Home/Blog
Some Background
I will admit that the legal profession mystifies me. Every time I say anything related to environmental law, one or more lawyers will correct me. But I suppose “turnabout is fair play”, since I will usually correct any lawyers about their details describing climate change science.
Lawyers aren’t like us normal people. Their brains work differently. I first suspected this when one of my daughters took the LSAT and gave me examples of questions, most of which my brain was not wired to answer correctly. I became further convinced of this when she went to law school, and told me about the questions they deal with, how lawyers can impress judges just by being novel in their arguments, etc.
I know I could never be a lawyer (even after staying at a Holiday Inn Express), and I never even played one on TV. But I did co-author a paper in Energy Law Journal (relating to the Daubert Standard) on my view that science cannot demonstrate causation in any rigorous way in the theory of human-caused climate change.
Regulating CO2: Is the EPA Really Trying to Help Us?
The regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by the EPA has also mystified me. However many of the EPA’s ~185 lawyers worked on the 2009 Endangerment Finding, they must have known that regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate, including sea level rise (which was a major argument in Massachusetts v. EPA).
None.
But apparently actually trying to “fix” the climate “problem” is not the EPA’s concern.
Their reason for existence is to regulate pollutants (and it doesn’t matter if Nature produces far more of a “pollutant” than people produce). And once they start regulating it, they won’t stop with certain thresholds. They will keep lowering the threshold. This keeps everyone in jobs.
I know this is the case. I once attended a meeting of the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA), and the keynote speaker (from the EPA) stated, “we can’t stop making things cleaner and cleaner”. There was a collective look of astonishment in the audience, which was primarily industry representatives who try to keep their companies in compliance with state and federal environmental regulations. I assumed their real-world experience told them it is impossible to make everything 100% clean (what would it cost to keep your home 100% clean?).
And we wouldn’t want to anyway because (as Ed Calabrese has explained in many published papers), it is necessary for resilience in biological systems to be exposed to stressors. I almost never get sick, which I attribute to a pretty filthy childhood of playing in heavily bacteria-contaminated waters, not washing my hands, etc. I was sick a lot then. But not later in life. This is why the EPA’s reliance on the “linear no threshold” assumption (simply put, if a gallon of something can kill you, then one molecule is also dangerous) has little to do with our real-world experience and common sense. Kind of like the legal profession.
So, is the EPA really trying to help us? I increasingly believe they are not. They are trying to keep their jobs (and grow even more jobs; coming from NASA, I know how that works). The law (and regulations) are tools to accomplish that. Yes, the EPA has accomplished needed pollution controls through the Clean Air Act. I’m old enough to remember driving through Gary, Indiana in the 1960s, trash lining the highways everywhere, waterways choked with pollution and even catching fire.
But at what point does the Government say, “OK, we fixed the problem. Good enough. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater with damaging over-regulation.” No, that doesn’t happen. Because of the perverse way in which environmental regulations are written.
So, EPA, What About Regulating Water Vapor Emissions?
The EPA regulating CO2 emissions has a few problems, which seem to have not stopped the legal profession from doing what they do best. As I mentioned above, U.S. CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks will have no measurable impact on global temperatures or sea level rise.. You could get rid of them completely. No measurable effect, Yet, here we are… regulating.
Since these are “global” problems, it has long been known that the EPA (and maybe even the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision) could be on shaky ground, and maybe these are matters better left to legislation by the U.S. Congress.
But what about water vapor emissions from such vehicles? Now, there is a real possibility! Burning of any fuel (especially if we have hydrogen-powered vehicles) produces water vapor. And on a local basis (in your town or city) this extra water vapor will increase the heat index in the summer. And, and as everyone knows, “it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity”.
That’s a local problem caused by local sources of pollution, and seems to be much better suited for regulation by the EPA, which is a U.S. agency, dealing with U.S. pollution concerns.
The climate scientists who publish papers about the supposed dangers of greenhouse gas emissions make sure to exclude water vapor from their concerns, claiming CO2 is the thermostat that controls climate. I have commented extensively on the sleight of hand before. The vast majority of climate scientists believe CO2 controls temperature, and then temperature controls water vapor. CO2 is the forcing, water vapor is the feedback. But this argument (as I have addressed for many years) is just circular reasoning. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (did I forget to mention it’s our main greenhouse gas?) is partially controlled by precipitation processes we don’t even understand yet. The climate modelers simply tune their models to remove water vapor (through precipitation processes) in an arbitrary and controlled way that has no basis in the underlying physics, which are not yet well understood. Often, these simplifying assumptions translate into assuming relative humidity always remains constant.
But I digress. What I’m talking about here isn’t regulating water vapor emissions for global climate concerns… it’s to reduce their impact on summertime heat, especially in cities.
But why stop at vehicle emissions? Humans exhale lots of water vapor (joggers even more!). Maybe we should limit jogging and the sale of bottled water? Not a big enough problem, you say? Or maybe that’s an FDA thing? I don’t know… I’m just a simple country climate scientist.
As attorney Jonathan Adler commented in response to my recent blog post on the Endangerment Finding,
The problem is, the concerns you raise are not relevant in making an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. The textual standard is precautionary and does not allow for any cost-benefit balancing or consideration of other trade offs. All that is required is that the EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate some threats from warming to health or welfare, the latter of which is defined quite broadly.
So, we are back to the regulatory fact that if a “pollutant” (whatever that means) causes any level of threat, discomfort, worry, anxiety, then the EPA is compelled to regulate it. How convenient. Well, I would argue water vapor emissions, especially in the summer in cities, are better suited to regulation under the Clean Air Act than CO2 emissions are.
So Why Hasn’t Water Vapor Been Regulated?
Clearly it’s not because water vapor is “necessary” to the functioning of the Earth system, since CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist. Which brings me back to my question, is the EPA really trying to help us when it comes to climate-related regulation?
I’m increasingly convinced that science has been hijacked in an effort to (among other motives) shake down the energy industry. This has been planned since the 1980s. It makes no difference that human flourishing depends upon energy sources which are abundant and affordable. It doesn’t matter how many people are killed in the process of Saving the Earth. The law demands regulation, and that’s all that matters.
I have evidence. In the early 1990s I was at the White House visiting Al Gore’s environmental advisor, Bob Watson, a ex-NASA stratospheric chemist who was just coming off the successful establishment of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. He told me (as close as I can recall), “We succeeded in regulating ozone-depleting chemicals, and carbon dioxide is next“.
Keep in mind this was in the early days of the IPCC, which was tasked to determine whether humans were changing the climate with greenhouse gas emissions. Their work was just getting started, including the scientists who would assist the process. But the regulatory goal had (wink, wink, nod, nod) already been established.
So, I don’t believe the EPA is actually trying to help Americans when it comes to climate regulation. I’m sure many of their programs (waste cleanup, helping with the Flint, MI water problem, and some others) are laudable and defensible.
But when it comes to regulation related to global climate (or even local climate, as the government tries to pack even more people into small spaces, e.g. with “15 minute cities“), my experience increasingly tells me no one in the political, policy, regulatory, legal, or environmental advocacy, side of this business really cares about the global climate. Otherwise, they would admit their regulation (unlike, say, regulating the precursors to ground-level ozone pollution in cities) will have no measurable impact. They wouldn’t be trying to pack people into urban environments which we know are 5-10 deg. F hotter than their rural surroundings.
It’s all just an excuse for more power and vested interests.
The simple answer is because it would have no impact. H2O is locked into a stable equilibrium with the atmospheric temperature. Humans could embark on a be-all-end-all magaproject to inject as much water vapor into that atmosphere as possible and it still wouldn’t raise the average concentration over the long haul. Similarly we could ban all water vapor emissions and it still wouldn’t lower the average concentration over the long haul. One of the crucial differences between H2O and CO2 related to the mass balance of each is that the former is a condensing gas whereas the later is a non-condensing gas. The consequences of this difference is staggering in regard to the mass balance of each.
An excellent observation that I would otherwise have overlooked. But think how the water vapor scare could be used to wind up hydrogen power fans.
Water vapor interacts with far broader portions of the IR spectrum and there is way more of it. Water vapor and the oceans maintain our global temperature. CO2 is a trace gas that interacts with a smaller portion of the IR spectrum. All attempts to attribute CO2 to climate change involves indirectly increasing water vapor. This assumes a run-away like mechanism that is not observed in the climatic past when there were multiple mechanisms of increasing CO2 and/or water vapor. Nor is it observed in the recent volcanic eruption which temporarily raised global temperatures through, yep, water vapor. It’s like staying warm with a thick wool water vapor blanket and a threadbare CO2 sheet on top. Get the CO2 up to 1,000 ppm and, at worst, you get a headache. Yes, water vapor is stable. So is our climate. There are ice age to hot house cycles which most likely have extraterrestrial mechanism. We happen to be progressing away from an ice age in this natural cycle.
It appears you didn’t actually read through my post.
I did read the post. Note that I’m not challenging what was said. I’m also not focused on localized effects, which I happily concede likely could be mitigated via regulation. I almost mentioned it above actually in relation to the midwest corn belt in which it is known that human water vapor emissions are altering the localized climate. I suffer through it first hand living here in St. Louis. However, my comment is focused mainly on the global climate aspect and why the EPA would chose to regulate CO2, but not H2O.
BGDWX,
Dan Pangburn has provided evidence that disagrees with your assertion about water vapor not increasing in the atmosphere. But, the hypothesis that the cooling effects of water offset its “forcing” effects is just a hypothesis upon a hypothesis. Show your evidence.
bdgwx doesn’t understand water vapor absorbs and emits much more of the spectrum than CO2. That means the higher frequency photons can actually cause an increase in surface temperatures. We saw that with the HTE.
Dan Pangburn must really love this post.
bdgwx seems well-informed. Why do you assume he/she doesn’t know the basics? Your ‘argument’ is a strawman.
And the HTE, really? To begin with, the issue there was STRATOSPHERIC water. The first analyses predicted a contribution of around 0.03 degrees of warming temporarily (for a decade or so) but recent analysis have actually found a COOLING contribution from the HTE. Do keep up.
Gadden, sorry I missed your comment. I haven’t noticed you here before so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you want to learn instead of just being another brain-dead cult tr0ll. Don’t be confused by bdgwx. He has been slinging crap here for years. He understands little of the science.
Had you been following since the Hunga-Tonga eruption you would have seen the massive water vapor in the stratosphere coinciding with the hike in UAH temperatures. Coincidence doesn’t mean much unless the physics fits, which it does, unlike with CO2.
I doubt there is a credible “recent analysis” that shows a “COOLING contribution from the HTE”.
Hope that updates you.
The attempts to measure global average absolute humidity are not accurate. But there was more AH between 1980 and 2020, suggesting at least a modest water vapor positive feedback to warming of the troposphere (from any cause). The IPCC assumes a large water vapor feedback, which could be justified by 1980 to 2000 AH data … but the AH trend seems to have had a flat trend from 2000 to 2020. So we are back to no one knows the long term effects of CO2 emissions.
In my opinion the effects of CO2 emissions and related warming over the past 50 years have been good news.
Any water vapor added to the troposphere, perhaps by irrigation, burning fossil fuels, or just breathing, will come out of the atmosphere, recycled as rain or snow, in an average of 9 days.
Since I can not identify any harm caused by CO2 emissions, when modern pollution controls are used, the war on CO2 MUST be political scaremongering. And it is getting boring, besides wasting money. We need a new boogeyman. I propose scaring people about an invasion of aliens from the planet Uranus. That would be exciting!
Clint R, “I doubt there is a credible recent analysis that shows a COOLING contribution from the HTE.
No need to doubt anymore: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
And no “the physics” don’t say that the HT eruption would cause signifucant warming. At most a few hundredths of a degree of warming over only a few years was expected, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2
Gadden, note I said “credible”. The lead author of that nonsense is closely associated with NASA:
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/person/Mark_R_Schoeberl
The “few hundredths of a degree of warming” from the HTE can be easily seen from UAH results. “Warming” ain’t “cooling”.
Alternatively Clint can’t cite any published science to support his claims.
Nor can he explain why “the physics fits, which it does, unlike with CO2.”
Surely its because we wouldn’t understand his advanced physics..
Or. maybe its just his usual gas-lighting.
You don’t seem to know satire when you see it. Goes for a lot of other posts in the 700+ that follow. When Jonathan Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal” he wasn’t serious, and neither is Dr. Roy serious about regulating water vapor.
Kind of reminds me of peanut allergies. The practice of keeping babies and toddlers away from peanuts enhances the number of people with peanut allergies 5 fold.
“It revealed how early exposure to peanuts produced an 81% reduction in peanut allergy among high-risk children, deemed so because they had already tested positive for other food allergies and/or had eczema. More than 600 children ages 4 to 11 months either consumed, or strictly avoided, peanuts until age 5. Of the children who avoided peanuts, 17% had a peanut allergy by age 5, compared to only 3% in the peanut-consuming group.”
I hope Lee Zeldin (a lawyer) contacts Dr. Spencer for scientific advice on the regulation of greenhouse gases. Zeldin can certainly deal with the lawyer battles, but he will need scientific support to arm himself in court.
Has Trump chosen a science advisor yet?
Dr. Spencer.
This meandering article is hard to follow. Nonetheless, the crux of your argument seems to be that because the amounts of CO2 emissions from cars and light-trucks that fall under the EPA’s purview is such a small fraction of the global total, it would make no difference if it were left deregulated.
You’re not arguing against the science underlying the Endangerment Finding, only its impact on a global scale.
I would have disagreed with you before November 5, 2024. But given the changes since, particularly America’s retreat from a leadership position in the world, I must concede. We are not interested in leading by example anymore so, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
I’m inclined to think that repealing the Endangerment Finding will result in more environmental lawsuits filed in state courts rather than federal. Swapping quality for quantity.
Lawyers,who needs them? If you have 10.000 rules you lose the respect of the people, Winston Churchill. wonder how the USA would get on if it had to live with the silly UK climate change act, cost billions since 2008 and achieved nothing.who wants to be an engineer,when you can become Lawyer and rob the public blind .
Law is one of humanity’s greatest achievements-it’s what makes civilization possible. Without laws, how would we resolve disputes or keep order?
Some people argue against any government interference in personal life, even when it comes to things like wearing masks to prevent spreading a deadly disease. But these same individuals depend on the government for financial aid, healthcare, roads, clean water, electricity, and more. I’ve sometimes thought the solution for them would be to send them to a place like Alaska or Wyoming, build a wall around it, and let them survive on their own. Check in after ten years to see who made it.
Ark, your religious devotion to government is known as “Leftism”. You fail to understand that responsible adults do ot need laws from government. Such laws are for children, especially children that have never grown up.
The framers of the US Constitution realized this. They understood that since some people never grow up, some laws are necessary. But since government is a “necessary evil”, as it can restrict personal freedom, it must be controlled. That’s why the Constitution is so important.
When I see leftists lecturing people about Law, I want to laugh, then throw up.
Yeah, here’s one of your “law and order” heroes.
As we say in these parts:
Smith and Wesson juries hold a real mean, nasty court.
And the verdict that they pass is never slow.
So keep on a wearin’ that little poker face,
‘Cause soon enough your cards
Are bound to show.
In reply to A.I. about a police officer not getting charged after fatally shooting someone who was a January 6 rioter: Police officers who kill people while on duty often don’t get charged, and they usually beat the charges when they do get charged. I hear this a lot, especially when the person killed by the police officer(s) is black.
Yes, Ashley Babbitt was 5’2″ and 115lbs. How do you feel about that Ark? Was she a threat? Did she deserve to be murdered?
She was a repeat offender too. Reckless driving, negligent driving and failure to control a vehicle’s speed to avoid a collision, harassment and stalking.
She was shot while attempting to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby inside the Capitol, where police officers were evacuating members of Congress from the mob of insurrectionists.
If she was part of a mob busting down your door, Stephen, would you give her hugs?
Mr. Ivanovich,
I’ll start with this:
We have government because of the nature of people.
We fear government because of the nature of people.
Your excuse for the murder of Ashley Babbitt included references to things that were not possibly known by the murderer. Further, are you saying she deserved the death sentence for coming though the window because some VERY IMPORTANT PERSONS were afraid? What did she offer as fear producing? How about, the officer was power happy and being a government agent knew he would get away with murdering a small woman in a difficult physical situation – she was coming through a window.
Did she have a gun, a knife, or what? Nothing, just herself.
In all, I find your arguments ignore the abuse government heaps on the populace and suggest you pay attention by opening your eyes.
For Dr. Spencer –
It’s about power, control and, obviously, money.
Read Joel Kotkin’s the Coming of Neo Feudalism.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1699867
lewis guignard.
Three words, one doctrine: STAND YOUR GROUND.
Here’s the video; it looks pretty clean to me: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572 but of course I’m from Texas where even your grandmother is packing heat.
How ’bout you be you and I’ll be me.
“murder of Ashley Babbit”
Lewis, there is no state in which shooting someone who is breaking into your house, would be considered murder.
We all saw the same video, didn’t we? The glass doors were barricaded with chairs and tables. The mob trying to get in were shouting and smashed the windows. They were in the process of smashing through the doors when she was shot trying to climb through a smashed window.
Psychology is the least exact field of study there is. Law is a close second. Neither psychologists nor lawyers agree with each other in their respective fields. Climate scaremongering is psychology and climate regulation is law. Such a mix becomes surreal.
Your English is excellent Boris. In fact, too excellent. The average American English poster here uses language at a grade 9 HS level.
Does this mean you don’t believe the ice core data?
I’m only asking because the ice core data.
Fully 16% of annual US GHGCO2e is the result of light duty vehicle use.
Globally, about 6.5% of total GHGCO2e comes from light vehicles.
Of course regulating those will have a measurable impact on global climate.
Many people have run the numbers: the *U.S.* regulating CO2 emissions from *U.S.* vehicles will have no measured impact on global temperatures, within our ability to measure long-term temperature trends. We don’t regulate other countries’ emissions (think China and India).
Now you are getting into international relations, politics and sociology.
No SINGLE country, regulating only a subset of their national total emissions, will arguably have a measurable impact globally. But if, say, the vast majority of countries agree to regulate emissions, there WILL definitely be a measurable effect.
If the US chooses NOT to regulate 16% of its GHG output, however, it’s highly likely that many, many other countries will refuse to cooperate as well – meaning those US regulations actually DO have measurable impacts.
Nor do we regulate other countries ozone destroying chemical production. And yet…the global production has been reduced significantly.
Hmmm..
and the hole still exists, bit like historic temperatures, no one knows all the fluctuations that that may or may not have occurred, people including some scientists believe what they want to believe, so much so that you sometimes do not believe your own findings, any one who thinks they can not be influenced by others should spend time in North Korea,
Replying to I.B. as best as I can, without being provided a way to reply in proper place: “and the hole still exists”
The hole has been sharply changed from rapidly growing to slowly shrinking during the few years after the Montreal Protocol went into effect. The hole has been shrinking less than expected because one of the major chemicals involved here (carbon tetrachloride) was found to break down more slowly than expected, and it appears that there is rogue emission of vapor of carbon tetrachloride.
The “ozone hole” nonsense may be as big a hoax as the GHE nonsense. NASA controls all the data, which makes little sense.
You think only the US measures ozone levels? Weird.
“EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate some threats from warming to health or welfare..”
From observation, the decrease in cold related deaths which significantly exceed heat related deaths worldwide, should be a call for more burning of fossil fuels.
Of course, what does a regulator do when they have issued a regulation. Quit?
I told my children I would help them with their college education provided they did not attend my Alma Maters state football rival and they did not study law. (there could have been some wiggle room on the first one).
What is also interesting about your comments and their relationship to the EPA, is their movement to bury the Heatwave Index that covered all of continental US starting in 1895 (the one that shows the unpresidented growth in the 1930’s which they gloss over as the fault of farmers in the Texas panhandle and adjacent areas) and are replacing it with 50 selected US cities so they can leverage UHI, and higher humidity, to create alarm on their website.
Disclosure: These comments come from a retiree of the “Evil oil Industry”.
Water Vapor is actually not warming and not a positive feedback either. I know why they believe it was, and what mistakes made them believe so..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-incredibly-stupid-case-of-water-vapor-feedback
So, it is your belief that 0.04% of atmospheric gases raise the Earth’s temperature by 60F? Give us your evidence.
The GHE itself is not per se a reality, but just a perspective, a way to see the things with circumstantial constraints.
1. The assumption of a perfectly emitting surface, while emissivity is rather just ~0.91
2. The energy budget is considered as given.
3. The lapse rate is given
Clouds and WV together will be largely climate neutral. Both of them contribute the largest part of the GHE (clouds actually more than WV). But they also have their cooling momenti. Clouds reduce the energy budget, WV reduces the lapse rate. It incidently turns out their warming is about as large as their cooling. The remaining GHGs however (CO2, O3, CH4..) provide some 7-8K of warming.
There is yet another way to look at it with the same result. Water has an absorptivity of 0.94 and an emissivity of 0.91. Theoretically it should want to take on a temperature of 281K (= (342 * (0.94/0.91) / 5.67e-8) ^0.25). The surface is not just water and we are lacking consistent data with land, but it should be ~280K for the whole surface. So we know the atmosphere adds some 7-8K to this temperature. This then is so to say the “net GHE”, or atmosphere effect, whatever you want to call it.
You can’t just look at water and say “well the Earth is 70% water so the Earth’s emissivity is the same as water.” The Earth is a gray body. Gray body emissivities are much lower. The whole GHE theory is built on the hypothesis that the Earth is a black body. That appears to be a pretty shaky foundation.
“Gray body emissivities are much lower”
Only if you consider 0.93 to be ‘much lower’ than 1.
No, but I consider 0.61 to be much lower than 1.
As always you are confused, Stephen. 0.61 aint the emissivity of the Earth.
“So, it is your belief that 0.04% of atmospheric gases raise the Earth’s temperature by 60F? ”
You are confused. All GHGs cause the surface to be warmer by 60F than without an atmosphere. That’s about 2% of the gases in the troposphere.
