect circle in the presence of external forces.
You are in fact stuck and are floppy around the bottom of a tin boat trying to use jargon to physically change a rotation into something else.
DREMT made a bullet proof case for the moons orbit to be a rotation. . .and you can’t address it so you fritter around the edges of it using jargon.
Hunter guy, I’m not talking about the Moon’s orbit, I’m talking about the Moon’s dynamical rotation. Those are two separate relationships of which the Moon’s dynamical rotation around it’s axis is a nearly constant at once an orbit.
The word “rotation” in astronomy is completely different from “rotation” as used in dynamics. DRsEMT repeatedly confused the two. I’ll stick with the definition from physics and mechanics, thank you.
E. Swanson says:
”The word rotation in astronomy is completely different from rotation as used in dynamics. DRsEMT repeatedly confused the two. Ill stick with the definition from physics and mechanics, thank you.”
Both DREMT and I have repeatedly said we have no problem with which definition people ”choose” to use.
The only point we have argued is that it is a kind of rotation. . .a rotation around an external axis.
I said way back a couple years ago that I understand why space travelers and astronomers might want to consider the moon’s motion differently.
One may find it easier to fly to a planet or moon assuming that the body is not rotating, get there and orbit the body.
Then time their new orbit with the rate of rotation of the body, which may or may not be the same rate as the orbit depending on if there are two rotations going on or one and which direction they are going. two rotations will combine to make one relevant rotation or zero rotation.
then they can plot their landing trajectory.
To whom it may concern,
“HWSNBN made a bullet proof case for the moons orbit to be a rotation. . .and you cant address it so you fritter around the edges of it using jargon.”
Bullet proof except for the fact that rotations are circular and orbits are not.
Orbits could be rotations, but for the fact that the central body is at one of the foci of the ellipse, not at the center of the ellipse.
Anyway, the argument was whether or not the Moon is rotating on an internal axis, in other words does the Moon spin on its axis.
Which it is observed to do since the times of Cassini and Newton.
Bob all rotations on an external axis are at a foci of the ellipse. You haven’t made a defining point. Now a
> The only point we have argued is that it is a kind of rotation
Perhaps you should try to convince Graham on this first.
I doubt he agrees with you that non-circular rotations exist.
willard is still fretting about nervously wondering what everybody else is thinking.
Gill pays lip service to his daddy, only to flee when he gets called on it.
LMAO!
Bill,
“Bob all rotations on an external axis are at a foci of the ellipse. You havent made a defining point. Now a”
Sorry you missed geometry that day.
no one ever taught you that the foci of a circle is the center of the circle?
well don’t ever say i didn’t teach you anything because i just did.
How to switch from ellipses in general to circles in particular:
(Ellipse) all rotations on an external axis are at a foci of the ellipse.
(Circle) the foci of a circle is the center of the circle
Bill,
Circles don’t have foci, they have a focus or a focal point, just one mind you, not two which are required to define an ellipse.
Rotations are circular and Orbits are elliptical.
“no one ever taught you that the foci of a circle is the center of the circle?
well dont ever say i didnt teach you anything because i just did.”
You sure learnt me.
Bob, every ellipse has two foci.
Google AI:
”The foci of a circle are located at the center of the circle, meaning a circle has only one focus point because both foci coincide at the center due to its unique geometric properties; essentially, a circle is considered a special case of an ellipse where the two foci are at the same point. ”
So when doing the math for an ellipse the two focus points happen to be in the same place.
More word games:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(geometry)
Holy Madhavi does not cover the Apollonius definition as she wasn’t looking at pursuit problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circles_of_Apollonius#/media/File:Apollonian_circles.svg
None of the Apollonian circles have two distinct foci.
You named it Willard. Non-spinners are tolerant of any way you want to consider it. Spinners take umbrage at considering an orbit a rotation which physically it most closely approximates.
So Bob started this recent word game using foci.
[GILL] Bob all rotations on an external axis are at a foci of the ellipse.
[ALSO GILL] Bob started this recent word game
Why would I say that Willard?
Bill,
Congrats, your daddy says one point can be considered two points.
Yes Bob, the mathematics for an ellipse as two foci. Since a circle is an ellipse it does so also, just that for the unique case for a circle the foci are the same so no problem calling it foci or focus.
The problematic claim remains:
(Ellipse) all rotations on an external axis are at a foci of the ellipse.
First, one focus, two foci.
Second, the statement is only true for circular ellipses, in which case the focus lies in the center of the circle.
Third, whether a circle has one focus or two identical foci is quite irrelevant.
Willard says:
”Third, whether a circle has one focus or two identical foci is quite irrelevant.”
i agree. help me convince bob.
Bob was correcting your “all rotations on an external axis are at a foci of the ellipse,” which you have yet to acknowledge.
And he failed and I proved that sometimes, if not often, its cconsidered that way. . .just as the moon’s orbit is sometimes, if not often, considered a rotation.
But you all with your tight sphincters seem to have a big problem with that. God only knows why.
> I proved that sometimes, if not often, its cconsidered that way
No, you did not.
Rotations are around circles, and that’s the end of it.
right here Willard,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1688601
Bill,
“Yes Bob, the mathematics for an ellipse as two foci.”
Here is the equation for an ellipse, please solve for the focal points.