CO2 alone is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Alone it would not raise the surface temp by 60F. Water vapour is primarily responsible the the greenhouse effect.
Amusingly, Clint acknowledges water vapour is a greenhouse gas that can cause the surface to warm. He references this re Hunga Tonga’s supposed warming effect.
@barry
What would those 2% be? CO2 is 0.04%, O3, CH4, N20 are far lesser ingridients. WV amounts to 0.4% in terms of volume, and 0.25% in terms of mass.
The combustion of octane yields 16 moles of CO2 and 18 moles of H2O.
Of which eight molecules of CO2 and no molecules of H2O stay in the atmosphere.
Maybe one of these days you will understand the conservation of mass. It has been elevated to Law status.
Ent doesn’t understand that plants need abundant CO2 in the atmosphere. Combustion of “fossil fuels” helps to support that abundance.
Maybe one day Stephen will understand the concept of condensation, in the atmosphere otherwise known as rain.
Octane is 8 carbons and 18 hydrogen. When burned completely, it consumes 12.5 diatomic oxygen (O2), and yields 8 CO2 molecules and 9 water molecules.
“As I mentioned above, U.S. CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks will have no measurable impact on global temperatures or sea level rise.. You could get rid of them completely. No measurable effect”
Yeah, and don’t bother to pick up your dogs poop in the neighborhood, cuz ya know one dog pooping ain’t measurable.
In fact you can just go ahead and poop in your neighbors yard, cuz what’s one poop gonna do? It ain’t gonna measurably spread dyssentary.
Yeah..and don’t vote guys. Cuz your vote will have no measurable effect
on who wins the next election!
Nate, please refrain from dropping your poop here.
Clint’s posts have no measurable content.
Nate, did you write the latest UK Climate Committee’s report for them? it was a pile of nonsense as well .
Nate still does not understand that in order to be relevant to the conversation, he needs to make rational comments. Obnoxious argument does not add to the conversation.
I forget that some here are professional point missers.
No, your point is you clean your dog’s poop even though your neighbors don’t. Why don’t you go to your city council meetings and get them to force your neighbors to clean up their dog’s poop?
Technically we have fines for that where I live, but regardless, most people are just considerate of their neighbors.
Bingo !
Bravo, Dr. Spencer.
The carbon dioxide is a pollutant crowd is a collection of political activists and socialists who long ago hitched their wagon to the evidence deficient Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change CONJECTURE for reasons of political convenience.
It really is “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time” (with credit to Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian blog).
A description of policies formulated and imposed by acceptance of the evidence deficient “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE:
“Its a perfect stupidity storm; policy developed by liberal arts majors, buttressed by climate science rent seekers, propagandized by political scientists, consumed by citizens without the education to understand it, and paid for by taxes taken at the point of a gun.”
Dr. Spencer: “it doesnt matter if Nature produces far more of a pollutant than people produce” Are you claiming that nature produces more CO2 than people produce? Although natural sources without consideration of natural sinks produce many times as much CO2 as humans do, over a whole year natural sinks have been outweighing natural sources throughout the whole years of the Mauna Loa CO2 record (since 1958). Over whole years, the atmosphere gained on average about half the CO2 produced by humans, and the other roughly half got absorbed by nature.
Dr. Spencer claimed in https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/ that nature is a net absorber of CO2, to extent of claiming a rate of human emissions that won’t cause atmospheric CO2 to exceed 500 PPM (PPMV).
Human activity contributes about 3% of the entire carbon cycle.
That man-made contribution (which is actually 4% now) is what creates the entire positive imbalance of the carbon cycle, making us responsible for all of the atmospheric CO2 increase we are seeing.
It works like this:
CO2 flows both from to and from the atmosphere.
Human activities add around 35 Gt CO2 per year and removes virtually no CO2. So the net human contribution is +35 Gt/year.
Nature adds around 775 Gt CO2 per year and simultaneously removes around 795 Gt. So the net natural contribution is -20 Gt/year.
Thus, the resulting 35-20 = 15 Gt/year increase is entirely man-made. And remember, this accumulates year by year, such that humans have now increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by around 50% over the last 150 years! Your post merely points out that 35 Gt is much smaller than the 775 Gt, which is a quite irrelevant observation.
If you wonder what would happen if there were no man-made emissions st all, just look at preindustrial times during the holocene. Atmospheric CO2 concentration was then fairly constant, with natural sources and sinks more or less cancelling out each other. (By increasing atmospheric CO2, we have now also increased the natural CO2 sinks but not as much as we emit.)
Per year. This accumulates over time, to the point where the total content of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 50% because of anthropogenic activities. And we know its us because we have emitted twice as much as the amount that has accumulated in the atmosphere above pre-industrial levels, and there is no known other source. The slight “greening of the planet means it can’t be global biota adding to the sum. It should be subtracting.
These talking points were debunked 20 years ago. Is it because we have a new generation of deniers that they have resurfaced?
Donald,
What in God’s name does your comment mean? A logic statement would be, if this, then this. You attached a link that you believe somehow validates your belief. Do you believe a human CO2 molecule is different than a natural CO2 molecule? Please explain how nature can differentiate.
Nature can’t differentiate. So if we emit twice as much CO2 as is being taken up, there is no mechanism to store specifically anthropogenic CO2 while providing the excess from a different source.
Simple math. If you provide twice the increase, that means half of what you provide is being absorbed and the rest is additional.
There is no math to counter this that doesn’t violate your own (implied) premise, stephen.
Nature can differentiate based on the mass of the different isotopes of carbon.
Fossil fuels are C-14 free, C-14 has all decayed in the oil, gas, and coal.
Nature’s carbon sinks can’t differentiate.
We’re not emitting twice as much as can be taken up. What sets the balance level are the emissions not the sinks.
We are emitting twice as much CO2 every year as accumulates in the atmosphere every year, and this relationship has been constant for a hundred years. The Keeling curve acceleration matches the acceleration of emissions.
It’s us. We’re doing it. It’s simple subtraction. If we emit twice as much as accumulates then the carbon sinks are absorbing roughly half the excess that accumulates from our emissions.
There’s no other way to see it.
Donald, since when was C02 a pollutant?.it never was in the past, not even during the Cambrian period,
“regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate”
Sure, we can all pick a subset (cars and light trucks) of a subset (US) of a total (global CO2 emissions) and conclude that the effect is marginal. As dumb as saying that Belgium is so small that it wouldn’t matter if they refuced their emissions (or any sungle one of Beijing, Delhi, Oregon, Portugal, South Carolina, Finland, Chicago, etc.
***I am talking about the Clean Air Act, under which the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding was made. The EF specifically addresses U.S. emissions and their impact on human health and welfare, especially emissions from U.S. cars and light duty trucks. It’s a regulatory issue regarding U.S. pollution affecting U.S. human health and welfare. In that light, regulating such U.S. CO2 emissions will have no measurable effect on anything. Alternatively, if Congress wants to pass legislation to be part of an international effort to “control” climate, then they should be the ones doing it. It doesn’t fall under the purview of the EPA, which I believe the courts (after the EPA is sued) will agree with. –Roy
Dear Roy,
I was commenting on your statementregulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate. Note “CLIMATE”. I even explicitly stated that this was the statement I was addressing. So please don’t pretend you were talking about clean air, pollution, etc. You weren’t.
H2O rains out of the atmosphere in short order. CO2 is long-lived. On a global scale anthropogenic WV emissions do not make a dent on total WV content, and no noticeable difference to the GH effect.
The EPA will not, and has no need to regulate WV.
“The EPA will not, and has no need to regulate WV.”
Even though it is clearly a greenhouse gas.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1699832
No need to regulate C02 either Barry. but it is one hell of a money earner for dishonest governmants, in times of uncertainty scapegoats are usually found,and always unreasonably so , and it is always the young and the poor who suffer the most.
When oh when will we have expensive talk? These tedious, hollow talking points could be replaced with useful disagreement if people would but think and be sincere.
If 4 years is long-lived then OK if you say so. They don’t need to regulate water. They already believe they can regulate CO2. CO2 is half of the combustion products. Regulating CO2 leftists believe is the key to controlling capitalism. That’s the goal.
I didn’t say 4 years. Don’t be dishonest.
The life of an individual CO2 molecule (anthro or natural) is 4 to 5 years. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere that has risen by just over 50% the pre industrial level takes a lot longer to be absorbed, on the order of hundreds to thousands of years.
HFCs take a few years, and would all be gone in 10 if emissions suddenly ceased.
Water vapour is rained out in a few days.
I didn’t say you said 4 years. Don’t be dishonest. I said 4 years. It is probably closer to 3.5 years. What do you mean by excess? That doesn’t make any sense. If you understand that there is no difference in human CO2 and natural CO2 then you should realize most of the increase is due to natural CO2.
“If 4 years is long-lived then OK if you say so. ”
I didn’t say so. Don’t be a weasel.
“What do you mean by excess?”
The amount of CO2 above the preindustrial baseline that is a result of anthropogenic emissions (with some input from land clearing).
This rise was not a natural response to the climate system, but a direct result of human activity. The quick residence time of individual molecules isn’t enough to keep the atmosphere from accumulating ever higher amounts of CO2.
Like a busy restaurant with a growing line of people waiting. The customers eat at the same rate and leave, but the residence time of the crowd of is longer than the time it takes to process a customer. If people stop joining the line it will still take time for the crowd to filter through the restaurant til there is no one left waiting. That waiting crowd is the ‘excess’ – more than the restaurant can process at the same speed it processes a single customer.
No, you said CO2 is long-lived. I said if 4 years is long lived if you say so. Meaning, 4 years is not long lived.
“I said if 4 years is long lived if you say so.”
I didn’t say 4 years is long-lived, weasel. You are spinning so hard your sentence isn’t even grammatically correct.
What I say is that the excess CO2 will take anywhere from hundreds to thousands of tears to be taken up. Not four years. That’s what YOU say. That’s the atmospheric residence time of a single CO2 molecule.
I became interested in climate and looked into global warming when Climategate happened.
What I found out then was that
1. The Earth would be -18C without an atmosphere due to its distance from the sun
2. The warming effect of the atmosphere has led to the current average temperature of 15C
3. That 90% of that 33C warming effect is due to water vapour, and that the warming effect of CO2 is about 3.3C
4. From carbon cycle data and Heny’s law, the human impact is less than 6% of the current increase in CO2
5. Observational data from Antarctic ice cores and Mauna Kea indicate that increases and decreases in CO2 occur later than increases and decreases in temperature, and that CO2 is a consequence, not a cause, of warming.
6. About 95% of the 15 μm band of infrared radiation that CO2 can absorb has already been absorbed, and no matter how much CO2 increases, it will only warm by about 0.17C.
7. The climate sensitivity coefficient has no physical significance whatsoever.
8. The current temperature increase is less than half of the simulated increase using climate sensitivity and the IPCC has confessed that the ocean models in the climate simulations are lax, based on Hiatus’ explanation.
9. That today’s food plants require around 600 ppm CO2.
That during greenhouse cultivation, farmers maintain 600-1000 ppm by burning oil stoves and releasing CO2 from CO2 cylinders during the summer months to grow good quality crops with high sugar content.
Why don’t climate scientists discuss these things one by one?
Climate scientists research every one of these things. You got a few wrong.
“4. From carbon cycle data and Henyr’s law, the human impact is less than 6% of the current increase in CO2”
Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 by just over 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. There are various lines of evidence, but the one that is undeniable is that we have emitted about twice as much as has accumulated over the past 250 years. There is no way around that arithmetic.
“5. Observational data from Antarctic ice cores and Mauna Kea indicate that increases and decreases in CO2 occur later than increases and decreases in temperature, and that CO2 is a consequence, not a cause, of warming.”
Correct, but studies of these changes from glacial to interglacials determine that the rising CO2 amplifies the warming already underway. Which makes complete sense, as CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
IOW, it is not contradiction that warming can cause CO2 to degas from the oceans, and that rising levels of CO2can cause warming.
“6. About 95% of the 15 μm band of infrared radiation that CO2 can absorb has already been absorbed, and no matter how much CO2 increases, it will only warm by about 0.17C.”
This is partly true for the first few metres of atmosphere. But then that layer of atmosphere emits radiation to higher altitudes of atmosphere where it is absorbed and reemitted until it escapes to space. CO2 is not saturated at higher altitudes.
Also, pressure broadening means that there is still radiation being absorbed at the edges of the 15um band even lower in the atmosphere. Long story short, CO2 absorp.tion is not saturated.
“7. The climate sensitivity coefficient has no physical significance whatsoever.”
Hard to understand what you mean. “Coefficient?” ECS, TCR and other climate sensitivity estimates are modeled, but also derived from observational data (ice cores, paleoclimate reconstructions from other proxies and modern thermometer/satellite records of global temps).
“8. The current temperature increase is less than half of the simulated increase using climate sensitivity and the IPCC has confessed that the ocean models in the climate simulations are lax, based on Hiatus explanation.”
As climate sensitivity is a range, the current obs fit inside the predicted envelope. Current obs are right in the middle of previous IPCC projection model ensembles for the equivalent CO2 emissions. Except for the most recent IPCC report, where it is known that a subset of the models run too hot.
No idea what ‘Hiatus’ explanation’ is.
“9. That todays food plants require around 600 ppm CO2.
That during greenhouse cultivation, farmers maintain 600-1000 ppm by burning oil stoves and releasing CO2 from CO2 cylinders during the summer months to grow good quality crops with high sugar content.”
No plants “require” that level, but it enhances their growth.
Greenhouses are controlled environments where water, sunlight, temperature and soil nutrient can be set as desired.
In 2015, the EPA issued a rule that would have restricted air conditioners from using HFC refrigerants including R-410A, R-407C and R-404A. This ruling would have had serious impact on the HVAC industry. The EPA based their statutory authority on the Clean Air Act. However, the court ruled that the CAA only refers to ozone depleting substances, the EPA cannot ban HFCs given they have zero Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP). The EPA continued to interpret 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F, Section 608 as providing as providing the EPA the authority to regulate all refrigerants, including refrigerants with zero ODP.
They are concerned with the Global Warming Potential of HFC which pound for pound are significantly higher than CO2.
Now this would make sense if the world in use of HFCs which contain no Florine BTW actually pumped out a relevant amount of mass as we do CO2. That is, the global scale of HVC venting which BTW is not allowed, contributed to the overall GHE.
Didn’t know about this, so looked it up.
The regulation in sec. 608 isn’t an outright ban, but regulation on the handling and disposal of items containing the gas. Later regulation (2020) seeks to phase the use of the gas out – 85% reduction by 2036. There are alternatives.
I wondered about the warming risk, and found projections of around 0.5 C by 2050 just from this gas if unregulated disposal occurred. The current aim is to reduce the risk to 0.4 by 2100.
Unlike CO2 HFCs are not long-lived in the atmosphere, so phasing out is seen as an immediate way to slow down warming.
I do not know the details of this issue, but I will speculate. Along the way, as older refrigerants have been outlawed, the performance of AC units and those famous heat pumps have been degraded.
The performance and cost efficiency depends entirely on the latent heat of evaporation of the refrigerant. The cost to run the various motors has very little dependence on the physical properties of the fluid. The new generation of refrigerants have lower latent heat. I am aware of a situation where an ammonia system in an urban area was replaced due to safety concerns for the toxicity of ammonia.
That is a valid concern, but the new safer units consume 7 times more electric power for the same effect. This is an extreme case because ammonia is so very effective, but the fact remains that if the new legal refrigerants are less effective, then it will cost more money for bigger systems with more refrigerant flow capacity, and they will draw more electric power.
Systems that use newer refrigerants like HFOs which have low global warming potential are too expensive to build because the run at higher pressures. This is especially true for industrial and commercial scale systems.
If they run at higher pressure then there may or may not be another hit on performance. The power draw depends on the differential pressure across the compressor and the refrigerant flow rate. If the increased pressure is simply to achieve condensation in the condenser and the pressure in the evaporator is also raised (higher system charging pressure) then the power draw may not increase. There is always a relationship between condenser pressure and temperature, and evaporator pressure and temperature. It is that difference that is important. This is why performance goes down for AC on a hot day, or for a heat pump on a cold day. Latent heat is still the most important factor.
Had a typo HFCs contain no Clorine
This landed in my inbox this morning:
My guess is that they were all fake Canadian patriots financed by the MAGAts/Russia cabal. Good luck to you.
You should learn how to mark such items as “spam”, Ark.
Obviously some cult child has your email address….
EXCLUSIVE Interview with Pat King, Canada’s Political Prisoner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWhtj_ldmkU
“… this 51st state stuff guys we don’t need that, but we can have a plausible government that is designed and run similarly to the United States, but it is our own. Not only that we see the mistakes that is the government of the United States, and we can make it better. And we need to kick the monarchy out of here. I’m tired of being the Queen’s piggy bank or the, now, the King’s piggy bank. And now you have the King is getting involved…”
Ranting on youtube while on house arrest will not do sh!t.
> As attorney Jonathan Adler
Surely lawyers know about slippery slopes.
It seems that I have to explain things like this very carefully because some do not get it. China has more than half of all solar panels in use today. Let that sink in. Some say this is good news that China is leading the way. Nonetheless, this is not an achievement because it is only about 7% of their electric generation (when I checked a few months ago). More thought should be given to consider what a very small contribution that is to the world.
I am sorry, but people who think we need to “lead the way” and then the rest of the world will follow are seriously delusional. That is not an insult. It is a reality check. Renewable energy simply does not exist in large quantities and wishing it would does not produce solar panels or windmills. The next problem is electric vehicles.
Some will point out that solar is cheap to install. It really is not clear how much of that involves various subsidies which include China dumping panels at below cost. It is ironic that solar panels from China are produced with cheap coal-fired electricity.
The other issue is comparing the cost to produce and install a product versus the cost to obtain a commodity — the fossil fuel. I am hearing stories that part of the economics of solar is an above-market rate achieved from selling the excess power back to the local utility. Some solar panel owners are complaining that their local utilities are starting to scale back that profit margin. They complain that the cost to install no longer has a payback.
Nuclear power is the answer, but the green people who are pushing climate change hate that more than fossil fuels.
“Nonetheless, this is not an achievement because it is only about 7% of their electric generation”
Solar electric generation was essentially 0% a few years ago, Tim.
You do understand that it has to first reach 7% before it gets to 40 % or whatever you think it should be.
So that is an achievement.
It is only where it is because of subsidies. If you take the subsidies away it will go back to essentially zero. The only people who use it are doing so for a merit badge. It makes no economic sense. The same with electric vehicles. Subsidies to build the plants. Subsidies to buy the cars. Where would Henry Ford have been without subsidies? Oh, wait, he made products that people actually wanted because they helped them economically.
” It makes no economic sense. “.
This from the guy who uses the crappy old light bulbs that make no economic sense!
“Nuclear power is the answer”
Why not let the market determine whether that is the case?
Yes Nate, why not let the market determine what people buy?
OK, if you agree to stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction.
What subsidies? The oil industry gets taxed through the ying yang.
“Renewable energy simply does not exist in large quantities”
False, the resource is massive.
For every energy source we have now, there was a ramp-up period for it to acquire significant market share.
A snapshot in time misses the point.
I need to apologize for this huge mistake. The 7% number I remembered must have been for solar and wind combined. That is actually 8%. All of the big growth occurred between 2021 and 2022 . The number for solar alone is only 3.2%. Therefore, more than 50% of all solar panels world wide produce only 3.2% of the electric energy in China. Coal is 54% and growing. Oil is 19% and also growing.
Sometimes people trying to make an argument just for the sake of argument should just leave things alone. Here is an interactive chart with lots of data:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN
And yet Tim still managed to miss the point.
Tim is not a visionary. He would have thought in 1910 that cars were so few that they will never matter.
In 1850 he would have stuck with covered wagons.
Just as well no one is suggesting we should be having energy supply based 100% on solar energy. No one was meaning to imply that here, were they?
China has significantly increased it solar capacity in a few years. In 2021 it made up less than 5% of electricity generation, and the last two years, I believe, it made it to 7.4%.
https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/People's_Republic_of_China
“Taking away access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels means only a return to grinding poverty and slavery.”
What a load of horse’s insides.
Countries that have transitioned from mostly fossil fuels for energy generation to nearly 100% renewables include Uruguay (98%), Costa Rica (99%), Iceland (99%) and Norway (98%) – though Norway’s transition is decades old.
All these countries’ economies have been no worse off since transitioning to renewables, and instead have enjoyed the stability of energy security.
Denmark at 80% renewables didn’t have easy access to hydro and geothermal, and had built a renewables infrastructure primarily through wind power, which makes up 57% of renewables.
The UK and Germany are at around 50% capacity, and Germany’s economy has slowed, partly to do with the transition (and mismanagement of it), but this fantasy of grinding poverty arising from the dust of declining fossil fuel use has not eventuated. Like the monster under the bed, this is just a tale to frighten children.
Taking away access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels means only a return to grinding poverty and slavery.
Replied just above, Ken.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1699884
You can’t make solar panels and wind turbines without massive amounts of fossil fuels. Where are you going to get the energy to replace fossil fuels?
Taking away access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels means only a return to grinding poverty and slavery.
That didn’t happen in Norway, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Iceland, which have energy sectors that are all nearly 100% renewables.
Don’t believe the alarmism about economic armageddon from renewables, Ken. It’s horsepucky.
Do I really need to explain everything? Then they can accuse me of being condescending. If you outlaw fossil fuels in an economy where people are already crawling over each other (sarcastic analogy with zero factual relevance) to purchase solar, then the only answer is to reduce economic activity and human comfort. Is that the goal, or are the green folks really just that dense?
There are so many local governments and cities that have outlawed natural gas which is 85% efficient in a hot water heater or furnace. With limited solar capacity and nighttime use, the result is burning the very same natural gas at a power plant with 40% efficiency or less minus line losses. Are we having fun yet?
The average natural gas power plant is 40% efficient, while the best combined cycle ones are apparently 60 % efficient.
The seasonal COP of newly installed heat pumps are about 3.5.
Let’s suppose all your electricity was generated at average efficiency natural gas power plants, and that 10% of electrical energy is lost in transit to your home, and you used a COP = 3.5 heat pump for heating your home.
Then for each 3.5 BTU of heat to your home, 1 BTU of electricity is required. That 1 BTU required 1 BTU/(0.9*0.4) = 2.8 BTU of natural gas to generate and transmit it.
So the NET result is 3.5 BTU delivered for 2.8 BTU of input fuel =
125 % fuel efficiency.
Compared to 85% for the gas furnace in your home.
Now in the US only about 60% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels, and lets assume an average 35% power plant efficiency. Then using a heat pump to heat your home with 3.5 BTU will require a fossil fuel input of 0.6*1 BTU/(0.9*0.35) = 1.9 BTU of input fossil fuel.
So the NET result is 3.5 BTU delivered for 1.9 BTU of input fuel =
184 % fuel efficiency.
So yeah, heat pumps have much lower fossil fuel consumption compared to direct gas burning furnaces.
But Im not for banning them.
I think the main effort is to require them into NEW construction.
Noise nuisance should be considered. Noise pollution is a much worse problem than CO2 could ever be.
Heat source pumps are the new bane of my life, since we changed our heating to an air source pump, my electricity consumption has hit the roof, gone from 90pounds a month to well over 300 pounds per month, it was installed last Summer, but since then we have had almost ten power cuts some lasting up to 8 hours.we now only use it for domestic hot water, so its back to the trusty muli fuel stove that costs less than the heat pump to run,and cares not if the power goes off.
“my electricity consumption has hit the roof”
It should have gone up. There is no free heating.
This is a classic example of misdirection and outright lies. The other option is that Nate is entirely incompetent. It is one or the other, and I do not care which one it is. This is getting old.
The 60% Cogen facility is rare. It means you have a close neighbor who can utilize waste heat which is steam at low pressure and temperature. What they don’t tell you is that Cogen makes the electricity production itself less efficient.
I do not need to look this up. I know the subject matter. In general, a high efficiency power plant typically uses 6oo psi super heated steam to power a turbine. They also use a surface condenser on the turbine exhaust. This provides clean condensate to send back to the boiler and adds another 12 psi or so to the steam pressure recovery by lowering the exhaust pressure of the turbine.
Cogen actually increases the exhaust pressure by taking 30 psi steam from the exhaust and sending it to your neighbor (robbing Peter to pay Paul). It is less efficient at making the electricity (612 psi steam consumption vs 570 psi steam consumption), but more efficient overall for your neighbor.
The 3.5 COP is just a pure lie. Nate has to know better. That is for a very sophisticated and expensive industrial installation. A residential installation, which is already expensive, can only achieve a COP of 2 with a conventional condenser on outside air. That is it. The doubling of 40% efficiency minus line loses is only 80% efficiency. The cost and limited useful life of a heat pump is a different issue.
Resistance heaters such as the ones they want you to use for hot water are still operating at less than 40% efficiency versus a natural gas water heater at 85%.
Nate says, it should have gone up , there is no free heating, it was just another green lie, to go with all thd other green lies floating around the UK since the 1980s, but like i said, its back to the trusty stove,something that works when i want it to work,only downside, i have to buy smokless fuel imported from Columbia,even though there is millions of tons of coal below my feet.another piece of nonsense care of the silly climate change act, on the plus side, i bought a new chainsaw with the money i saved.
Combined cycle is not Cogen, Tim.
A combined cycle is a power plant that uses a gas turbine and a steam turbine to produce electricity, significantly increasing efficiency by capturing and reusing the waste heat from the gas turbine to generate steam for an additional power cycle.
In any case this is a red herring since I didn’t use it in any calculation.
Yes, of course, the jet engine producing shaft power with the exhaust producing steam. Jet engines are becoming more efficient over time. This system can produce good efficiency, but is not in common use. It requires a massive investment, and does not respond well to turn-down (adjustment in the output). There may also be problems with acid gas condensation requiring expensive metal alloys.
So now we are suggesting massive investments in a new way to burn natural gas for power. Actually, this may not be such a bad idea since genuine renewable energy is such a long way off. Got it!
The simplicity, efficiency, and low cost installation of natural gas burning furnaces and hot water heaters still remain as the best option for home owners that are still allowed to purchase them. Is this an example of letting the market place decide?
Ian,
https://heatpumpmonitor.org/?period=last90&minDays=72
shows that many many people in UK are getting COP > 4 from their heat pumps over this winter.
Nate,
A lot of Cogen plants are combined cycle. Cogen has nothing to do with how the plant is designed. A cogen plant sells power to the power company.
“A good heat pump COP is generally between 3.0 and 5.0, and a good SCOP is typically above 3.5, indicating that the system provides efficient heating or cooling over the entire season”
https://www.h2xengineering.com/blogs/heat-pump-cop-and-scop-what-they-mean-and-why-they-matter/
Residential heat pumps have apparently gotten a lot more efficient. But still perform less well in extreme cold.
Nate, have you got a heat pump? the cost is huge if you want to keep warm, if carbon taxes go up , there will be a mass change back to gas, oil and solid fuel heating,i know at least two people who have already reconnected their old boiler stoves to the heat source central heating , heres to a scorching sunny summer, the carbon madness has to stop.
Nate, have you got a heat pump? the cost is huge if you want to keep warm, if carbon taxes go up , there will be a mass change back to gas, oil and solid fuel heating,i know at least two people who have already reconnected their old boiler stoves to the heat source central heating , heres to a scorching sunny summer,
Show us the math.
A heat pump’s efficiency has nothing to do with how well it performs in extreme cold, i.e. below 40F. Gas heat is so much less expensive and more efficient in the Winter, even in Florida.
So you claim, Stephen.
Now show us the actual numbers and the math to support your claims.
Maybe I should do a new post explaining the heat pump problem. Like everything being pushed about climate, there is lot more hype than substance. The news media explanation is that it extract heat from cold air. That is true, but does not explain the problem.
The heat from the condenser (inside the house for heating and outside for cooling mode) is simply the flow of refrigerant times the latent heat with some other effects that are usually minor. The problem with cold weather is that the flow of refrigerant (frig) depends on the ability to evaporate outside. As the temperature outside drops, the flow of frig is reduced. If it drops too much, it is possible to draw liquid into the compressor resulting in an unplanned rapid disassembly that is not repairable.
There has to be a system in place to assure superheat at the compressor inlet. One method is something called hot-gas-bypass where hot gas from the compressor outlet is redirected back to the suction. The obvious effect is to reduce flow to the condenser for heat.
Yes, outside temperature is important and heat pumps are completely useless in freezing cold weather. There needs to be a backup plan for those times when you really need it the most.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700132
NASA/RSS measured water vapor has been increasing on average about 1.4 % per decade which is more than twice as fast as possible from just planet warming. The water vapor increase can account for all climate change attributable to humanity with no contribution from carbon dioxide (burning fossil fuels).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1699266
Concede to proceed, Nate.
Bwa ha ha!
Laughin’ ain’t concedin’.
Two things for you to concede:
1) A ball on a string is not “spinning” (rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself).
2) Reference frames are not the issue.
Then you’ll have my response.
You had your last word in the previous way-to-long discussion that you wanted so badly to end.
But now you stalk me and bait me to try to continue it–ad nauseum. Weird!
Look you had plenty of opportunities to provide answers, but you couldnt. So the argument is over. Learn to live with a spinning Moon.
Nate, you have no response on either 1) or 2) that I haven’t refuted a dozen times already. What’s weird is that you won’t just concede the points.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team:
You have refuted nothing, as usual.
Strange thing to say when you agree with me on 1).
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team:
I don’t agree with you on anything.
Interesting. So, you have changed from your previous position that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that passes through the ball? You now think evolution is false?
It’s good to see DREMT remind everyone of the Moon nonsense. The issue is a simple example of how the cult works. They have NOTHING, yet they keep going with the insults and false accusations.
They need a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, such as a ball-on-a-string. But all they’ve got is endless rambling.
A stick is like a BOS, but which end is rotating?
The entire stick is rotating, but about only one single axis of rotation.
“The entire stick is rotating”
About only one axis. That we are agreed on. A BOS is the same as a stick.
The BoS is rotating about only one axis, indeed, and it’s not going through the ball itself. That’s my point 1) agreed with. Just like I said.
A BOS is the same as a stick.
OK, RLH.
” Two things for you to concede:
1) A ball on a string is not ‘spinning’ (rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself).
2) Reference frames are not the issue. ”
*
Instead of endlessly, stubbornly repeating your ‘ball on a string’ blah blah you just use all the time to avoid a true discussion about the lunar spin (which has nothing in common with it), why don’t you finally, 100% scientifically disprove centuries of proofs of its existence?
With ‘100% scientifically’ I of course exclude brainless ‘explanations’ coming from the lunar spin denial gang.
*
For example, I am still waiting for your explanation as to why an astronomer, mathematician, physicist and engineer in 1750 calculated the same value for the Moon’s revolution period as today’s scientists, even though this same result was based on completely different observational instruments and methods of processing the observational data.
*
All you all (Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and yourself) were able to reply on this was utterly simple-minded blah blah.
Since nobody is disputing the moon’s revolution period, your point is pointless. Instead of endlessly criticising me, when you in fact also (like RLH) agree with me on 1), you’d think you’d instead spend at least a little time arguing against those who disagree on 1).
I also think you agree with me on 2).
” Since nobody is disputing the moons revolution period… ”
This is a pure, brazen and cowardy lie, Pseudomod, and you perfectly know that.
No lie, Bindidon. Assuming you meant “rotation period” rather than “revolution period”, even then nobody disputes that wrt an inertial reference frame, the moon’s “rotation period” is what it is. The problem is that even Mt. Everest would have a “rotation period” of a day if you measured it wrt an inertial reference frame, or indeed every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert. But, we know that they are not spinning.
Which is how we also know that reference frames are not the issue.
“stubbornly repeating your ball on a string blah blah you just use all the time to avoid a true discussion about the lunar spin (which has nothing in common with it)”
Exactly!
So, you should have no problem conceding that my 1) is correct, Nate.
Concede that the BOS has no relevance to the Moon’s orbit.
Sure, I can concede that the BoS does not model the exact motion of the moon, as it was never intended to. It’s a model of “orbit without spin”.
So you claim, without a shred of evidence.
Orbits in general are elliptical. In general, the body does not rotate spin around the orbital axis. And in general there is nothing about gravity that constrains the body’s orientation the way the string does.
This is your ongoing logical failure: take a special case with unique properties (BOS, MOTL) and erroneously extrapolate it to the general case and the Moon.
This is a failed dead-end argument.
Astute readers will notice that I conceded a point, with ease, whilst Nate seems pathologically incapable of conceding the points that I’ve asked him to concede.
If he would just concede the points, he will get a response to his comment in the older thread about why he thinks “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
Clearly he feels that by conceding the points he would be throwing some of his old teammates under the bus. Whilst I appreciate his loyalty to his old allies, this discussion will get nowhere until he concedes the points.
Astute readers will notice that I conceded a point, with ease, whilst Nate seems incapable of conceding the points that I’ve asked him to concede.
If he would just concede the points, he will get a response to his comment in the older thread about why he thinks “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
Clearly he feels that by conceding the points he would be throwing some of his old teammates under the bus. Whilst I appreciate his loyalty to his old allies, this discussion will get nowhere until he concedes the points.
I’ve discussed the BOS and the MOTL many times. But this leads nowhere.
Try this excersise:
The BOS blank, therefore planetary orbits blank.
You fill in the blank to make a logical sound statement.
Try same for MOTL.
Concede to proceed, Nate. You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who will not concede points.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1699340
Here is where I discussed the BOS with you, and pointed out why it is different from a planetary orbit.
Concede to proceed.
Wow! Bindidon and Nate both continue to deny the angular momentum of an object rotating around an external axis as computed centuries ago and continues to this day be computed in the same way in every source available.
They simply try to unilaterally without any reference material weave scientific facts out of 100% pure misinterpreted linguistics.
Basically you’re demonstrating that you havent paid attention to anything in this long discussion.
“So I read Nate’s reply under my last comment, and what do I find?“
Another lie from Nate. That is what you found. If you can’t be bothered to read through a discussion, don’t try to take part in it.
Its pretty clear that Nate, Bindidon, and Barry are all committing two errors. One is an unwarranted assumption, and the second is an error over nomenclature (linguistics).
1) Unwarranted assumption: The moon is a sphere. Its not its a scalene ellipsoid. So barry’s claim that the gravity from the planet on the moon exerts no torque on the moon is false.
2) Error of nomenclature: The formula for the angular momentum of a particle rotating on an external axis is L = mvr sin θ. There is no spin function required. ”r” is the distance of the particle from thee external axis.
and thus there is no spin function required for a cloud of particles either. Angular momentum of a cloud of particles is simply the sum of mvr sin θ of each particle. That isn’t just logical it can be established mathematically with simple models.
Bill, I don’t even think they believe “rotation about an external axis” exists as a motion. Certainly they seem to want to eradicate its usage from analysing any problem as much as possible!
“1) Unwarranted assumption: The moon is a sphere. Its not its a scalene ellipsoid. So barrys claim that the gravity from the planet on the moon exerts no torque on the moon is false.”
Because the moon has an irregular shape AND because gravity affecting the moon is of variable strength across the surface of our planet there is some torque applied over geological time frames to change the orientation of the moon (and the orientation of Earth).
But as I didn’t make the claim you said I made, I don’t know why I’m having to explain this to you. I certainly claimed that the force of gravity exerts no torque on an orbiting sphere.
And had you been avidly reading the conversation instead of looking for false leads, you would have noted my comment:
When we launch satellites we have to always adjust them so that they rotate to face Earth, like the moon. They never naturally fall into the earth facing orientation, because there is no force acting on them (in the short term) to make that happen.
Meaning over geological periods the satellites would change orientation so that they were tidally locked, like our moon. And they would then all be rotating at the same rate as their orbit.
Here, since you cannot follow links, I’ll just paste Gordon’s comment in here in full, then you will finally have to acknowledge its existence:
“nate…you are misunderstanding what causes an object to move in an orbit in a gravitational field. The object is not following a path (orbit), rather the orbit is created as the body moves. That’s why orbits change dramatically over time. Some orbital planes even rotate about an epicentre over time.
Newton described orbital motion as a body, moving always with a linear motion, being diverted into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. That does not require the body to rotate about a local axis. The motion can be better explained through a simple examination of the local forces.
The body has a natural linear momentum and Earth’s gravity is attracting it towards Earth’s centre. That means the body must fall a certain amount per linear measure while maintaining a linear motion. If it falls just enough to make up for Earth’s curvature, it will remain in an orbit. If it falls more, it will spiral into the Earth. If it does not fall enough it will follow a parabolic or hyperbolic path into space.
An airliner following Earth’s curvature has a similar motion. Although it is powered, it is the Earth’s gravitational field that holds it in an orbital path. If the plane decreases speed it will fall and if it increases speed it will rise. Same principle as the Moon.
Note that the airliner keeps the same face pointed at earth.
At no time does a body have to rotate in order to keep the same side pointed at Earth. Rather simply, actually.“
“…it produces no torque about the COM itself…”
Which is not what we are talking about. Torque about the CoM of the ball is torque about the internal axis of the ball. Not the external axis. Stop posting irrelevant points, Nate.
Again, no distractions this time,
Try it on a body with no string attached to its surface, but just has gravity acting thru its com, and see what you get!
Hint: unlike the string or the wrench, gravity does not compel the body to align its orientation with it.
Nor does gravity produce any torque on the body.
Context matters!
“Meaning over geological periods the satellites would change orientation so that they were tidally locked, like our moon. And they would then all be rotating at the same rate as their orbit.”
Or, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, not “spinning” at all.
“Objects even just in our solar system orbit with a whole variety of spins and spin axes.”
Obviously.
“So it is plainly obvious that bodies are NOT in general compelled by gravity to align their orientation with it and toward the orbited body. That is for the bazillionth time why the BOS is a terrible model for planetary orbits. Because the string does compel the body to align with the orbited planet!”
Nate, you need to stop with these straw men. Seriously. “Non-Spinners” are not making the argument that because “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, that means orbiting objects can’t “spin”! It’s such a dumb straw man that it’s actually offensive. What is being argued is that torque is required about the orbiting object’s internal axis for it to “spin” and thus move differently than the MOTL. Exactly the same as how “Spinners” would argue that torque is required about the orbiting object’s internal axis in order for it to “spin” and move other than the MOTR.
One of the reasons a ball on a string is so frequently used as a model for “orbit without spin” is simply because no rational human being should be able to argue that the ball is “spinning”. And yet, here we are, once again…
Bill wrote a comment to you, Nate. Try not to be rude, and ignore him.
“That was when you claimed Nikola Tesla was not a credible source and a failure.”
FALSE. Tesla invented made many electrical innovations. Does not guarantee he will be right in astronomy.
He had a golden opportunity to convince astronomers about his non-spinning Moon in 1919 with his published articles.
But he could not convince them. Astronomy carried on with their understanding of the Moons motion developed since Kepler and Newton.
Nate often says “false” to many things that are “true”. It’s also my recollection that he wrote a comment that was very scathing of Tesla, generally. Of course, since many past comments have been deleted from the site now, it would be difficult to find to verify either way.
Yep this was years ago. Nate was arguing the lack of credibility of Tesla including invoking the fact he died destitute.
If back then he was saying what he is now saying all the arguments to authority he, Bindidon and others have offered up would evaporate. . .as they should.
“Tesla including invoking the fact he died destitute.”
Bullshit.
Why do you guys defer to his authority on Astronomy?
Why does he know better than Astronmers?
How bout if I defer to the Authority of Albert Einstein on liver disease?
Or maybe Charles Darwin on physics?
The debate is really about motion. So, although Tesla was no astronomer, there’s really no reason he wouldn’t have thoroughly understood the sort of principles we’re discussing below.
Regardless, personally I was just commenting that my recollection agrees with Bill’s. In fact, the attacks on Tesla from various commenters were quite vicious and unnecessary, including referring to his love of pigeons, dying destitute, and accusations about his mental state. All quite bizarre.
You guys seem to hold on to your grievances forever.
Who cares what your vague memories of what someone said about Tesla years ago?
The point I made was that it is unwise to assume that a brilliant accomplished person in one area, will know better than all the experts in another area.
And as a matter of fact Tesla did not in my opinion make sound arguments to support his belief that the Moon does not rotate.
And several of us pointed out the flaws in his arguments. And then we learned that many astronomers at the time pointed out the flaws in his reasoning.
And his efforts notably failed to convince the physics or astronomy community to adopt his POV.
Not because they did not respect him as a brilliant guy, but rather because he did not make a convincing argument.
And that is the way science progresses. Not all ideas survive.
.
“Who cares what your vague memories of what someone said about Tesla years ago?“
I don’t care, either. I was just agreeing with Bill that you said what you said, about Tesla. And so when you roared “FALSE”, as you tend to do so often, you were actually wrong, again. I don’t even care about deferring to authority, either. It’s nice, I suppose, when someone as brilliant as him agrees with you, but I’ve only ever mentioned it simply because some people won’t even begin to think about taking an idea seriously unless there’s a name behind it. And, I don’t think that’s the right way to think about things, you should just judge ideas for yourself, but I’m here to try to convince people and raise awareness, so if that authority helps them try to understand the issue and take it more seriously, so be it.
We were talking about my link and whether it answered your question.
It did.
Now either debate honestly or go tr.oll someone else.
Nate, if you can’t follow the discussion, don’t blame it on me.
“Sorry that your model will not work in general.”
The model of “orbit without spin” is for a hypothetical “perfect” orbit, which would indeed be circular. Just think about the “perfect tetherball” example. Once you understand that the string can only act through the CoM of the ball, the physical attachment position of the string to the ball becomes kind of irrelevant to the example. It would require a torque about the internal axis of the ball itself to get it to move other than the MOTL. That’s the point. Everyone gets so angry that “the ball cannot spin”…the point is, it would require a torque about the internal axis of the ball to even attempt to make it spin, which yes, the string would then resist, unlike gravity, but that doesn’t distract from the point of the example. Since nobody is arguing that orbiting objects can’t also spin!
Nah. Just you beating a long dead horse.
OK, Nate.
“as you agree it occurs, logically you must see that your P2) is false.”
Not at all. No such logic.
You’ve missed the point.
Straightforward denial.
“Nates argument has boiled down to astronomy does just fine not answering which axis the moon rotates on.”
Nonsense. Never said any such thing. This is why I can’t have a discussion with Bill.
Our Moon has a well defined internal axis of rotation which passes through its poles, which are on all lunar maps.
Anybody claiming the Moon rotates around any other axis is completely bonkers.
Well, Nate, some people think the moon has two axes of rotation, despite that being geometrically, mathematically impossible. Then they claim to be here to teach physics. Then you do absolutely nothing to correct them. Now that’s “absolutely bonkers”.
Again, you continue to mansplain physics principles to me while having little expertise in this subject.
For the dozenth time, torque about an external axis can result in angular velocity (change in angular position) which is what the MOTR has.
It does not result in rotation of the orientation of the body itself.
Poor Nate. The permanent internet record of his comments has not been kind. That last one was a real howler.
“You initially said that a torque about an external axis does not lead to a change in orientation of the body itself.
Then, after I corrected you, you changed your tune.”
Nope. No change. You just didn’t pay attention.
Look you keep claiming to understand how Newtons Laws of Rotation apply.
So then explain how they apply to the fired cannonball, and how it acquires rotation.
Yep, Nate, you changed your tune. Here is the comment on the cannonball you asked for:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701110
“You initially said that a torque about an external axis does not lead to a change in orientation of the body itself.”
Yep, i have been consistent on this point.
Just stop with dishonest debate.
As explained, several times now, yet always ignored, attachment of a body cause the body to have additional forces and internal torques.
Meanwhile you have never shown that you understand how to apply physics to these problems.