X^2/A + Y^2/B = C
yse we agree.
> So when doing the math for an ellipse the two focus points happen to be in the same place.
Yes, that’s the place where you confuse ellipses and circles.
Willard circles are ellipses. No confusion possible but you figured out a way for yourself to be confused. congratulations.
Right here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1689823
This interminable discussion is not ultimately about definitions of “foci” or “rotation” or “orbit” or “orbit without rotation” or …
The ultimate issue is “can you accurately predict the orientation of a satellite as it orbits?”.
Here is a diagram of a satellite in an elliptical orbit. (I haven’t verified that the diagram is indeed accurate, but it looks pretty good so let’s assume it is for the sake of discussion). https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/1d/3b/9e1d3b1b53310349c3cb58a3b22537af.jpg
Assume the satellite is tidally locked and always ‘keeps the same side toward the central object’. Let “I” be the point on the satellite originally facing Inward (in “January” on the diagram), and “F” be the point originally facing Forward along the orbit
= 90 degrees clockwsie from “I”. Going around the orbit from “January” to “April” (1/4th of the period), how much will the orientation of the satellite change?
a) ~ 70 degrees = “I” facing far focus
b) ~ 90 degrees = 1/4th of 360 degrees
c) ~ 115 degrees = “F” still forward like a car on a track
d) ~ 120 degrees = “I” facing center of ellipse
e) ~ 145 degrees = “I” still facing sun
f) other???
Full credit if you can choose the correct orientation.
Bonus points if you can use correct physics to explain your answer. Negative points if you argue “it *is* about words, and not about how actual physical objects would move.”
all you are doing tim is teaching idealism. everything that rotates on an external axis has the same difficulties that under-experienced amateur engineers completely ignore quite often with tragic outcomes. That would apply right down to the most precision of devices especially when high speeds are involved.
it might be better for you to teach your students the differences between reality and idealism and to always be on the alert to not naively fall victim to sophistry.
Bill,
So how many casualties with your difficulties?
Bill wants to teach aerospace engineers political science, rather than the actual math and science of orbital mechanics.
I’m sure that will work out well!
“all you are doing tim is teaching idealism.”
ABSOLUTELY WRONG! How much an object rotates in not “idealism”, it is reality.
You talk about ‘precision’ being important, but somehow imprecision here on the order of 70 degrees doesn’t seem important to you.
Use your highly-experienced professional engineer experience and tell us how much the moon in the diagram would rotate. It is a simple engineering problem.
Tim Folkerts says:
” ”all you are doing tim is teaching idealism.”
ABSOLUTELY WRONG! How much an object rotates in not idealism, it is reality.
You talk about precision being important, but somehow imprecision here on the order of 70 degrees doesnt seem important to you.
Use your highly-experienced professional engineer experience and tell us how much the moon in the diagram would rotate. It is a simple engineering problem.”
——————————–
I agree its simple in that there is no change in the angular momentum of satellite rotating around in an elliptical orbit.
If anything changed that would represent a change in energy for which none is being given here.
Further holding to this concept to a circle eliminates all real world rotations around an external axis. . .establishing it as a concept not reality.
The concept of a circle is an idealistic expression of an ellipse with an eccentricity of zero.
But nothing can be perfect thus you must establish some arbitrary standard of material eccentricity to separate one elliptical motion from another.
And once your arbitrary standard is set you are only then apparently self-justified in making the silly distinction you have been making for years and years.
“Use your highly-experienced professional engineer experience and tell us how much the moon in the diagram would rotate. It is a simple engineering problem”
No answer, but lots of BS from Bill.
We can all be thankful that Bill is not actually in charge of any engineering projects.
“Several years ago, DRsEMT didn’t understand that.”
Swanson starts lying again. There’s nothing the “Spinners” have argued that I haven’t understood.
“The word “rotation” in astronomy is completely different from “rotation” as used in dynamics. DRsEMT repeatedly confused the two”.
Another lie. I’m trying to enjoy my retirement from commenting, but when you mention my name, you summon me.
> circles are ellipses
Yet ellipses are not all circles. Circle have identical foci at the center, whereas non-circular ellipses have two distinct foci. Hence why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Yes indeed Willard a circle is an ellipse that has all the properties of an ellipse. So it’s an ellipse. Sure all ellipses don’t have to have the same eccentricity factor. the can be different sizes with different eccentricity factors.
So what’s your point?
No Bill, a circle does not have major and minor axes, unless you call any line through the center of a circle both a major and minor axis.
Huge reserves of carbon in marine muds, with the potential to sequester more than forest or conversely to release more if disturbed:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/19/vast-carbon-sink-of-mud-on-seabed-needs-more-protection-study-shows
Ratcliffe-on-Soar closes down today. Internationally, it’s a mere drop in the ocean by now, but it seems appropriate that the first country to build ’em is among the first to phase them out.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/30/end-of-an-era-as-britains-last-coal-fired-power-plant-shuts-down
This does not affect any of the data, but should the base line be the average of all of the years of record rather than an arbitrary 30-year average that skews the evaluation?
USC00043603 CA GREENLAND RCH 1913 7 12 54.4
USC00042319 CA DEATH VALLEY NP 2021 7 9 54.4
USC00043603 CA GREENLAND RCH 1960 7 18 53.9