Yet laughingly, absurdly, claiming you know what would be the result!
The word for that mental condition: bonkers!
The “perfect tetherball” settles the issue. It’s done. “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“The perfect tetherball settles the issue. Its done.”
No doubt, in your bonkers mind, the issue is settled.
If it were settled in reality you would be able to point out the comment where you proved, or even demonstrated, or even showed, what you claim to KNOW, that the string always passes through the COM of the ball, even as the ball gets going.
But you can’t. Because you have no clue how the ball gets its rotation.
Absurdly, you cannot even tell us how the ball gets going.
You declare that the string already has full tension before it starts, which makes absolutely no sense, since the tension only arises in response to the ball trying to go in a straight line with fixed orientation, which stretches the string until the strings tension increases, snapping the ball into orbit and into alignment.
All you have done is declare that you know things.
Which can never be a method for settling an argument.
Arguments are not settled by declaring your own facts.
“You declare that the string already has full tension before it starts, which makes absolutely no sense…”
The robot is holding the ball with the string taut, Nate, as I explained.
Is Nate trying to argue that particles of an orbiting object that are closer to the orbited body do not experience a greater force of attraction than particles further away!?
1) A ball on a string is not “spinning” (rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself).
The ball is definitely rotating in an inertial reference frame.
2) Reference frames are not the issue.
The reference frame is the crux of the matter.
“A frame of reference is needed to describe an object’s motion. ”
https://testbook.com/physics/frames-of-reference
You are confusing the definition of rotate by tying it to the notion of ‘free spinning’. There is nothing about rotation that requires ‘free spin’. A particle on a disc is rotating with the disc, even though it has no freedom of movement.
Rotation is determined by the change in angular position of an object relative to an external, inertial frame of reference.
The first section of this course on rotation (below) has a model just like the moon/earth system, a particle orbiting a central axis, while also rotating.
https://www.theexpertta.com/book-files/OpenStaxUniversityPhysicsVol1/UP1_Ch10.%20Fixed-Axis%20Rotation.pdf
“In Figure 10.2, we show a particle moving in a circle. The coordinate system is fixed and serves as a frame of reference to define the particle’s position. Its position vector from the origin of the circle to the particle sweeps out the angle θ , which increases in the counterclockwise direction as the particle moves along its circular path. The angle θ is called the angular position of the particle. As the particle moves in its circular path, it also traces an arc length s.”
The particle is the moon. As it orbits, its angular position changes. Does this mean it is orbiting and not rotating? Nope, as the text goes on, both motions are happening at the same time.
“As the particle moves along its circular path [orbit], its angular position changes [rotation] and it undergoes angular displacements Δθ.”
https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/Gettysburg_College/Gettysburg_College_Physics_for_Physics_Majors/23%3A_N9)_Rotational_Motion
For your interest:
“In Section 4.3, we considered what happens if we considered the (linear) motion of an object from a stationary (‘lab frame’) or co-moving point of view, with special attention for the center of mass frame. These frames were moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, and were all inertial frames – Newtons first and second laws hold in all inertial frames. In this section, we’ll consider a rotating reference frame, where instead of co-moving with a linear velocity, we co-rotate with a constant angular velocity. Rotating reference frames are not inertial frames, as to keep something rotating (and thus change the direction of the linear velocity) requires the application of a net force. Instead, as we’ll see, in a rotating frame of reference well get all sorts of fictitious forces – forces that have no real physical source, like gravity or electrostatics, but originate from the fact that we’re in a rotating reference frame.”
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Mechanics_and_Relativity_%28Idema%29/07%3A_General_Rotational_Motion/7.02%3A_Rotating_Reference_Frames
Your error is to introduce the notion of ‘free spinning’ into a definition of rotation that is unnecessary and incorrect, and you are relying on a rotational reference frame (the line from the surface of the moon to the surface of the Earth) to claim the moon is not rotating.
1) “The ball is definitely rotating in an inertial reference frame.”
The ball is rotating, but not about an axis passing through the ball itself. In other words, the ball is not “spinning”.
2) Reference frames are not the issue, barry. Sure, if you argue that “orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTL then you must quantify the “spin” rate of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame, and if you argue that “orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR then you must quantify the “spin” rate of an orbiting object wrt an inertial reference frame…but it is that way around. What you don’t do is say that “spin” rate must be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame therefore “orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR, which is essentially what you’re suggesting in your long essay.
The issue is whether the motion “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR, and that comes first, always. Reference frame choices for quantifying “spin” rate are just a consequence of that.
I don’t have to quantify the rotation of any object within a rotating reference frame. We use inertial reference frames to calculate the rotation of all objects in the universe, including tidally locked moons.
Your assertion that this is necessary is merely you trying to force the ball on a string model (an orbit) on celestial movement. The assertion is empty. Celestial mechanics rejects it.
Even if everything you said about the ball on a string were true, it still would not apply to the moon. Its face is not mechanically attached to the earth, and it exhibits freedom of movement (libration) that the ball does not. We have direct observational evidence that the moon is not tethered like the ball on a string, and its movement is perfectly explained by rotation under tidal locking. A rotating reference is inadequate as it can’t account for libration.
Your other assertions are peculiar to you, not the field of astromechanics. ‘Orbit without spin’ is not a variable in formal rotational dynamics, just your own lens for arguing about this that you seem to think is a standard frame. Once you use the term ‘orbit’ you are dealing with celestial bodies, and they all have rotation.
barry, using an inertial reference frame to quantify the “spin” rate can lead to some major clangers. For example, consider this video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
In the third experiment, movement like the MOTR is replicated. If we quantify the “spin” rate wrt an inertial reference frame then we would conclude (falsely) that the model moon is not “spinning”, even though there is a motor beneath it, spinning it!
That’s why it’s so important to consider whether the motion “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR. For the CSAItruth equipment, it’s as per the MOTL.
The camera was a fair substitute for an inertial reference frame, and I definitely saw the moon rotate relative to the camera when the two arrows pointed at each other the whole time.
But the vlogger wants you to make the line between the two arrows the frame of reference. Voila! Now you have a rotating reference frame that also happens to be exactly the line of axis between the moon and the Earth – the very frame of reference you need to see no rotation!
Our vlogger did not consider libration. Had he tried to account for that, he would have had to admit that there is a little rotational wobble left and right (and up and down) from even the rotational reference frame. But he could not have explained it.
The reference frame is everything, and your video proves it. Let the arrows point towards each other. The moon rotates. You can see it with your eye. It both orbits around the external axis, and rotates on its internal axis.
As I have already said – and I know you will respect this, because I’m making an assertion rather than arguing for its validity, just as you do – rotation is not determined by whether an object is free spinning or not. This component of the argument is something you keep trying to shoehorn in as if it is a fundamental truth. It isn’t.
barry has stopped listening, so this is just for other readers:
We could make another piece of equipment, with an XY plotter programmed to move a model moon in a circle, with the model moon attached to the pen via a motor which can also spin the model moon, or not. Without the “spin” motor engaged, the XY plotter equipment would move the model moon exactly like the MOTR, in a circle. With the “spin” motor engaged, the model moon would move like the MOTL.
With this piece of equipment, “orbit without spin” would be like the MOTR, and we would thus be justified in quantifying the “spin” rate wrt an inertial reference frame.
Note that for each piece of equipment, the CSAItruth equipment or the XY plotter equipment, the key is whether the motion “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL, or the MOTR. The reference frame choice for quantifying “spin” rate is simply dependent on that.
Thus, reference frames are not the issue.
“Thats why its so important to consider whether the motion orbit without spin is as per the MOTL or the MOTR.”
That’s where we were in previous discussion.
I gave you physical, historical, and definitional rationales to support the spinner view of what an orbit means. And it led to the MOTR being an example of orbit without spin.
I asked for you for a sound rationale to assign it to the MOTL.
Thats when you stopped responding and decided to change the subject!
No, Nate, that would be a false summary of events. What you did was to try to shift the argument onto “an orbit is just a path”, which does not resolve the issue either way. Both sides can agree that an orbiting object follows a path. That resolves nothing. The issue is, and always has been, is the motion “orbit without spin” like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
‘an orbit is just a path’,
“Both sides can agree that an orbiting object follows a path”
Not the same. Sleight of hand.
An orbit IS just a path, ie it is just the position vs time that a body in that follows.
You guys want to embellish this standard definition without any rationale to do so.
That is where you have no argument, and the jig is up.
Nate reveals that even after all this time, he still doesn’t actually understand what the moon issue is about. What’s the point? All I get is bombarded from all sides by false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
No one can tell what you’re moaning about now.
If you have no rationale, then that is all she wrote. End of the road.
I’m rightfully complaining about how ridiculous this all is, from my POV (something you are incapable of understanding).
The moon issue is incredibly simple.
There are two separate motions:
1) “Orbit without spin” – this is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR, depending on which side of the debate you are on.
2) “Spin” – rotation about an axis that passes through the body of the orbiting object.
Now, semantics are irrelevant. You can call 1) or 2) whatever you like. As I said before, call 1) “Geoffrey” and call 2) “Bob”, if you like. It really doesn’t matter. So, please stop going on and on about definitions of “orbit” – it’s irrelevant.
If “Geoffrey” is as per the MOTL then movement like the MOTR contains both “Geoffrey” and “Bob”, in opposite directions at the same rate.
If “Geoffrey” is as per the MOTR then movement like the MOTL contains both “Geoffrey” and “Bob”, in the same direction at the same rate.
If “Geoffrey” is as per the MOTL then movement like the Earth contains both “Geoffrey” and “Bob”, in the same direction, 365.25 “Bobs” per “Geoffrey”.
If “Geoffrey” is as per the MOTR then movement like the Earth contains both “Geoffrey” and “Bob”, in the same direction, 366.25 “Bobs” per “Geoffrey”.
That’s it. Those are the basics of this issue. It requires nothing more than the ability to mentally add two motions together.
Reference frames are not the issue. Definitions of “orbit” are not the issue, (although there is some case to be made that “revolution” means “rotation about an external axis”, which supports the “Non-Spinners”, but I digress).
barry seems to have “left the building”, but let’s analyse just one of the amazingly wrong things that he’s said:
“I don’t have to quantify the rotation of any object within a rotating reference frame. We use inertial reference frames to calculate the rotation of all objects in the universe, including tidally locked moons”
barry seems blissfully unaware of the existence of the ECEF (Earth Centred – Earth Fixed) reference frame, which is a rotating reference frame wrt the “fixed stars”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
The “spin” rate of every single object on Earth would in fact routinely be calculated wrt this rotating reference frame…all just regular, everyday physics. So that’s trillions upon trillions of objects on Earth alone that we don’t use an inertial reference frame for, “spin” rate-wise. Of course, objects on other planets would also be analysed wrt a similar rotating reference frame based on the “spin” of that planet. So the sheer number of objects in the Universe that we would actually quantify the “spin” rate of wrt a rotating reference frame becomes…simply staggering. Quantifying the “spin” rate of an object wrt an inertial reference frame would, in comparison, be a vanishingly rare event.
Astronomy uses the inertial frame. Get over it.
You have not offered any sound rationale for switching to a rotating reference frame.
It makes no sesnse
“1) Orbit without spin this is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR, depending on which side of the debate you are on.”
You act as if its just a choice that each of use can make, depending on our beliefs.
This is a false narrative. There is no debate. Physics and astronomy have a sound rationale for defining orbit as they do.
You offer no sound rationale to change it.
So thats it. The argument is over.
“Astronomy uses the inertial frame. Get over it.”
I’m not under it. It doesn’t bother me in the least that Astronomy uses an inertial reference frame to quantify the “spin” rate…it’s just, as I’ve successfully explained now a dozen times already, doing so automatically treats the motion “orbit without spin”, or “Geoffrey”, as though it were as per the MOTR. The problem with that is, it isn’t as per the MOTR, it’s as per the MOTL, instead.
“You have not offered any sound rationale for switching to a rotating reference frame.”
Of course I have. A rotating reference frame unfortunately must be used, simply because “orbit without spin”, or “Geoffrey”, is as per the MOTL. It simply and straightforwardly follows from that. It’s a consequence of it, not the reason for it.
“It makes no sesnse”
Of course it does. Want me to re-explain, for the twentieth time, exactly why “orbit without spin”, or “Geoffrey”, is as per the MOTL? Simply concede the two points, to proceed. Or, if you still feel like you have some argument to make against them that hasn’t been refuted a dozen times already, make the argument.
“The problem with that is, it isnt as per the MOTR, its as per the MOTL”
As noted, you have a belief, but no rationale for it. That makes it like a religion, or a cult.
It is no different from the Flat Earth cult.
Have fun with that!
Nate, I could argue that you have no rationale for your belief that “Geoffrey” is as per the MOTR. The only argument you put forward for it being that way is your confused point about torque! That’s it.
You’ve got nothing, as Clint R might well say.
Again…you want me to re-explain why “Geoffrey” is as per the MOTL? Then concede to proceed. Both points, please.
“The only argument you put forward for it being that way is your confused point about torque!”
False.
You want this argument to never end. In this instance, it is by pretending that a topic has not been already thoroughly explained and debated.
You already agreed that gravity cannot apply torque to a spherical body.
And you claimed to understand what torque is: turning force.
Your attempt at a rationale for an orbit being like the MOTL was to suggest that gravity somehow conspires
gravity somehow conspires with momentum to cause a body in orbit to turn to follow its orbital path.
But of course this is a poor understanding of physics.
Lacking the ability to apply torque means that gravity cannot compel a body to turn to follow its orbit.
Thus gravity can only compel a body’s position to follow the orbit. Its position is its COM.
This is what Kepler Newton and all that followed meant by the word Orbit: the position vs time of a body in space.
Nothing about the orbit or physics specifies how the bodies ORIENTATION should behave!
Nate wrongly says “false” and then immediately proves me right – he really does have nothing besides his confused point about torque!
Hilarious.
I’d love to respond, but first I’ll need Nate to concede those two points.
“confused point about torque”
Pretty basic: torque causes objects to turn. Lacking torque, objects will not start turning.
If you are still confused about the basic physics of torque that is due to your determined ignorance.
But ignorance is not a sound argument, is it.
You’ve had years to find a link to a proper physics source that supports your view that ‘orbit’ involves a body turning to follow its orbital path. But you found nothing.
So you are left to fantasize and speculate, which are not sound arguments.
There is no torque causing an aircraft to “spin” about its internal axis whilst it circumnavigates the globe, yet it moves as per the MOTL.
Airplanes fly in the atmosphere which allows you endless opportunity to obfuscate.
Try to stay on topic. Planetary bodies in orbit in space.
I’m not obfuscating. You’re hand-waving.
I’ve made my point, and the entire issue is once again settled in the “Non-Spinners” favour.
I’m guessing you won’t have the integrity to concede the two points. Oh well.
“2) ‘Spin’ rotation about an axis that passes through the body of the orbiting object.”
What you mean by this is mechanical spin. That is, the body surrounding some spindle is moving with respect to the spindle. Thus you use balls on strings to describe non-spinning, and post videos of a moon with a spindle through it.
Your definition of rotation around an axis is based on this notion of “free spin.”
Freeze a pedal to its axis and spin the cog. For you the pedal is not rotating on its axis because of its mechanical attachment. But what happens if we move the pedal to the centre of the frame, and move the bike around it? If the pedal is locked into place but is the centre of rotation, is it now spinning?
If not, then your point is moot, because now the axis is in the centre, and the pedal rotates on its own centre. That is a rotation in any definition.
If it is now spinning, then you don’t need a free spinning object for rotation. All you need to do is change your frame of reference from the centre of the cog, or the bike, or the room, to the centre of the pedal.
Frame of reference does indeed matter.
“barry seems blissfully unaware of the existence of the ECEF (Earth Centred Earth Fixed) reference frame, which is a rotating reference frame wrt the ‘fixed stars’.”
From your link:
ECI: inertial, not rotating, with respect to the stars; useful to describe motion of celestial bodies and spacecraft.
ECEF: not inertial, accelerated, rotating with respect to the stars; useful to describe motion of objects on Earth surface.
I don’t think I’m the one who is blissfully unaware…
barry, I don’t mean to be rude, but every single thing I’ve said to you has gone completely over your head.
No, I don’t mean “mechanical spin”.
No, I’m not basing anything on a notion of “free spin”.
Yes, I know that ECEF reference frames relate to objects on the surface. You obviously did not understand my comment. I’m aware of what my own link says.
Reference frames are not the issue, and I have comprehensively explained why. It’s not my job to understand it for you. That’s on you.
“issue is once again settled in the Non-Spinners favour.”
Once again you offered no sound rationale to support your position.
So go ahead and self-soothe however you need to.
“Sound rationale”, eh? By which you mean, something you consider “sound”, right? Which won’t be anything. There’s nothing I could ever say that would ever convince you, so it’s a total waste of time talking to you, about anything. Especially given that you never concede any points!
“Sound rationale, eh? By which you mean, something you consider sound, right? Which wont be anything”
Yeah, it should not surprise you that you, a non-physicist, cannot convince physicists and astronomers that they have been wrong for the last 300 years.
That would be highly improbable.
Nate, of course, isn’t an astronomer, but being a physicist believes he knows everything about every subject…
…yet he can’t explain his “torque-ing point” in light of the fact that there is no torque causing an aircraft to “spin” about its internal axis whilst it circumnavigates the globe, but it moves as per the MOTL.
And, he knows deep down that settles the issue.
So, he beats his chest and appeals to his own authority, hoping that will help.
“He knows deep down that settles the issue”
You are literally delusional.
Each time you try to talk about something other than planets in orbit: airplanes, balls on strings, motors on arms, it is bleeding obvious that you don’t understand what is going with planets in orbit.
All else is a distraction.
You have no answers, though! That’s painfully clear. All you have said is, “well that’s in the atmosphere, hand-wave hand-wave”.
Why are airplanes a good model for a body in orbit?
Bodies in orbit are a much better model for bodies in orbit.
This was the only argument you’ve made for why you think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR:
P1) Gravity can produce no torque about a sphere’s internal axis.
P2) An object cannot change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without torque.
C) “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
The aircraft example shows P2) to be false. Thus, your argument fails.
That leaves you with nothing but your belief.
“P2) An object cannot change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without torque.
C) Orbit without spin is as per the MOTR.
The aircraft example shows P2) to be false. Thus, your argument fails.”
Nah. Just illustrates again that you are quite ignorant of the laws of physics.
Once again: torque is turning force. A body with no initial rotation will not acquire rotation unless acted on by a torque. This is Newtons 2nd law for rotation. It is equivalent to F = ma for linear motion.
So what you’re claiming is that you found a violation of Newtons 2nd Law!
You might as well be claiming you discovered a perpetual motion machine that violates the Law of Conservation of Energy!
You can claim whatever implausible thing you want. That does not mean it is a sound argument.
You never answered Why are airplanes a good model for a body in orbit?
Airplanes operate differently in many ways.
-They require an engine to oppose the drag force of atmosphere. Not so for bodies orbit which just have momentum.
-They have a nose that must point forward in the direction of motion, else they will be unstable. Not so for bodies in orbit-there is no nose and any side can point forward.
-The have wings and control surfaces that are used to maintain a steady altitude. Not so for bodies in orbit. Their altitude is determined by their orbit.
-In flying from point A on one side of the Earth to point B on the other side, they will use their engine thrust and their control surfaces to maintain a steady altitude throughout the flight, and to keep the nose pointing forward along the flight path. Not so for bodies in orbit!
In short, airplane flight is much more complicated than the ballistic motion of bodies in orbit governed only by gravity.
This complexity makes airplanes a piss poor model for orbital motion, but offers endless opportunities for obfuscation!
Speaking of Newton, let’s try Newton’s Cannonball, again…but with a twist.
We strip the Earth’s surface of its atmosphere. Instead of a cannon launching the ball, let the ball be carried, dangling on the end of a string, by a very strong astronaut who is walking along an imaginary road that runs all the way around the equator. Let the cannonball be made of moon rock, just for fun.
The bottom of the cannonball, of course, always remains oriented towards the Earth’s surface as the astronaut slowly and bravely completes his circumnavigation of the globe. Once he’s finished, he arrives back at the cannon, where he started. The ball of moon rock moved like the MOTL. At no point along the journey was there any torque acting on the internal axis of the ball whatsoever, but it changed in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame through 360 degrees.
I don’t think Newton would believe this represented a violation of any of his own laws.
Correction:
“Once again: torque is turning force. A body with no initial rotation will not acquire rotation unless acted on by a torque.”
This is Newton’s First Law for Rotation. Its equivalent to:
“Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force”
So you’re saying there is a torque applied about the ball’s/aircraft’s own internal axis? How?
“At no point along the journey was there any torque acting on the internal axis of the ball whatsoever, but it changed in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame through 360 degrees”
So airplanes no good, let’s throw yet another poor analogy at the wall!
Anything to avoid talking about the actual phenomena!
Did your cannonball have any initial rotation or what?
If not, then you are claiming that it acquired rotation without a torque, which is AGAIN a violation if Newtons Laws!
The cannonball is simply hanging there, on the end of a string, Nate. Of course it had no “initial rotation”. Please answer the questions I asked.
“So youre saying there is a torque applied about the balls/aircrafts own internal axis? How?”
Why not? Are you claiming that airplanes are unable to control their orientation?
Obviously they are able. They are able to climb, dive and turn using their engine thrust and control surfaces that direct the air flow around them which applies various forces and torques.
Sure, Nate, but if you do a little Googling you will find that an aircraft need not make any such adjustments to follow the curvature of the Earth.
What about the ball? What produces your imagined torque there?
What about this? What about that?
These questions illustrate that you don’t know how to analyze these problems yourself.
Yet in each case, you’re certain that you found the smoking gun, until you learn that you havent.
Look, without even analyzing these problems in detail, I can assure you that they obey the general laws of physics.
Which means Newton’s laws are obeyed. And Newton’s law for rotation is obeyed.
Which means your ball hanging from a string must be experiencing a torque.
Just as the BOS does when someone starts swinging it around.
Nate, I’m asking you these questions to try and get your brain into gear.
I already know the answer which ensures Newton’s laws are upheld, and which explains both the motion of the cannonball and the aircraft.
Wanna hear it?
Concede the two points to proceed.
“aircraft need not make any such adjustments to follow the curvature of the Earth.”
Bullshit. Aircraft are constantly adjusting their altitude, speed, orientation during long flights.
They have gyroscopes which sense their orientation wrt the stars. They are affected by Earths rotation and curvature.
“I already know the answer which ensures Newtons laws are upheld”
Yeah riiight!
That’s inconsistent with your repeated attempts to violate these laws!
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea
First answer is from someone who knows what they are talking about.
“Aircraft altitude is measured (inferred) by atmospheric pressure. The aircraft is usually flown at an altitude that maintains constant ambient pressure (by pilot or autopilot, as the case may be). Changes in local barometric pressure (provided by air traffic control) are used to recalibrate the aircraft altimeter. As long as the aircraft is flown at a constant ambient pressure (hence constant altitude), it will be following the earth’s curvature (as the atmosphere is attached to the spherical earth and has same properties at same distance from the center, in an ideal case) as the altitude is measured from the surface, which is curved, and not a plane.”
Did you miss that one?
I must have missed where they said there is any torque acting about the aircraft’s internal axis. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Again u suggest no torque-which again violates the laws of physics. Its like you instantly forget them…
Look as I noted here:
“In flying from point A on one side of the Earth to point B on the other side, they will use their engine thrust and their control surfaces to maintain a steady altitude throughout the flight, and to keep the nose pointing forward along the flight path”
At point A the flight path and the nose point toward a star. At point B the flight path is pointed, say, at 90 degrees from that star.
If the nose of the aircraft stayed fixed to the star, then obviously the airflow will apply torque on the plane to force the nose to point in the direction of the flight path.
This does not occur for a body in orbit!
The aircraft gives you endless ways to obfuscate. Nowhere in that link does it suggest there is any torque acting about the aircraft’s internal axis. You just assume there must be. As you do with the cannonball, despite it being patently obvious that there is none…
…and, the answer is staring you in the face.
“The aircraft gives you endless ways to obfuscate.”
That is you, not me.
” Nowhere in that link does it suggest there is any torque acting about the aircrafts internal axis.”
No one was asking about torque.
“You just assume there must be. As you do with the cannonball, despite it being patently obvious that there is none”
Again you try to violate a law of physics. Here the ball starts with no rotation, but then acquires rotation somehow. There must have been a torque.
The difference between you and me is that I know the laws of physics are valid, and I know how to apply them to problems to arrive at a solution.
While you think the laws of physics are just a suggestion, and maybe there is a way around them, as in this case.
And you dont know how to apply the laws of physics to problems. You just guess a solution and your guess always supports your prior beliefs.
Again, like the BOS, the string is forcing the orientation of the ball to align with the astronaut who is slowly reorienting as he walks. If it falls out of alignment the string makes a slight angle with gravity and pulls the ball back (with torque) into alignment.
And again planets have no strings!
There is no torque about either the ball’s internal axis or the aircraft’s internal axis.
[Will Nate notice this time the highlighting of the word “internal”, and guess what I must be hinting at, or will he remain oblivious?]
“There is no torque about either the balls internal axis or the aircrafts internal axis.”
So you claim, with evidence.
If the string pulls on the surface of the ball at a slight angle, it will get torque about its COM.
In any case, you admit that the ball acquires rotation. That means it must have experienced a torque around its COM.
Otherwise the laws of physics are violated.
Not sure why you keep seeking a way around them!
Nate wins the award for “slowest person on the uptake in history”.
What is the opposite of “internal”?
‘without evidence’
I’ll repeat that the ball acquired rotation, ie orientational change. That means it must have experienced a torque about its COM.
According to Newton’s First Law for rotation:
A body with no rotation will continue with no rotation unless acted on by a torque.
Not just a force, but a torque, which means a force applied NOT through the COM.
Consider a force acting sideways on the ball thru its COM. That will cause the ball to move, to accelerate sideways.
But it will not cause the ball to rotate. Because it produces no torque on the ball.
The torque is applied about the external axis, not the internal axis.
Consider a tetherball. You swing it, directly applying a torque about the external axis. The ball rotates about the external axis. No torque is applied about the internal axis of the ball, and so the ball is not rotating about that internal axis.
Now, please continue your meltdown.
“No, I dont mean ‘mechanical spin’.
No, I’m not basing anything on a notion of ‘free spin’.”
Ok then, what is wrong with the astronomical understanding that the moon orbits the earth while rotating on its axis?
Imagine the moon starts off in space rotating at exactly the rate of 27.3 Earth days. We now move the moon into Earth orbit, where it orbits at 27.3 earth days.
Now the moon’s face doesn’t deviate from its orientation with respect to earth, because for every arc of orbit there is a matching arc of rotation.
Now imagine a moon that does not rotate with respect to the fixed stars (the only object in the universe that does this, as far as we know.
Move this moon into earth orbit and it will maintain its orientation with respect to the fixed stars, because there is no mechanism, no friction, to make it do differently.
When we launch satellites we have to always adjust them so that they rotate to face Earth, like the moon. They never naturally fall into the earth facing orientation, because there is no force acting on them (in the short term) to make that happen.
“Ok then, what is wrong with the astronomical understanding that the moon orbits the earth while rotating on its axis?”
It’s based entirely on the idea that the motion “orbit without spin”, or “Geoffrey”, is as per the MOTR. As I’m currently discussing with Nate, there is actually no “sound rationale” (Nate term) for the motion “orbit without spin”, or “Geoffrey”, to be as per the MOTR.
Have you conceded that reference frames are not the issue, and that a ball on a string does not rotate about an axis passing through the ball itself? Or are you, like Nate, incapable of conceding any point, ever?
“Consider a tetherball. You swing it, directly applying a torque about the external axis.”
Again you have a rope attached to the surface of the ball. Again it can apply force (tension) not thru the COM, which results in torque.
“The ball rotates about the external axis. No torque is applied about the internal axis of the ball, and so the ball is not rotating about that internal axis”
Incorrect. The ball cannot begin to rotate about any axis, unless it experiences a torque on the BALL.
And this is easy for you to understand. Forces applied only to the COM of the ball cannot cause the ball to turn.
Now Nate is arguing that a torque cannot be applied about an external axis. Even Tim Folkerts agreed that it can.
You couldn’t make it up.
“The torque is applied about the external axis, not the internal axis”
You are confusing our case with a different one, where a ball is attached by a rigid bar to another large body. Then you can apply a force to the ball, and the entire system of ball rod and large body will experience a torque and start to rotate.
That is because the whole system is the body and has a COM not centered on the ball.
Not our situation with the ball is the only body.
Here’s how it’s gone down:
I give two clear examples of objects moving around the Earth like the MOTL where there is obviously no torque about the object’s internal axis.
Nate casually reverses the burden of proof and expects me to provide evidence that there is no torque about the internal axis (!)
I point out that if there is torque, it’s about the external axis, and not the internal axis. Nate casually denies the entire concept of torque being applied to an external axis.
I cannot give you a whole physics course. I can only try to explain things.
I think that you understand that a force applied thru the COM of body cannot cause the body to rotate.
Pretty simple really.
Hold a meter on a finger place under its 50 cm mark. Now lift. It moves upward but does not rotate.
The string is acting through the CoM of the cannonball. The cannonball is just hanging there. There is absolutely no way the string can apply a torque about the internal axis of the cannonball. Yet you just say it must and start playing the teacher, appealing to your own authority, again.
How does the astronaut “reorient” himself? Are you claiming there is a torque acting about his internal axis, too?
“there is obviously no torque about the objects internal axis.”
Totally false. You only asserted that there was no torque on the airplane. But clearly the air flow orients the nose to point forward. That is a torque.
And again. These bodies acquired rotation, which they cannot do without torque applied to them.
You have no alternative explanation for them to acquire rotation, as explained ad nauseum.
Sorry that you can’t do physics.
“The string is acting through the CoM of the cannonball. The cannonball is just hanging there.”
So you assert.
You have to think it thru. At the start the string is pointing in some direction. Later the string is pointing 90 degrees from its initial direction. That means as the guy walks the string is rotating, and will always be slightly ahead in angle, thus pulling sideways on the ball.
I can’t prove a negative here, Nate. It’s on you to provide evidence that there is torque about the internal axis of the aircraft in order for it to move as per the MOTL, or torque about the internal axis of the ball. You can obfuscate on the aircraft, and you have done, extensively, but it’s a lot harder for you to obfuscate on the cannonball.
You are talking utter nonsense, Nate.
How does the astronaut “reorient” himself? Are you claiming there is a torque acting about his internal axis, too?
After all, he too changes in orientation through 360 degrees as he circumnavigates the globe. Surely he’s just…walking?
“After all, he too changes in orientation”
Yep we agree on that.
The point is all the objects, the airplane, the cannonball, even the BOS have acquired rotation.
By Newtons first law, and common sense, these bodies need to have a torque applied to them.
And with only a force thru the COM, as you assert, then they will not start to rotate.
Explain how in your view, they acquire rotation.
Nate can’t answer the question I asked, because he knows if he says, “yes, there is a torque about the astronaut’s internal axis” (which is what he has to say to maintain his position) then he will be even more of a laughing stock than he is already.
Shall we not get further distracted by talking about yet another body? I have no special interest in that guy.
The main issue is how does one explain how any of these bodies acquire rotation, when the only force on them is through their COM.
Explain your idea of how they acquire rotation.
Nate, they don’t “acquire rotation” about their internal axis, because they’re not “spinning”!
Funnily enough, the astronaut isn’t considered to be “spinning” as he stands there, motionless, about to start his historic journey…and so as he then takes “one small step for man”, he’s still not “spinning”!
The astronaut, however, could be considered to be “orbiting” as he takes his “one giant leap for mankind”, forward.
[How silly is this discussion going to get?]
Ok then, what is wrong with the astronomical understanding that the moon orbits the earth while rotating on its axis?
“It’s based entirely on the idea that the motion “orbit without spin”, or ‘Geoffrey’, is as per the MOTR. As I’m currently discussing with Nate, there is actually no ‘sound rationale’ (Nate term) for the motion ‘orbit without spin’, or ‘Geoffrey’, to be as per the MOTR.”
I haven’t followed your convo with Nate. Not going to.
If rotation for celestial bodies is determined relative to the fixed stars, or at least an inertial reference frame – which is the universally used standard – then the ‘rationale’ for orbit without spin is as the MOTR is the frame is taken to be the fixed stars. The frame around the two Earth/moons will suffice.
“Have you conceded that reference frames are not the issue”
Clearly not.
“and that a ball on a string does not rotate about an axis passing through the ball itself?”
I’m not convinced depending of FOR.
I’ve a question for you. Is there any difference in your mind between the terms ‘rotation’ and ‘spin’. I ask because you agreed that the moon rotates WRT the fixed stars. If so, explain the difference, please.
barry, “orbit without spin” is a motion.
Astronomy quantifies the “spin” rate of an orbiting body wrt an inertial reference frame. This automatically treats “orbit without spin” as though it were motion like the MOTR.
That doesn’t mean that “orbit without spin” actually is motion as per the MOTR.
Once you’ve understood that, you’ll understand why reference frames are not the issue.
“barry, “orbit without spin” is a motion…”
I’ll elaborate. “Orbit without spin” is a motion, and the orbiting object’s linear momentum, and the force of gravity, combine to create said motion. See Gordon’s post further down-thread. That motion will either be like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
That’s the consideration. Does the orbiting object’s linear momentum, and the force of gravity, combine to create motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
That is obviously not something that is decided by a choice of reference frame. As you point out, the GIF itself is already presented to us as though it were wrt an inertial reference frame. So, that is not the issue. We need to go deeper.
“Nate, they dont acquire rotation about their internal axis, because theyre not spinning!”
I can always tell when you have no answer, you start talking about ‘spin’.
Doesn’t matter what you call it, we both agree that these bodies acquired a rotation (orientational change) wrt the inertial frame. This an extra motion that does not happen by magic. It has to have a cause.
Explain the cause for the ball hung by the string.
According to Newtons first law, which is not just a suggestion, the only possible cause is torque.
BTW, we can make your example simpler. We can have the dude holding the ball on a string simple walk in a small circle.
Let’s put a red dot on the ball facing the dudes direction of travel (say North) as he starts walking.
Let’s assume the string is very thin and thus does not produce any torque on the ball as the dude walks in a circle.
What does the red dot do? Does it continue to point North? Or does it follow the direction the dude walks?
Lol, Nate…it does matter what axis the torque is applied to…internal or external! Obviously, when I mention “spin”, I have already explained that I’m referring to rotation about an internal axis. It’s not like I haven’t made that perfectly clear.
The astronaut is not “spinning” as he circumnavigates the globe. It may make more sense to you to think of him “rotating about an external axis” located within the Earth, as he circumnavigates the globe. He changes in orientation due to that “rotation about an external axis”…not because he’s “spinning”!
Now…you can say that’s silly if you like…but it’s come down to this:
1) Either the astronaut is “spinning” as he walks, and everyone on Earth is supposed to somehow experience some torque about their own internal axis as they move about to keep them oriented in line with the curvature of the Earth…
2) or, Newton’s first law of rotation is wrong, or at least shouldn’t be applied when it comes to orbital motion…or perhaps should be considered to apply wrt an ECEF reference frame in this instance.
3) or, we’re all “rotating about an external axis”, located within the Earth, as we move about the surface, and the torque is applied about that axis.
So it is clear you have no answers for why the ball in your scenario starts rotating, since you now want to talk only about the astronaut.
Endless evasion and obfuscation.
“it does matter what axis the torque is applied tointernal or external!”
Ok so what torque is applied to the ball hanging by the string in your initial scenario, and in my new scenario?
The cannonball and string are essentially just another part of the astronaut, Nate. You saying there must be some torque applied to the cannonball’s internal axis by the string is no different to saying there must be some torque applied to the astronaut’s internal axis to keep him oriented as per the MOTL whilst he walks. They are also equally absurd.
But, we already know you will defend any point to hold onto your beliefs, no matter how absurd.
“Astronomy quantifies the ‘spin’ rate of an orbiting body wrt an inertial reference frame. This automatically treats ‘orbit without spin’ as though it were motion like the MOTR.”
Yes, you have correctly identified how astronomy looks at it, which I already agreed you’d agreed to.
“That doesn’t mean that ‘orbit without spin’ actually is motion as per the MOTR.”
Why not?
“Once you’ve understood that, you’ll understand why reference frames are not the issue.”
As you haven’t explained why you think orbit without spin isn’t/isn’t necessarily a motion (your text doesn’t land on a position), there is nothing for me to understand. These are a bunch of statements with no argumentation.
“Does the orbiting objects linear momentum, and the force of gravity, combine to create motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR?”
Neither. The force of gravity binds the object to its orbit. It is not a piece of string attached to a ball. There is no mechanism affecting rotation.
That’s why when we send satellites aloft they rotate at the same angular momentum they have when atmospheric drag is gone (or greatly reduced). And if they were perfect spheres this is how they would stay, rotating under inertia at the same rate as the last burst of propulsion/drag gave it.
And that is why after we send satellites aloft we have to manually correct them to come into a rotation that keeps one face pointing at the planet. If they broke from orbit outward, they would continue to rotate, but now we would see all sides as they left the system, because they are no longer orbiting at the same rate as rotation.
Astronomy has it right, and astronomy has published the value for the moon’s rotational angular momentum.
Feel like answering if you think there is any difference between rotation and spin, and if so, what it is?
“Astronomy quantifies the ‘spin’ rate of an orbiting body wrt an inertial reference frame. This automatically treats ‘orbit without spin’ as though it were motion like the MOTR.”
Yes, you have correctly identified how astronomy looks at it, which I already pointed out you’d agreed to.
“That doesn’t mean that ‘orbit without spin’ actually is motion as per the MOTR.”
Why not?
“Once you’ve understood that, you’ll understand why reference frames are not the issue.”
As you havent explained why you think orbit without spin isn’t/isn’t necessarily a motion (your text doesn’t land on a position), there is nothing for me to understand. These are a bunch of statements with no thread of argumentation.
“Does the orbiting objects linear momentum, and the force of gravity, combine to create motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR?”
Neither. The force of gravity binds the object to its orbit. It is not a piece of string attached to a ball. There is no mechanism affecting rotation.
That’s why when we send satellites aloft they rotate at the same angular momentum they have when atmospheric drag is gone (or greatly reduced). And if they were perfect spheres this is how they would stay, rotating under inertia at the same rate as the last burst of propulsion/drag gave it.
And that is why after we send satellites aloft we have to manually correct them to come into a rotation that keeps one face pointing at the planet. If they broke from orbit outward, they would continue to rotate, but now we would see all sides as they left the system, because they are no longer orbiting at the same rate as rotation. Astronomy has it right, and astronomy has published the value for the moons rotational angular momentum. Feel like answering if you think there is any difference between rotation and spin, and if so, what it is?
[I mistakenly put Nate’s name in my name box – looks like i’ve copied his name and it has somehow landed there as an auto option. It’s in moderation, so if it pops up, know that it was me, not Nate that posted what is almost identical to the above.]
“And that is why after we send satellites aloft we have to manually correct them to come into a rotation that keeps one face pointing at the planet.“
After we send satellites aloft we have to manually correct them to move like the MOTR, as well, barry. You really don’t have a point.
And you still don’t understand the basics of the moon discussion. Not my problem. Try harder.
“The cannonball and string are essentially just another part of the astronaut”
No they are not. The string is not rigid.
And again you evade answering my simple question about what torque is applied to the ball.
It is patently obvious that you have no answer.
Then you must understand that means the ball is acquiring rotation by no cause at all!
Clown Nate, you have to defend position 1) for the “Spinners” to be correct.
Good luck with that!
Desperation. So the name calling ensues.
“Then you must understand that means the ball is acquiring rotation by no cause at all!”
And by your total lack of an answer, we can assume that the cause is magic.
Got it!
You have to defend position 1), Nate, for the “Spinners” to be correct.
Good luck with that!
Since you have no answer, I can answer for you.
In order to follow the astronaut as he walks, the ball must have a force on it in the direction of motion. That can only come from the string.
If the string is vertical it applies no force in the direction of motion. Thus the string must make a slight angle with vertical. Then it has a small component of force in the horizontal direction.
And BTW, there will be a slight drag force from the air, so the horizontal string force must always be present to counter this.
But that horizontal component of force applied to the surface of the ball can produce a torque on the ball around its COM.
And this torque gives the ball its rotation.
Newton is again validated.
My answer was explained in position 3), Nate.
You have to defend position 1), for the “Spinners” to be correct.
Good luck with that!
P.S:
“We strip the Earth’s surface of its atmosphere. Instead of a cannon launching the ball, let the ball be carried, dangling on the end of a string…”
“And BTW, there will be a slight drag force from the air, so the horizontal string force must always be present to counter this”
OK fine. Without drag, only the torque applied initially as the astronaut starts walking, gives the ball its momentum and rotation, which by Newtons law continues.
“3) or, were all rotating about an external axis, located within the Earth, as we move about the surface, and the torque is applied about that axis.”
Ok. You need to understand what torque applied on a cannoball about an external axis can and cannot do.
If force is applied sideways on the cannonball only thru its COM, then that cannot cause the ball to rotate around the COM or any other axis. It is a torque around the external axis Fr, where r is the distance to the axis.
What it can do is cause the cannonball to translate sideways. That motion gives orbital angular momentum, mvr, which produces an orbit like the MOTR.
And Newtons Law says torque produces angular momentum. So it is satisfied.
The key point is that this external torque cannot make the ball rotate like the MOTL. Only like the MOTR.
If you want to disagree, find a proper physics source to support that.
“If force is applied sideways on the cannonball only thru its COM, then that cannot cause the ball to rotate around the COM or any other axis.“
There is not only that sideways force, though. There is also, simultaneously, a downward force. Gravity.
But, you don’t have to accept position 3) as being correct.
The pickle you are in is that you have to defend position 1) as being correct, for the “Spinners” to be right.
Good luck with that.
It is already silly enough what you’ve said about the cannonball, and the aircraft.
Like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
Just imagine the “ball” here is the head of the astronaut. Sure, he’s not to any sort of reasonable scale, but you get what I mean. There’s gravity, pointing towards the external axis at all times, and there’s your “sideways force” perpendicular to it. Both happening together. You only ever consider each in isolation, for some reason.
Nate is very confused about rotation. Earlier, he made this bizarre statement:
“Incorrect. The ball cannot begin to rotate about any axis, unless it experiences a torque on the BALL.”
Which was in response to:
“The [tether]ball rotates about the external axis. No torque is applied about the internal axis of the [tether]ball, and so the [tether]ball is not rotating about that internal axis”.
So, it’s like he’s saying that the tetherball cannot rotate about an external axis unless it experiences a torque about the tetherball’s internal axis! Which is obviously wrong. If the tetherball were rotating about two axes of rotation, it would have to be wrapping itself up in the string!
The things they come out with…
“There is not only that sideways force, though. There is also, simultaneously, a downward force. Gravity.”
Yes there is, but that doesn’t produce torque, as we discussed. It is a force acting through the COM of the ball and thru the external axis as well!
Nice try. But you are just throwing random things at the wall and nothing sticks.
“So, its like hes saying that the tetherball cannot rotate about an external axis unless it experiences a torque about the tetherballs internal axis! Which is obviously wrong.”
You keep choosing examples that are more complicated than necessary. Again strings! Which control the orientation of the body quite unlike gravity.
I’m am saying that the ball, like the other cases, requires torque around its com to acquire rotation.
Again, if it was attached rigidly to another body, then the COM of that system is no longer in the ball, then applying a force on the ball COULD cause the system to rotate.
“Yes there is, but that doesn’t produce torque, as we discussed…”
Gravity, on its own, produces no torque about a sphere’s internal axis. That’s what we discussed, and agreed.
Gravity in combination with your “sideways force” can produce a torque about a sphere’s external axis.
You always look at either gravity or the “sideways force” in isolation, and conflate different axes, for some reason.
“And you still don’t understand the basics of the moon discussion. Not my problem.”
You haven’t made an argument, just a bunch of assertions,most of which I don’t agree with, and have explained why.
Until you either make an argument for why these assertions are valid, or at least reply to the various points I have made much better than simply referring back to your assertions, then the lack here is definitely yours. From my point of view you are mostly dodging my points.
Eg, (3rd time lucky), is there any difference in your mind between ‘rotating’ and ‘spinning’, and if so, what is it?
Surely definition of terms is a basic place to pinpoint common ground or difference.
“I’m am saying that the ball, like the other cases, requires torque around its com to acquire rotation.”
Lol. So, exactly like I said, you are claiming the tetherball requires torque about its internal axis in order to rotate about its external axis! Which would mean it would then be rotating about two axes, and have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
You are seriously confused about rotation.
Sorry, barry, but what you see as mere “assertions” are actually statements made as a result of winning years of arguments on this subject. I can’t be bothered to go through it all again with you, just because you decide to resurface on this issue occasionally, say lots of wrong things and then eventually disappear again.
Here is a link to where I defined my terms, and explained in a very simple and concise manner the basics of the moon issue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700102
Try reading through every comment under this thread and the one linked to at the beginning of this thread. When you’re up to speed, I will let you know. You’re nowhere close to understanding, and your interruptions in my discussion with Nate are frankly just a little annoying.
And yet I’m not wrong:
Google/AI says:
“When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.”
One single force, again. Never the combination.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700299
“1) Either the astronaut is “spinning” as he walks, and everyone on Earth is supposed to somehow experience some torque about their own internal axis as they move about to keep them oriented in line with the curvature of the Earth…”
That’s what you have to defend, in order for the “Spinners” to be correct, Nate.
Let’s not lose sight of that.
Nah, Basically youre demonstrating that you havent paid attention to anything in this long discussion.
There is no perception by humans of the rotation of the Earth nor the tiny forces acting on them as a result of it.
So this proves nothing at all.
The lying begins.
You have to defend position 1), Nate. I’m sorry that your position is so ridiculous, but it is what it is.
As you have argued that every change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame that an object experiences requires a torque about that object’s internal axis, then it follows that:
1) Every person walking on the face of the Earth will be reorienting themselves slightly wrt an inertial reference frame, thus according to you they require a torque about their own internal axes in order to do so.
2) A ship sailing across the Pacific will be reorienting itself wrt an inertial reference frame, thus according to you will require a torque about its own internal axis in order to do so.
3) A car driving in a straight line down a long highway will be reorienting itself wrt an inertial reference frame, thus according to you will require a torque about its internal axis in order to do so.
4) An aircraft circumnavigating the globe will be reorienting itself wrt an inertial reference frame, thus according to you will require a torque about its own internal axis in order to do so.
You’ve got some explaining to do! I’ll get my popcorn.
“As you have argued that every change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame that an object experiences requires a torque about that objects internal axis, then it follows that”
As I’ve been saying, the difference between you and me is that I know the laws of physics are valid.
While you tend think they are just a suggestion, and definitely don’t apply if they disagree with your beliefs!
Once again, your incredulity is not an argument!
Nate lies again, this time by (once again) pretending I’m disputing a law of physics. He knows my position is 3), not 2). In fact, he knew that before this discussion even began. He knew what my position was years ago, for crying out loud!
What causes the torque you imagine exists in each of the four cases, Nate?
“1) Every person walking on the face of the Earth will be reorienting themselves slightly wrt an inertial reference frame, thus according to you they require a torque about their own internal axes in order to do so.”
As a matter of fact, gyroscopes, like those used on aircraft, are able to detect the tiny torques that result from the rotation of the Earth.
https://youtu.be/28sJaLtefRg?si=b2Dny39qNQG6T79-
They are imperceptible to humans but are still there!
Facts are not your friends.
Nate lies again, this time by pretending that we’re talking about tiny torques due to the rotation of the Earth.
No, Nate. We were not talking about that.
What produces the torque you imagine exists in each of the four cases?
What lies?
I’m simply pointing out that your incredulity of the consequences of the laws of physics, which always rear their ugly head, are not ever a valid argument.
Your incredulity is not shared by others.
Nate lies again, by pretending that I haven’t explained exactly how he’s lying.
Answer the question or concede, Nate. Your choice.
Look it is obvious that you are just throwing endless list of BS examples against the wall. But you need to understand that in each case the same general principles apply. The same laws of physics apply.
I am not disputing the laws of physics, Nate. As I have repeatedly explained.
I would love to hear your answer on 1), 2) or 3). You already answered on 4), but your obfuscation was so amusing, I’d love to hear it a second time.
‘Geoffrey’ ‘bob’ was where I stopped reading, that was a clunky, confusing post just because you were exasperated with terminology. I had another look at it.
The Earth moves about one degree along the arc of its orbital path for every rotation.
The Moon moves 360 along its orbital arc for each rotation.
The MOTR is orbit without rotation.
Instantly release the Moon from Earth’s gravity and it will continue to rotate WRT the fixed stars at the same rate. The rotational angular momentum has long been calculated.
I still didn’t see any argumentation in that clunky post, just a list of options. It’s not hard to understand what you wrote once the names were replaced with what they stood for, I just can’t find any conclusive argumentation in it.
“After we send satellites aloft we have to manually correct them to move like the MOTR, as well, barry. You really dont have a point.”
Well they are launched into an orbit from the Earth without spin (or they crash). They then don’t settle into the pattern you say is “orbit without spin,” even though they are launched like that.
If a sphere were launched vertically from the moon for a lunar orbit with no drag, no propulsion anomalies and the other planets having no effect, it would have zero rotation WRT the fixed stars. The thrusters are along the centre of mass, so they impart no torque as they achieve orbit, they just change the trajectory.
It’s not meant to be “argumentation”, it’s what the moon issue is, barry. It’s what the dispute is between the two sides of the debate.
Did you understand it? Can you mentally add two motions together?
“Well they are launched into an orbit from the Earth without spin (or they crash). They then don’t settle into the pattern you say is “orbit without spin,” even though they are launched like that.”
Nor do they settle into a pattern that the “Spinners” say is “orbit without spin”, barry. You don’t have a point, again.
Please stop interrupting when I’m at a crucial point in the discussion with Nate.
“It’s not meant to be “argumentation”, it’s what the moon issue is, barry. It’s what the dispute is between the two sides of the debate.”
Well thank you, but far from not understanding “the dispute” (which is actually several different disputes between different people), I understood the non-spinner position even before we had the two-moon gif.
“what you see as mere ‘assertions’ are actually statements made as a result of winning years of arguments on this subject”
Winning according to who? Certainly none of the people here who disagree with you.
There you go again asserting something as if it were fact. This factoid takes a special kind of arrogance to assert.
You haven’t “won” this argument. The entire field of astronomy disagrees with you, not just the people here, so the hubris of your claim is spectacular.
And as you have preferred to reiterate your “winner” assertions instead of explain them, and as you’ve avoided answering a range of points I’ve offered with this mantra, you’re sitting on a papier mache edifice claiming it’s rock solid.
I don’t have to read through the comments to know that Nate will have made the same criticism. This is your MO. When you can’t respond to points you just reiterate your assertions and claim victory.
By the way, I’ve been working in a different city, so pouting about me ‘leaving the room’ and then complaining I’m interrupting when I have time to respond is quite petulant. If you don’t want to be “interrupted,” don’t respond to me. Ignore my posts. Might as well. You’ve been ignoring most of the points.
I’ll repeat this point. Maybe you can have two conversation at once.
If a sphere were launched vertically from the moon for a lunar orbit with no drag, no propulsion anomalies and the other planets having no effect, it would have zero rotation WRT the fixed stars. The thrusters are along the centre of mass, so they impart no torque as they achieve orbit, they just change the trajectory.
The sphere satellite becomes the MOTR, because no torque has been applied to it. It’s not rotating.
If you read through the discussion with Nate, you might understand why “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, and not the MOTR, barry.
Your “points” have amounted to nothing more than statements (assertions) based on the idea that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. You have done nothing to explain why you think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, in the first place. In fact, it appears you’ve never even considered it.
Perhaps your purpose here is to help Nate out of the tricky spot he’s in by diverting the flow of the discussion. I won’t allow that to happen, barry.
“I am not disputing the laws of physics, Nate. As I have repeatedly explained.”
So you claim. But then turn around and suggest that there is somehow a way around Newtons Laws.
” You already answered on 4),”
Yep I explained 4 thoroughly, and you had no substantive response, ither than yo express your personal disbelief that and airplane would experience torque, and to obey Newtons Law which requires it to have experience a torque as it rotates to align with local horizontal.
“I would love to hear your answer on 1), 2) or 3).”
They are all the same. You expressed astonishment that these bodies would experience torque. That is not an argument.
You need to articulate a real argument as to why these bodies should not be experiencing torque.
Like airplanes, ships have gyroscopes on board to aid in navigation. These are aligned with a star for example. If bolted to the ship and the ship turns, the gyroscopes detect that as a torque. They are very sensitive to torque.
So as the ship travels away from a port over the horizon, and we observe it with a telescope, we will see it that is bow is tilted slightly downward compared to its stern. It is conforming to the curvature of the Earth.
As the ship tilts, it will tilt its gyroscope away from its alignment with a star, and the gyroscope will detect that as a torque. It is bolted to the ship, so the ship is experiencing torque.
“If you read through the discussion with Nate, you might understand why ‘orbit without spin’ is as per the MOTL”
Given that you again snd again evaded giving any sound physical rationale for you POV, I don’t see how Barry can learn what it is from this discussion!
Maybe you can point out where you did that?
The false accusations and evasions continue.
I’m not disputing the laws of physics, as I agree that the aircraft and the ship are experiencing a torque…about their external axis, located within the Earth. I explained, to the best of my ability, what produces that torque.
Your challenge, since you don’t think there is a torque about their external axis, is to explain what produces the torque about their internal axis.
“The thrusters are along the centre of mass, so they impart no torque as they achieve orbit, they just change the trajectory.
The sphere satellite becomes the MOTR, because no torque has been applied to it. Its not rotating”
Yep, well articulated explanation by Barry. Agrees with the laws of physics and common sense. No magic invoked.
Try it yourself DREMT.
“ship are experiencing a torqueabout their external axis”
Again, that would not result in rotation of the ship.
Google/AI says:
When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.
We are now using barry’s “points” as another evasion tactic? Predictable. OK then:
“The sphere satellite becomes the MOTR…”
How so? You’ve already said there is nothing to produce torque about the sphere’s internal axis. I understand what produces the torque about the sphere’s external axis, located within the moon itself, but that results in movement like the MOTL (see the discussion with Nate). So unless there is something to also produce a torque about the sphere’s internal axis, it won’t move as per the MOTR.
So I read Nate’s reply under my last comment, and what do I find? Exactly what I expected.
“Given that you again and again evaded giving any sound physical rationale for you POV, I dont see how Barry can learn what it is from this discussion!
Maybe you can point out where you did that?”
I’m glad I didn’t wade through the long conversation.
That’s both of us waiting for your reasoned argument, DREMT.
You’re welcome to tell me what is wrong with my explanation Nate quoted.
“Again, that would not result in rotation of the ship.
Google/AI says:
When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.”
Sure it would, Nate. Remember, there is more than one force involved. So your Google/AI search result is insufficient to address the argument raised.
More to the point, if the ship is not rotating about an external axis, and it’s moving like the MOTL, then it would have to be rotating about an internal axis.
What could possibly produce the torque about the ship’s internal axis if that were the case?
“How so? You’ve already said there is nothing to produce torque about the sphere’s internal axis. I understand what produces the torque about the sphere’s external axis, located within the moon itself, but that results in movement like the MOTL”
Here is your assertion again. You have not explained why the force of gravity has any bearing on the orientation of the orbiting object. This is something you simply announce with no description of the force or mechanism making it happen. You just say,”the orbit does it!” Well, HOW?
The sphere heads upwards from the surface. It’s thrust is towards the distant stars, and there is slight lateral movement from the momentum of the Moon’s surface. The thrusters, located at the centre of mass of the sphere change their orientation during the ascent, altering the trajectory of the sphere,but imparting no torque. Because no torque is applied the sphere maintains the same orientation with respect to the distant stars it aimed at when it launched. When it achieves orbit, the orientation is maintained because no torque has been applied to make the sphere change its orientation WRT the distant stars. We have the MOTR operating.
Now explain what mechanisms, in your mind, are at work making the sphere change its orientation relative to the fixed stars. The Moon’s gravity keeps it orbiting, but how does the moon’s gravity get the sphere to change its orientation? The ‘torque’ that external axis is applying is only to the sphere’s COM, which keeps it orbiting. How do you imagine it gets the sphere to turn from its original orientation at launch?
Is it magic? If not, describe how the force/s act on the sphere to make it change its launch orientation?
“Here is your assertion again. You have not explained why the force of gravity has any bearing on the orientation of the orbiting object.”
It doesn’t, if acting on its own, barry. But, it doesn’t act on its own. Perhaps it’s time you read through the discussion?
“Remember, there is more than one force involved”
Yep, think! If both are through the COM then neither produces a torque. They simply produce translation in the direction of their net (summed) force.
So, Nate is now arguing there is no torque about the external axis.
However, the ship moves as per the MOTL.
So, if it’s not rotating about an external axis, then it must be rotating about an internal axis.
One more time I will ask Nate the question:
What could possibly produce the torque about the ship’s internal axis?
“It doesnt, if acting on its own, barry. But, it doesnt act on its own. Perhaps its time you read through the discussion?”
Notice the vagueness here. Not to worry, Barry. There is nothing in the discussion any less vague.
Nate dodges the question for about the 100th time.
“So, if its not rotating about an external axis, then it must be rotating about an internal axis.”
Yep, and notice you agree that can give motion like the MOTL!
“One more time I will ask Nate the question:
What could possibly produce the torque about the ships internal axis”
If you are driving in a car on a flat road, then encounter a hill, what caused the car to tilt upwards as it climbs the hill?
Figure that out and you will have your answer for how any vehicle can orient to its local horizontal.
Nate dodges the question for the 101st time, this time by asking another question.
I want YOU to figure it out. If you do, then you will ‘get it’. If I again explain things, you will again not ‘get it’.
On and on we will go.
Try this one:
If the car is tilted upward as it climbs a hill, then when it reaches the top, tilts back down to horizontal, what makes it change its orientation to match the road?
Nate, if you can’t answer the question I asked you, just admit it.
It’s OK.
Let’s clarify a couple of things first.
You do understand that the car, in order to conform its orientation to that of the road, will need to experience torques about its COM?
I hope so.
But you need me to figure out what causes those torques? Yes?
Same for the ship. You cannot figure out what is causing the torque on it. Need me to explain.
But you are certain that there are none?
Yes?
Nate, I don’t dispute that, for example, the aircraft can pitch up or down, thus rotate about its own internal axis. That is how it is designed. However, your own cherry-picked comment made clear:
“As long as the aircraft is flown at a constant ambient pressure (hence constant altitude), it will be following the earth’s curvature (as the atmosphere is attached to the spherical earth and has same properties at same distance from the center, in an ideal case)”.
Once at the correct altitude it just follows the Earth’s curvature. No torque about the aircraft’s internal axis required.
So we’re back to the aircraft?
It sounds like you understand that all these vehicles need to experience torques. And you really are not interested in the specific causes of these torques anymore?
Yes, the aircraft needs to follow the curvature of the Earth, it does so by staying at the same altitude. It does so by the pilot adjusting the nose upward or downward w torque, to climb or descend to keep at the right altitude.
Let’s say the plane flies in a perfectly straight line, the Earth curves downward, thus the plane by flying straight is gaining altitude, so it descends ( again pointing the nose a bit downward, with torque) to find the correct altitude.
Same for ship or car. The ocean curves downward. These are pulled down by gravity until something, the road or ocean, stops them by pushing up on them. If the front of the ship (car) is higher than the surface, then the back of the ship(car) experience more upward force which produces torque to make the vehicle tilt down to horizontal.
Nate, any honest reading of my aviation stack exchange link makes perfectly clear that there is no pitch adjustment necessary for the aircraft to follow the curvature of the Earth.
For the land and sea-based examples I now realise that there are endless ways for you to obfuscate, as well.
Oh well.
“For the land and sea-based examples I now realise that there are endless ways for you to obfuscate, as well.”
Just as I predicted. You can not explain how the car adjusts its orientation to match the road. Need me to give it to you. Same for other vehicles.
Of course when I give it to you, you label it obfuscation.
Not good enough. What specifically do you find objectionable?
“there is no pitch adjustment necessary for the aircraft to follow the curvature of the Earth.”
So you claim. How do you know?
How do you think the plane ascends or descends?
What causes the nose to point in the direction of travel? Hint: if it doesn’t the plane will experience torque to bring it back into that direction.
The aircraft can adjust its altitude, to an extent, simply by accelerating or decelerating. See Gordon’s post. Read the aviation stack exchange link. But, it doesn’t need to adjust its altitude to follow the curvature of the Earth in any case. You seem to picture it flying off into space unless there is a torque about its internal axis!
What I find objectionable to your explanations is your apparent assumption that the objects would simply travel in a straight line if not for some torque about their internal axis. It’s especially absurd when it comes to the car, or the ship. It’s like you picture them as somehow levitating just above the surface, or something…totally unaffected by gravity.
Here I should remind you that you were trying to use aircraft as a model for orbital motion.
Here again I will remind you that airplanes must keep their nose forward in the direction of travel because there are aerodynamic forces driving it into that direction.
While orbiting objects do not have that feature. They do not need to orbit with nose forward.
Thus as Barry perfectly demonstrated, with no additional effort, they will keep their orientation fixed at what it was when they entered orbit.
They orbit like the MOTR.
Meanwhile your answer for this is still MIA.
Actually Nate, I was not really using an aircraft as a model for orbital motion, so much as I was using it to point out that an object can move like the MOTL without requiring a torque about its internal axis. I think that point was made successfully a long time ago, as well!
“Its like you picture them as somehow levitating just above the surface, or somethingtotally unaffected by gravity.”
Not at all!
“These are pulled down by gravity until something, the road or ocean, stops them by pushing up on them.”
A car responds to the downward crvature of the Earth in the same way that it
drives over a long low hill. As it encounters the downward curvature of the hill, its front end tilts down.
How? By magic?
No, torque. Caused by a difference between the road force on the front vs the back wheels.
I get it, this not your area of expertise, so it is hard for you.
“point out that an object can move like the MOTL without requiring a torque about its internal axis. I think that point was made successfully a long time ago, as well!”
BS. Where did you demonstrate no torque.
The airplane is a perfect vehicle for your obfuscation, since you can assert anything you want about it.
A good analogy is one in which it is perfectly clear to all how it works.
No torque about the internal axis, Nate.
Instead of becoming belligerent, how about another attempt at a deal?
Since we have by now demonstrated that the moon issue is entirely about whether the motion “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR, and thus reference frames are not the issue…how about you at least concede that reference frames are not the issue, before we continue?
I’ll offer the same deal to barry.
“Concede to proceed”.
As I made it abundantly clear from our previous discussion, Astronomy uses the inertial for all motion.
And your choice to use a different reference frame, a rotating one, for one type of motion, spin, is illogical and inconsistent.
They do matter.
And BTW, in this discussion you indicated that rotation around th COM of a body (spin) can produce MOTL motion.
Sure, Nate, MOTL movement could involve “spin”….if “orbit without spin” were as per the MOTR. Unfortunately, it isn’t.
And, Astronomy quantifying the “spin” rate of an orbiting object wrt an inertial reference frame is what has led to “the mistake”. Just because they quantify something that way does not make “orbit without spin”, the motion, actually motion like the MOTR!
The consideration is first whether “orbit without spin” is a motion like the MOTL or the MOTR. Then the reference frame type used for “spin” rate quantification follows from that.
Which is why reference frames are not the issue.
Not that they “don’t matter”. But, they are not the issue.
And, you can concede that, to proceed.
You keep resorting to the Motte-Bailey fallacy:
You keep asserting something indefensible:
“If orbit without spin were as MOTR. Unfortunately it isnt.”
When repeatedly challenged by Barry and me, who clearly explained why it IS like MOTR,
you retreat to to the defensible:
“) Orbit without spin this is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR, depending on which side of the debate you are on.”
or change the subject!
Or try to bully.
It is obvious that you have no rationale.
It is really rather boring.
Your false accusations are extremely boring, Nate…but nothing is more boring than your pathological inability to concede even the slightest point.
Concede to proceed.
“The ocean curves downward. These are pulled down by gravity until something, the road or ocean, stops them by pushing up on them. If the front of the ship (car) is higher than the surface, then the back of the ship(car) experience more upward force…”
The ground/ocean pushes upwards, exerting an upward force!? If the front of the ship/car is higher than the surface!? What, you mean…lifted off the ground/ocean!?
I’ve heard of the force of gravity, I’ve never heard of an opposing upward force from the ground itself. I wonder what Nate calls it? Is the ground often pushing upwards against him when he walks around?
So many questions…
“It doesn’t, if acting on its own, barry. But, it doesn’t act on its own. Perhaps it’s time you read through the discussion?”
So you can’t or won’t describe how the gravity well that produces an orbit also determined the orientation of the orbiting object?
I know you won’t have explained this above. I see Nate confirms. We are both waiting explanations from you that you keep pointing in vague directions to, but never actually articulate.
When we launch our spherical satellite from the surface of the moon it has a black dot on the leading surface, pointing at a star directly overhead the surface.
As we adjust the thrusters arranged around its centre of mass to change its trajectory, no torque is being applied. The black dot still points at the distant star.
Eventually orbit is achieved and the black dot is still pointing in the direction of the star, because there has been no force applied to change the orientation of the sphere.
Yet you believe that the sphere would now keep one face to the moon, because, for some reason not yet articulated, the orbit determines this.
What force acts on the sphere to change its orientation from the original launch orientation? How does this happen in a way that is consistent with physics?
Don’t be vague, be precise.
Why don’t you ask Nate about his upward force from the ground that apparently can lift and torque objects about their internal axis, barry? It’s like normal force gone mad.
Oh wait, you’re not reading the discussion that you’re so desperate to join in on. I forgot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700249
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700299
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700327
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700328
“Orbit without spin” is the result of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the object’s linear momentum (see animation in fourth link). It’s not gravity alone producing the change in orientation. That’s the straw man you both keep constantly attacking.
Oh, and why not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700193
I directed you to that comment earlier, but you must not have read it.
Re the aircraft, have a look through here:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea
and see if you can find any mention of any torque about an internal axis being required to keep the aircraft moving as per the MOTL.
Cheers!
The image in the 4th link is described thus:
“In this experiment Newton visualizes a cannon on top of a very high mountain.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
So you are saying that the moon acts as if it is mechanically attached to the Earth? If so I explained why this view was faulty in my 2nd comment in this subthread.
Even if everything you said about the ball on a string were true, it still would not apply to the moon. Its face is not mechanically attached to the earth, and it exhibits freedom of movement (libration) that the ball does not. We have direct observational evidence that the moon is not tethered like the ball on a string, and its movement is perfectly explained by rotation under tidal locking. A rotating reference [frame] is inadequate as it can’t account for libration.
“It’s not gravity alone producing the change in orientation.”
Great! Then please name and describe this force. I asked you not to be vague, and this is your answer, unfortunately (plus a graphic representing an object that is stuck onto the surface of the Earth).
When will you give a detailed explanation of this force that explains why the satellite sphere changes from its launch orientation to one that keeps one face of it pointing at the moon? How is torque applied to the sphere to make it change its orientation from pointing at the star at launch to continually facing the lunar surface when in orbit? Because the only lunar force I see acting on the sphere is a gravity well that maintains orbit, but has no effect on rotation.
barry, I at least expected you to read the linked comments, and understand that the animation does not involve the object being “stuck” to anything. It is launched from the cannon.
It shows the vector for gravity and the vector for linear momentum at right angles to it. What don’t you understand?
“I know you won’t have explained this above“
I’ll await your apology for this comment.
“It is launched from the cannon.
It shows the vector for gravity and the vector for linear momentum at right angles to it. What don’t you understand?”
My mistake, the object is a cannonball launched from the canon.
Newton’s principles here do not apply to the orientation of the canon ball. This is purely about orbital dynamics, which is all he discusses in this section of the Principa, using the cannonball analogy. You are falsely conflating the object’s orientation with its orbit. The orientation and rotation of an orbiting body is independent to its orbital vector – that’s why various bodies in the solar system rotate at different orbit/spin ratios. That’s why Uranus’ rotation is 90 degrees tilted to its orbital vector.
Rotation is independent of orbit.
You haven’t explained how longitudinal libration could occur if the moon does not rotate but is somehow tied by its orbit to face the Earth. If the orbital vector determines the orientation, we should never see more than 50% of the surface of the moon from the same point of Earth over a month. But we see 56% of the moon’s surface solely from longitudinal libration.
It appears – because you have not been explicit – that you believe that the force acting on an object’s orbit also causes it to keep its face turned to the orbital pivot point. But this is a statement, not an explanation.
What is the force that causes our spherical satellite to change its orientation from pointing at the star to keeping one face to the planet when orbit velocity is achieved?
At the moment there is no explanation from you. Vaguely pointing elsewhere doesn’t cut it. Once and for all, put it together in one post so we have an answer, please.
To be clear, the arrow you are looking at describes the orbital velocity vector – the direction of momentum of the cannonball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
You can see it labelled here:
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9O8CKJhU6RiNe8GPbQVFdwHaFc&w=348&h=348&c=7
This is a picture of the Earth orbiting the sun. That lateral arrow has nothing to do with orientation. It is the immediate vector of the orbiting object (which, if the gravity being applied to the orbit was taken away, would be the direction the orbiting object heads).
Here is another graphic with the same vector labeled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbital_state_vectors.png
Newton’s cannonball has nothing to do with the orientation of an orbiting object, and your graphic representing his work has nothing to do with orientation of the orbiting object, either. That lateral arrow is a trajectory.
barry opines:
“You are falsely conflating the object’s orientation with its orbit.“
That’s wrong, barry. I’m discussing the motion “orbit without spin”. I’m not playing any more of your guys’ silly semantic games about definitions of “orbit”.
barry opines:
“the arrow you are looking at…”
The arrows (plural) that I’m looking at are the arrows (plural) for the two vectors which produce “orbit without spin”. If it were as per the MOTR, the cannonball would have to be travelling “backwards” and “upside down” halfway around its “orbit without spin”.
It’s just that simple, barry.
Yet another of the dozens of comments of mine that you have ignored:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700460
None of the arrows have anything to do with orientation or rotation. You are just showing pictures (again) to describe your view without explaining why your view is valid within the laws of physics.
Your link was to a post with links to other posts. Are you serious? This is ridiculous.
It seems you are incapable of explaining yourself in a single post. You can’t explain what force operates to make the sphere launched pointing at a star end up facing the moon once orbiting.
You have not even NAMED the force that does this. What is the name of this force?
It is all a big mystery surrounded by assertions and pictures.
You could answer my query in one post, and then keep pointing back to a single coherent explanation instead of pointing at 15 posts to say, “there it is!”
Come on, DREMT. Just answer the question. Name the force that changes the orientation of the spherical satellite when it was launched perpendicular to the surface, and its propulsion changes to trajectory exert no torque on it.
If you can’t do that in a single post then we know you just don’t have the goods.
You could then spend another post explaining how longitudinal libration of the moon is possible with your view of why the moon faces the Earth without rotating.
barry, it’s not my fault that you can’t apparently understand something as simple as “passenger jets/cannonballs do not fly backwards”.
It’s not my fault that you are desperate to butt in on a discussion you haven’t even read through.
And, it’s not my fault that you refuse to even read the comments that I do address to you. I told you that “orbit without spin” is the result of the force of gravity operating at right angles to the object’s linear momentum. Yet, you keep asking what else is involved besides gravity.
You’re not listening, barry.
And, that’s not my fault.
Here, since you cannot follow links, I’ll just paste Gordon’s comment in here in full, then you will finally have to acknowledge its existence:
“nate…you are misunderstanding what causes an object to move in an orbit in a gravitational field. The object is not following a path (orbit), rather the orbit is created as the body moves. That’s why orbits change dramatically over time. Some orbital planes even rotate about an epicentre over time.
Newton described orbital motion as a body, moving always with a linear motion, being diverted into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. That does not require the body to rotate about a local axis. The motion can be better explained through a simple examination of the local forces.
The body has a natural linear momentum and Earth’s gravity is attracting it towards Earth’s centre. That means the body must fall a certain amount per linear measure while maintaining a linear motion. If it falls just enough to make up for Earth’s curvature, it will remain in an orbit. If it falls more, it will spiral into the Earth. If it does not fall enough it will follow a parabolic or hyperbolic path into space.
An airliner following Earth’s curvature has a similar motion. Although it is powered, it is the Earth’s gravitational field that holds it in an orbital path. If the plane decreases speed it will fall and if it increases speed it will rise. Same principle as the Moon.
Note that the airliner keeps the same face pointed at earth.
At no time does a body have to rotate in order to keep the same side pointed at Earth. Rather simply, actually.“
“I told you that “orbit without spin” is the result of the force of gravity operating at right angles to the object’s linear momentum. Yet, you keep asking what else is involved besides gravity.”
Gravity? But I asked you that before. You said:
“It’s not gravity alone producing the change in orientation. Thats the straw man you both keep constantly attacking.”
Ok, something else as well gravity. What is it?
Is it this?
“‘Orbit without spin’ is the result of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the object’s linear momentum (see animation in fourth link).”
“Right angles to the linear momentum” is downwards, towards the centre of gravity. This provides no torque. It has no impact on the orbiting body’s orientation (we’ll set aside the effect of gravity on the protrusions of irregularly shaped bodies). If it did the Earth would behave like the moon.
The linear momentum and force of gravity determine the orbit. This has nothing to do with rotation. Rotation is completely independent of orbital dynamics. That’s why we have so much variety in rotation/orbit ratios, and even ‘rolling’ planets in our solar system.
Gordon’s essay conflates and confuses two different sets of physics. Aeroplanes are way too slow and low to achieve orbital characteristics. They operate from lift and are constantly undergoing adjustments to maintain a level flight path, including minute pitch control adjustments to follow the curve of the Earth. By contrast the moon is not experiencing torqued adjustments like this. Its rotation is inertial.
Gravity and the object’s linear momentum combined produce “orbit without spin”, barry. Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Aircraft need not make pitch adjustments to follow the curvature of the Earth. Read the aviation stack exchange link.
So let’s see if I can answer my own question using the answers you’ve so far given. I’ll put in italics what I think is your view.
The sphere is launched from the surface of the moon. It has vertical thrust and lateral momentum from the moon’s rotation. There is no torque. So the black dot at the ‘top’ of the sphere points at the star that was perpendicularly above at launch.
Let’s keep thrust constant for a minute. There is no rotation of the sphere. It is still pointing at the star.
Now our gimballed thrusters arranged around the satellite’s COM thrust in a new direction, causing the trajectory to curve. We are heading for an orbital altitude and velocity.
At this point, though the thrusters impart no torque, the gravity from the planet works to change the orientation of the sphere.
The Moon’s gravity initiates a torque on the sphere that causes it to orient in line with the changing angle of flight above the Moon. The moment orbit is achieved the satellite sphere is now keeping one face to the Moon’s surface and the gravitationally induced torque effect ceases.
Is this what you believe would happen? It seems to be in keeping with what you have said.
I note that your all answers are all about the end state, not how the state (your “orbit without spin”) is arrived at. You haven’t tackled a hypothetical like this.
So is this how you would answer?
(Note, please,that I deal with a range of your points, including others’ points, like Gordons. I speak to your image of Newton’s cannonball, I address MORT, MOTL, and ball on a string. I go far further than addressing YOUR stuff than you do mine. So how about you return the favour, please. Please address the above, and also your explanation for longitudinal libration of the moon. I’m asking for two things, and I’m not making you follow umpteen links in order to engage with me)
So, you do have a reading comprehension problem.
“Gravity and the object’s linear momentum combined produce “orbit without spin”, barry. Do you have reading comprehension issues?”
Not at all. But you have described only the two parameters necessary for orbit.
The Earth’s linear momentum and the Sun’s gravity provide its orbit. Quite obviously, these components do not cause it to keep the same face to the sun!
“Aircraft need not make pitch adjustments to follow the curvature of the Earth. Read the aviation stack exchange link.”
Ok, I’ll stand corrected on the adjustments. From the link.
“There is no adjustment needed as the aircraft will naturally follow the curvature of the earth without any input from the pilot. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature of the earth.”
I’ll maintain that the physics are quite different. The atmospheric medium isn’t space. There is more from the answers:
“Another way of thinking about it is to consider how “down” changes as the aircraft travels. The weight of the aircraft always acts towards the centre of the earth, and is matched (in level flight) by the lift of the wings. Imagine if you had a model aircraft suspended on a piece of string, dangled from your hand. If you hold the string and carry the model a quarter of the way around the earth, the bottom of the model will still point down (towards the centre of the earth). The model has rotated 90 degrees, without you having to rotate it by hand.
When you trim for level flight, you do so by finding the pitch attitude where your speed and altitude remain constant (or at least stable: atmospheric conditions might make them fluctuate a lot). That attitude might be a touch more nose-down than it would be if the earth were flat, but it’s imperceptible.”
A touch more nose down than flat keeps the pitch changing.
Aerodynamics is a poor analogy for orbital mechanics in any case.
“Quite obviously, these components do not cause it to keep the same face to the sun!“
That’s because the Earth is also spinning, barry. We were talking about “orbit without spin”, remember? Any other silly blunders from you today?
“Ok, I’ll stand corrected on the adjustments.“
Great. Then, as you concede there are no pitch adjustments, you agree there is no torque required about the aircraft’s internal axis for it to move as per the MOTL.
Cheers!
“So, you do have a reading comprehension problem.”
Nope, you have a description problem.
“Gravity and the object’s linear momentum combined produce ‘orbit without spin’ ”
And yet the Earth has 365+ rotations per orbit.
You have just described orbit only. An orbit is achieved when gravity and velocity balance. This has absolutely nothing to do with the orbiting body’s orientation or spin. The orbiting bodies in the solar system have various rotational periods, and they are not tied to their orbital velocities. Their ratios are essentially random. Not only have you not described HOW gravity + linear momentum affect orientation, there is no evidence for this effect in the solar system. The evidence rather speaks against some causal relationship.
“Without spin” is just an addon of yours with no explanation.
And because you have no explanation for it you cannot answer my questions.
You’ve been avoiding answering my questions forthrightly and with detail for scores of posts. Maybe you will surprise me.
The silly blunders continue…
Yes, barry, most orbiting objects in the Universe exhibit the motion “orbit without spin” and the motion “spin”, combined, with “spin” at various different rates for the different objects.
You’ll get there…
First Clint and now Gordon are your authorities on this subject, that you defer to?
No. Just no.
What we need from you is a link to a proper physics or astronomy source that agrees with your POV.
You have had years to look for one, and have yet to find any.
That should tell you something. Why doesn’t it?
I don’t see any supportive evidence in Gordon’s post. What in it do you find compelling?
What part of airplanes must point their nose forward in the direction of motion to stablly fly do you not get?
And why do you fail to understand that objects in space DO NOT have that constraint?
“Orbit without spin is the result of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the objects linear momentum (see animation in fourth link). Its not gravity alone producing the change in orientation. Thats the straw man you both keep constantly attacking.”
Totally fake physics. Obviously you cannot tell the difference.
Momentum is not a force. It is just velocity*mass.
The only force operating is gravity. And it is acting thru the COM of a sphere.
And then we have:
Google/AI says:
“When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but NOT ROTATE.”
Thus there is NOTHING available to cause our sphere to start rotating, other than magic.
When are you going to get this?
Yep, just more assertions from you.
“Yes, barry, most orbiting objects in the Universe exhibit the motion “orbit without spin” ”
You are stating your conclusion. The explanation remains a mystery.
You can’t answer my questions – one on the launched spherical satellite and one asking for an explanation of libration.
You just can’t do it. All you’ve got is a mantra. “Orbit without spin is the MOTL.” You haven’t advanced any further from that position in your argumentation. Oh yes, you described the components of an orbit and claimed this “produces” (your word) an orientation that keeps a satellite facing the planet it orbits.
Except that this clearly is not true. That’s why you can’t explain how the forces creating an orbit also determine orientation.
That’s really all you’ve done. Claimed that the forces that establish an orbit “produce” a Moon-like attitude to the orbited body.
I’m tired of your inability to answer straight questions straightforwardly. It means you just don’t have the goods and it’s a waste of time hoping you’ll do more than repeat your mantras. The Moon rotates. That’s why longitudinal libration happens. That’s why the hypothetical sphere orbiting the moon needs a little push of torque to stop pointing at the star and point instead at the moon. The field of astronomy and spaceflight is correct on this issue and the guy on the blog is wrong.
Your “orbit without spin” view is a fantasy that avoids direct challenges. Case closed.
Lol at barry and Nate. So, so confused. Like nothing has ever been explained to them. barry’s mantra is “but you won’t explain” after anything I say. barry concedes that aircraft require no pitch adjustments to move as per the MOTL, in other words require no torque about their own internal axis to move as per the MOTL, but can’t see the relevance to the discussion!
Both of them can look over and over again at this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
and to them, believe the cannonball, launched without spin, would move as per the MOTR! They can’t even understand a simple animation. They need to keep looking at the animation, and keep repeating to themselves, “cannonballs/aircraft do not fly backwards”, “cannonballs/aircraft do not fly backwards”. Maybe someday they will inherit a clue. Who knows!?
“Momentum is not a force“
Indeed, Nate. Perhaps you might consider what would happen, though, if you stood in the middle of the road whilst an approaching double decker bus switched its engine off and then rolled into you…pretty sure you’d feel “something”.
Neither Barry nor I can detect any rationale that you have offered to explain why his sphere entering orbit should acquire rotation.
Nothing. Nada.
You just declare that it does.
What part of this do you not understand?
“Google/AI says:
When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but NOT ROTATE.
Do you deny that it states ‘Not rotate
This could not be more clear.
A body can have translational motion, momentum. But so what?
Example. A basketball is launched toward the basket. It has momentum. It is being acted on by gravity. Thus it follows a curved trajectory.
But it can have any amount of rotation when launched, even 0. Yet it does not acquire any additional rotation in the process.
Plenty of videos illustrate this.
But I have explained, Nate. Over and over again. The torque is about the external axis. Not the internal axis. Just like a ball on a string. Except, we can’t discuss that, because you don’t even accept that a ball on a string is not “spinning”!
Here’s an idea. Why don’t you and barry hound Bindidon for days on end about whether or not a ball on a string is “spinning”. Bindidon agrees that it is not “spinning”. So, off you go. Go and argue with him about it.
DREMT has not adequately explained, though, since DREMT refuses to properly announce the reference frame of any observation. No need to argue with Bindidon once the reader realizes he’s observing from an accelerated frame.
MOTR is not spinning about its internal axis in the inertial frame of the wiki window while MOTR is spinning about its internal axis as observed from the reference frame of the center object.
Proper use of, and announcing, the reference frame settles all the debate as DREMT has known for many years but prefers to hop around in reference frames unannounced to keep the debate hopelessly alive so long.
From DREMT’s own source:
“How do you know an object is moving? The answer is you don’t – there is nothing like a “fixed absolute coordinate in space”.
Speed is measured by referencing another object. If you think of it, every time we mention an object’s speed, we always mean it’s speed relative to something. The car’s speed is 50mph relative to the ground below it, although we (including DREMT) seldom say it explicitly in our daily conversations.”
“Neither Barry nor I can detect any rationale…”
barry and Nate: Totally Impartial Rationale Detectors (TIRD)
Those TIRD guys are completely unbiased detectors of truth. No agenda. No dirty tricks. Never any false accusations, misrepresentations, or insults.
Their opinion is to be trusted. On everything.
Sometimes, they even post using the same name! As is the norm.
Torque about an external axis was discussed and debunked as a case of rotation
See eg here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700255
and here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700326
And its obviously inconsistent with this:
“Google/AI says:
“When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.”
This does won’t work, so the you will return to
Momentum plus gravity woks some voodoo magic!
They won’t work so the its:
‘But airplanes..’
They don’t work so it’s
“But tetherballs..’
and round and round we go.
Endless spitballing, but never applying any actual laws of physics.
Cuz, you can get around them!
Paaathetic.
Arghh..
Should have said
‘debunked as a cause of rotation’
No, Nate, you TIRD guys just don’t understand “rotation about an external axis”! You want it removed from the discussion at all costs.
Like I said, discuss the ball on a string with Bindidon. Get back to me when you’ve done that.
“…it produces no torque about the COM itself…”
Which is not what we are talking about. Torque about the CoM of the ball is torque about the internal axis of the ball. Not the external axis. Stop posting irrelevant points, Nate.
What you are doing is just parroting things you’ve heard, without understanding.
For example ‘momentum combined with gravity gives rotation’ is something you heard some one on this blog say, either Clint or Gordon, who are both clueless.
So try this for a change:
EXPLAIN how that combination leads to rotation.
Then try to
EXPLAIN how torque about an external axis leads to rotation.
Then we can debate.
For once try EXPLAINING.
“meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.”
not rotate
NOT ROTATE.
which makes this highly relevant.
Wrong axis, Nate. So, irrelevant.
No explaining then?
Just parroting with no evidence of understanding.
Got it.
One problem is that you don’t seem to understand that if a body has rotation, then it does not matter what axis.
Rotation simply means that lines in that different points in the body have different velocities.
So take the MOTR. All points in the body have the same velocity.
Now to add rotation to it we need to apply torque to it around its COM.
For example by adding an upward force on the left side and a downward force on the right side of the body.
That adds a different velocity to the right and left side. It NOW has rotation.
But applying only a force to the COM of the body adds equal amount of velocity to all points on the body.
It adds NO rotation. About any axis!
But it does produce torque around external axes. Pick any one you want!
But no rotation around whatever axis you choose.
What does it do then? It can add translational motion to the body and angular momentum. So the body orbits at a different velocity, and probably no longer circular.
Arrgh
“Rotation simply means that lines in the body do not remain parallel to ones at the initial time, and that different points in the body have different velocities.”
An orbiting object moving like the MOTR has either two axes of rotation, or zero axes of rotation, depending on which side of the debate you’re on. Dead simple.
Improving 1:10 pm comment: an orbiting object moving like the MOTR has either two axes of rotation, or zero axes of rotation, depending on which reference frame is being used. Dead simple.
Always remember that DREMT actually posted: “there is nothing like a “fixed absolute coordinate in space”. Speed is measured by referencing another object.”
“Just parroting with no evidence of understanding.
Got it.”
False accusation.
Got it.
How about if you think I’m not worth your time, you just stop responding to me? I only actually initiated this thread because I hoped you would finally concede the two points, but obviously you are incapable of that, so…that’s it, then.
If you can’t explain then there is little evidence of understanding.
Thus if you cannot explain why torque about an external axis gives rotation, then it is just an assertion not an argument.
And in fact isn’t true, and I explained why.
And you have no rebuttal, because you have no ability to explain.
Nor can you explain why ‘momentum plus gravity causes rotation’. This is just physics words strung together but actually makes no sense.
So that is not an argument.
If torque, which is a “turning force” (your words), applied about an external axis, does not lead to rotation about that axis, and instead leads to “translation in a circle”, then the entire concept of “rotation about an external axis” may as well be scrapped from the physics books, and physics terms like “torque” are essentially meaningless unless applied to an internal axis. Which would, of course, then be the only type of axis to exist.
Fortunately, we know that “rotation about an external axis” does exist, and that “orbital angular momentum” corresponds not to “translation in a circle”, but to “rotation about an external axis”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“The special case of a rotation with an internal axis passing through the body’s own center of mass is known as a spin (or autorotation).[1] In that case, the surface intersection of the internal spin axis can be called a pole; for example, Earth’s rotation defines the geographical poles. A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1] Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum“
Which is a refutation of your earlier assertion (without support) that “orbital angular momentum” would correspond to “translation in a circle” and thus that torque about an external axis could lead to “translation in a circle”.
“may as well be scrapped from the physics books, and physics terms like torque are essentially meaningless”
So you’re suggesting that if science doesn’t agree with your non-expert intuition, then its stoopid and must be wrong?
Got it.
Maybe take a college level physics course before casually dismissing it.
You still haven’t found a proper physics source that agrees with your POV. Why not?
So torque is F*r. Where r is the perpendicular distance to some point.
An object like a rocket can have a force applied to its com and it is some distance away from a point in space, then it will have a torque around that point, but no rotation occurs.
Now in other contexts. when the force is applied to rigid arm , a wrench, attached to a bolt at that point, the the torque leads to rotation of the bolt and wrench.
So context matters.
Nate puts more words in my mouth, then says “got it”.
Why he has to be like that, is anyone’s guess.
Yes, Nate, context matters, but the context is understood.
For example, with a ball on a string, the torque is applied about the external axis, and rotation about an external axis does occur. The ball on a string is not “spinning”. Go and argue it out with Bindidon, if you disagree.
DREMT 5:06 pm immediately ignores DREMT’s own reference: “there is nothing like a “fixed absolute coordinate in space”. Speed is measured by referencing another object.”
Correctly, for example, with a ball on a string, there is a torque applied about the ball’s external axis, and rotation about an external axis does occur. Indeed, the ball on a string is not “spinning” about its internal axis as observed referencing another object: the string. So no need to argue it out with Bindidon.
Try it on a body with no string attached to its surface, but just has gravity acting thru its com, and see what you get!
I’ll just share this realisation I had, recently.
The “Spinners” seem to think the “spin” rate of all objects should be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame, regardless of whether it makes any sense to, or not.
A great example of this nonsense is the astronaut walking around the “equatorial road”. I had already laughed at the idea that he was “spinning” just because he was walking along the road, when it occurred to me that the “Spinners” would also think he was “spinning” even when he was standing still! Due to the “spin” of the Earth. Then it hit me…when he’s walking, they must think he’s doubly “spinning” – once because of his motion around the equator, and twice because of the Earth’s own “spin”!
Two rotations about the same internal axis of the astronaut, at different rates, occurring simultaneously!
Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to think of it that way, but that’s the “Spinners” for you.
Again, no distractions this time,
Try it on a body with no string attached to its surface, but just has gravity acting thru its com, and see what you get!
Hint: unlike the string or the wrench, gravity does not compel the body to align its orientation with it.
Nor does gravity produce any torque on the body.
Context matters!
Sorry, Nate, I actually thought my last post was more interesting than your continued refusal to understand that the string acts through the CoM of the ball and thus does not produce any torque about the ball’s internal axis. But, we can just go over and over the exact same things, endlessly, if you like.
Nate says:
Try it on a body with no string attached to its surface, but just has gravity acting thru its com, and see what you get!
Hint: unlike the string or the wrench, gravity does not compel the body to align its orientation with it.
——————-
yet it does. . . even if it takes a long time. DREMT is telling you that the alignment comes from the torque on the ball/moon’s COM such that a natural alignment will be obtained. But thats a process of eliminating both spin on the com from another force or momentum and a process of aligning the ball wrt to the sum of its net imperfections either part of its construction or induced by greater gravitational pull on the closest particles of the ball than the particles further away.
Nate says:
”Nor does gravity produce any torque on the body.”
You need a source for that claim, which of course you won’t find.
The reason is the torque function is τ = dL/dt. There must have existed a torque that was applied at orbit insertion as torque is a measure of change in the angular momentum which occurs during orbit insertion. After that there is no need of torque as the angular momentum remains constant.
this fact suggests that there is no need to create spin on the moon for the MOTL to represent a non-spinning object. However spin and angular momentum may have existed on the moon before orbit insertion and the torque applied around the the moon’s com due to it not being a perfect sphere will eventually convert that angular momentum on the moon’s com into additional angular momentum around the earth. This is done not by changing the earth’s speed but by changing the ”r” radius value of the angular momentum around the earth.
this torque does change the angular momentum of the orbit and its ”r” value which isn’t allowed in your equation because in that equation the ”r” value is unity and the mass and velocity doesn’t change, which are the only values for orbital angular momentum allowed in your equation.
You would have to explain how ”r” can change the orbital angular momentum if ”r” doesn’t exist in Lorb and you would have to explain how the angular momentum of any spin on the moon would change in view of the law of conservation of energy.
If you can’t do that. You probably should concede the argument.
Non-spinners explain the transfer of spin energy to orbital energy via the fact there is always and opposite and equal force applied in forces are applied in all cases.
Its hard to imagine that the geniuses that worked these laws out weren’t aware of it when the created the easy formula for an orbiting object. But their genius in reducing the complication of the equation has led to spinners assuming more than the geniuses who worked the whole thing out intended.
barry quote mines:
“Yep, just more assertions from you.
“Yes, barry, most orbiting objects in the Universe exhibit the motion “orbit without spin” ”
You are stating your conclusion. The explanation remains a mystery.”
No, I was not “stating my conclusion”. This was the quote, in full:
“Yes, barry, most orbiting objects in the Universe exhibit the motion “orbit without spin” and the motion “spin”, combined, with “spin” at various different rates for the different objects.”
barry doesn’t seem to understand that here I’m only pointing out the very basics of the moon issue, again. Above, I defined my terms as “orbit without spin” being a motion like the MOTL or the MOTR, dependent on your position in the debate. So, this quote can apply to either “Spinners” or “Non-Spinners”. It is not me asserting my conclusion, and does not feature circular reasoning in any way.
barry flies off the handle and exits the debate in a huff, for no real reason.
Yes, barry, most orbiting objects in the Universe exhibit the motion orbit without spin and the motion spin, combined, with spin at various different rates for the different objects.
Objects even just in our solar system orbit with a whole variety of spins and spin axes.
So it is plainly obvious that bodies are NOT in general compelled by gravity to align their orientation with it and toward the orbited body.
That is for the bazillionth time why the BOS is a terrible model for planetary orbits. Because the string does compel the body to align with the orbited planet!
Yet you keep returning to it!
That is why the argument is never ending!
Look, you need to explain why orbits in general are the way they are, without a string or an atmosphere or an ocean or an arm with a motor, none of which behave like gravity acting on bodies in empty space.
The best analog is projectile motion of spherical projectiles. Even in the atmosphere gravity does not prevent spherical projectiles from having ANY orientation or rotation as they follow
their trajectory.
Gravity does not behave like a string!
“continued refusal to understand that the string acts through the CoM of the ball and thus does not produce any torque about the balls internal axis.”
This is incorrect, as explained several times.
In order for someone to get a BOS moving as it does, it will need a force acting on the ball in the DIRECTION OF MOTION.
That force can only come from the string. Therefore the string needs to apply a sideways force to the ball.
This sideways force to the ball produces torque on the ball around its COM.
If swung in the atmosphere the ball experiences drag force, and thus always requires a small sideways component of force from the string.
“Objects even just in our solar system orbit with a whole variety of spins and spin axes.”
Obviously.
“So it is plainly obvious that bodies are NOT in general compelled by gravity to align their orientation with it and toward the orbited body. That is for the bazillionth time why the BOS is a terrible model for planetary orbits. Because the string does compel the body to align with the orbited planet!”
Nate, you need to stop with these straw men. Seriously. “Non-Spinners” are not making the argument that because “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, that means orbiting objects can’t “spin”! It’s such a dumb straw man that it’s actually offensive. What is being argued is that torque is required about the orbiting object’s internal axis for it to “spin” and thus move differently than the MOTL. Exactly the same as how “Spinners” would argue that torque is required about the orbiting object’s internal axis in order for it to “spin” and move other than the MOTR.
One of the reasons a ball on a string is so frequently used as a model for “orbit without spin” is simply because no rational human being should be able to argue that the ball is “spinning”. And yet, here we are, once again…
Bill wrote a comment to you, Nate. Try not to be rude, and ignore him.
“One of the reasons a ball on a string is so frequently used as a model for orbit without spin is simply because no rational human being should be able to argue that the ball is spinning. And yet, here we are, once again”
And yet planets are all spinning, which the string fundamentally does not allow.
Making it bleeding obvious to anyone with half a brain, that the BOS is a horrible model of planetary motion!
The BOS is a good model only for the BOS!
“In order for someone to get a BOS moving as it does, it will need a force acting on the ball in the DIRECTION OF MOTION.
That force can only come from the string. Therefore the string needs to apply a sideways force to the ball.
This sideways force to the ball produces torque on the ball around its COM.
If swung in the atmosphere the ball experiences drag force, and thus always requires a small sideways component of force from the string.”
So strip the atmosphere from the equation. No atmosphere. We’re already getting closer to the real thing. Great.
We’ll go back to the tetherball. Consider its motion to begin “perfectly”, in other words the string is kept taut at all times, there is never any slack in the string. The person pushes the ball, perfectly, in the direction of motion, with the exact force required to get the ball swinging about the post so that the string is perpendicular to the post. Now, the force he applied would have been through the CoM of the ball, sideways, to initiate the swing. Nevertheless, the result is that torque is applied about the external axis and the ball rotates about that axis. There was never any torque applied to the internal axis of the ball (string was taut throughout) and thus the ball is not “spinning”. Is that clearer?
“And yet planets are all spinning, which the string fundamentally does not allow.”
Did Nate just admit that the ball on a string is not “spinning”!? OMG…finally.
The BoS is simply a model of “orbit without spin”. It does not actually need to be able to “spin” in order to accomplish that goal. If you want a model that does allow “spin”, as well, there is always the CSAItruth equipment.
Again you still keep trying to argue that a force through the COM of a body can produce rotation of the body, around any axis.
But are never able to explain how.
And when I explain why it does not, you are unable to rebut.
Look fundamentally rotation of a body, ie orientational change, is a property of the body in relation to the universe.
Nothing to do with any external point.
And yet planets are all spinning, which the string fundamentally does not allow.
Did Nate”
Yeah yeah, I was explaining to you using your ‘spin’ definition in the faint hope you would understand.
“The BoS is simply a model of orbit without spin. It does not actually need to be able to spin in order to accomplish that goal.”
Nonsense. Then you endlessly talk about the consequences of the string, as if gravity would behave similarly.
This is gas-lighting. Just stop!
Just talk to Bill, or Bindidon, Nate. Or maybe just take a break from commenting altogether.
Again no rebuttal. Yet keep on arguing.
Nothing to rebut, that I have not rebutted a dozen times before.
“Nevertheless, the result is that torque is applied about the external axis and the ball rotates about that axis”
Again, this is pure assertion but does not explan how rotation results.
As I noted:
Fundamentally rotation of a body is orientational change. This is only a property of the body, in relation to the universe, the inertial frame.
Nothing to do with any particular external point.
Rebut that if you can.
Yes, Nate. You want to eliminate the concept of “rotation about an external axis” altogether. That’s understood. Unfortunately for you, it stubbornly exists.
You are so confused you can no longer even understand that when you push a tetherball, it swings around.
That is my rebuttal.
“You want to eliminate the concept of rotation about an external axis altogether. Thats understood. Unfortunately for you, it stubbornly exists.”
Not at all. It exists.
But how do we get it?
Fundamentally it is a body that is translating around a point, like the MOTR, and also has the right amount of spin around its COM.
To get that we need a force thru the COM to get translation, like the cannonball fired from a tall mountain.
If , then it can go into orbit.
Then you need to add torque around the cannonballs COM to create the spin.
But there is no way that you have explained, for the cannonball to be fired and end up, all on its own, with rotation.
No way without a torque applied around the COM.
“Not at all. It exists.
But how do we get it?
Fundamentally it is a body that is translating around a point, like the MOTR, and also has the right amount of spin around its COM.”
Lol! Nate says it exists then tries to eliminate it from existence in the very next sentence!
Nate refuses to get it.
The tetherball handing from its rope has no torque being applied to it. Push or hit the tetherball no torque is required to be applied on COM of the tetherball.
You need torque to create spin.
The only torque being applied is on the COM of the tetherball system.
For a moon and planet the torque that creates the angular momentum of an orbit (which is NOT a translation because it does have angular momentum) is on the COM of the orbiting system. . .causing both objects to rotate.
No torque is going through the com of the tetherball as there is no spin on the tetherball before or after you push it.
Indeed the tension of the rope will exert a torque to resist any torque you have applied to the com of the tetherball by a less than perfectly straight instantaneous push.
Baseball pitchers can’t release a pitch without spin. They aren’t perfect in their contact with the ball. Same for cannons firing cannonballs.
You need to answer the question I asked above if you are going to argue this without trying to turn a rotation into a translation which is a gross violation of elevating the form of an equation above the substance of it.
Translations do not have radii and rotations do. Moving the radius from one term in the formula for a rotation on an external axis doesn’t physically change the rotation into a translation. If it did you could cause motion without force simply by playing with equations. When did you start believing you could? 7th grade algebra?
Google/AI correctly says:
When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.
“Lol! Nate says it exists then tries to eliminate it from existence in the very next sentence!”
FALSE, and bonkers.
What I said was true, and sane, Nate.
Talk to Bill.
Look at the animation, and think.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700509
It is such a shame that Nate cannot just try to be less combative and actually work with us on this.
“”Well go back to the tetherball. Consider its motion to begin perfectly, in other words the string is kept taut at all times, there is never any slack in the string. The person pushes the ball, perfectly, in the direction of motion, with the exact force required to get the ball swinging about the post so that the string is perpendicular to the post. Now, the force he applied would have been through the CoM of the ball, sideways, to initiate the swing. Nevertheless, the result is that torque is applied about the external axis and the ball rotates about that axis. There was never any torque applied to the internal axis of the ball (string was taut throughout) and thus the ball is not spinning. Is that clearer?”
First of all there is no such perfection in reality.
In reality, the rope has mass. If a force is applied to the ball COM, then it will need to drag the rope along with
it. That means the system COM of ball plus rope is no longer at in the center of the ball.
Second of all if the ball needs to drag the rope that means again the rope will lag behind making an angle with the ball.
This is a horrible analogy to planetary motion. It allows endless obfuscation.
Nate falsely accuses endless obfuscation as he does it himself…
What are you imagining about the animation?
No orientation of the ball is shown.
Still bonkers.
“try to be less combative and actually work with us on us on this”
That would be lovely, when will you start being less combative?
When I say this ‘This is a horrible analogy’ I mean that is too complicated and ends up in a long back and forth about how it bloody works, as opposed to providing insight.
No orientation need be shown Nate. If the cannonball were moving as per the MOTR, it would have to be going “backwards” halfway round the “orbit without spin”.
Just remember – “cannonballs/aircraft do not fly backwards”!
So simple, only a physicist could mess it up.
No orientation needed?
So you agree that it’s pure fantasy?
But a physicist, Newton, messed it up for you guys.
“backwards” ??
Talk to Clint R, Nate. Talk to Bill. Talk to Bindidon. Stop talking to me.
Just stop making absurd claims. And you can stop responding to me anytime.
It’s easy. I did that with you in the previous long discussion.
Of course I didn’t expect to be stalked into restarting it. But you did.
Yes, my mistake. I assumed you could be reasonable, and concede the two points. I was wrong, you can never concede anything, under any circumstances, ever.
But, you seem to find the subject fascinating, so…I recommend, that if you want to discuss it more, you talk to some other people about it.
Your choice: just stop responding and trying to make points.
Look, Nate, I get that in this thread you can claim I followed you here to continue the discussion. And, down-thread I can claim you followed me to add the little dig you added down there. Most of the time, it’s me being followed by various people as soon as I start discussing anything. It’s almost always the same people, as well. You are one of them.
Are you interested in discussing this, or just interested in discussing this with me, personally? If your pursuit is the truth, why would you not be interested in discussing this with others, besides me?
Sounds like you recognize that you yourself don’t have the expertise to effectively argue to support your position anymore.
Congrats.
None of the others you mention are capable of sane or honest debate.
Clint is not here to debate just to tro.ll.
Gordon? C’mon. He dies not listen to anything anybody says.
Bill? Just endless nasty confused stream of consciousness. No thanks.
I think all the arguments have been made that would convince any normal person. In fact I think that point was passed some time ago. I just think somebody like you needs a different type of argument to get them to “see it”. Just try talking to somebody else.
“I think all the arguments have been made that would convince any normal person.”
Perhaps, but different people have different beliefs. And some give more weight to beliefs over facts.
Fact is, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is movement like the MOTL. When you state that in practice, such movement is in your belief always in practice “translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis”, you are in fact effectively arguing that “rotation about an external axis” does not (or, you believe, should not) exist.
But, beliefs ain’t facts.
Nate says:
” ”I think all the arguments have been made that would convince any normal person.”
Perhaps, but different people have different beliefs. And some give more weight to beliefs over facts.”
And some people base the full weight of their beliefs on who said it. . .or what they think somebody said after reading between the lines.
For you Nate I am not sure where all this started but I can recall the moment a few years ago where you could have became so committed to your answer you simply don’t consider any of the arguments.
That was when you claimed Nikola Tesla was not a credible source and a failure.
I have no idea why you ever deigned to believe that but indeed it would be embarrassing for you now to admit that Tesla was on to something legitimate as he was on a large number of issues.
Actually I started as a spinner and it was your ad hominem attack on Tesla that motivated me to look deeper into the topic. Considering all the arguments I gradually shifted my thinking on the matter. Since I studied linguistics, logic, and science all my life it soon became apparent who was relying on unscientific arguments.
Ultimately you have completely failed to recognize what a rotation on an external axis is. You were doing better when actually arguing why you believed what you believed elliptical orbits are not widely thought to be rotations with the reasons why ending up being all perturbances by other planets that affect the orbits and speed of planets in completing an elliptical orbit. . .which is an established fact.
Ultimately the only argument you make for the MOTR being orbital rotation without spin on the moons internal axis is a dissection of the equation for a rotation of an object on an external axis. As if dissecting a symbolic equation provides any proof whatsoever of a physical reality. You must deny that rotations on external axes simply don’t exist to support any part of your argument.
Yet rotations on external axes has been taught and continues to be taught for hundreds of years.
Clearly you have nothing of interest in your argument and it is abundantly obvious.
Fact is, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis exists, and is movement like the MOTL.”
Yes. As it is like a stick rotating around its end.
“When you state that in practice, such movement is in your belief always in practice translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis, you are in fact effectively arguing that rotation about an external axis does not (or, you believe, should not) exist.”
No. Not what I meant. Both are apt descriptions.
I was talking about what forces or torques can lead to these motions.
To get a body like a sphere rotating in place it requires a torque around its COM.
To the get it orbiting requires it to translate past a planet. That is the motion of the fired cannonball.
Together these two motions can produce the MOTL.
It of course happens to be a rotation around an external axis. Only because it’s rotation rate matches its orbital rate.
There is no way for the fired cannonball to acquire rotation on its own.
Nate says that it’s “not what he meant” then promptly goes and does it again!
He doesn’t seem to understand that no matter what he claims is his intent, if he says that in practice the only way to get “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is for there to be a torque around the internal axis (CoM of the body itself) then clearly “rotation about an external axis” may as well not exist! Which we know isn’t right.
It basically comes down to his very strong belief that the cannonball must be moving like the MOTR. Yet, most rational people looking at the animation could understand that it would be necessary for the cannonball to be flying “backwards”, halfway round the “orbit without spin”, if that were the case. Nate just needs to remember that “cannonballs/aircraft do not fly backwards”. If he still doesn’t understand that, perhaps he should respond to Clint R rather than doing what he’s doing now, which is waiting for Clint R to move on down-thread before responding, so that he gets the last word without having to actually argue with Clint R.
Nate says:
”Fact is, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis exists, and is movement like the MOTL.
Yes. As it is like a stick rotating around its end.”
———————-
Well you are getting closer. Lets take the stick and attach two balls. One at each end. We specify that the stick adds no mass . Then you drill a hole in the stick at center of mass of the stick with two balls attached. Then you mount this assembly on an axle and suspend the axle in space.
Then you put a spin on the stick with the two balls so that this assembly is now rotating around the axle. For the balls each is rotating around the same spot, each balls distance from the axle is dependent upon its relative mass. you know have an good analogy for the moon and the earth each rotating around the same external spot.
Nate says:
”To get a body like a sphere rotating in place it requires a torque around its COM.”
No it doesn’t. We just did it without doing what you claim to be a requirement. We just put a spin on the entire earth/moon system with a zero amount of the energy to start up being around either the moon’s COM or the earth’s COM. In this case its like the tether ball. To get it rotating all you do is give one of the balls on the stick a push.
Nate says:
”To the get it orbiting requires it to translate past a planet. That is the motion of the fired cannonball.”
Well we just did it without any translation being required. So obviously you are wrong.
In fact we aren’t even sure if the moon was formed by anything translating past the planet. It may have broken off from earth and spun straight up without any spin on its COM being imparted. However, science has seen some evidence to suggest that at one time some spin did exist on the moon. But it has nothing to do with the existing rotation of both the earth and the moon around the COM of the earth moon system.
Nate says:
”Together these two motions can produce the MOTL.”
Its impossible to have a MOTL with two separate rotations. DREMT demonstrated that to you years ago.
You just want to make up the lie that a rotation on an external axis can arbitrarily be considered to be a translation so you can violate the laws of basic physics.
Just because you can create an equation that simplifies the mathematics of an object rotating on an external axis doesn’t tell us anything about reality beyond it being a consistent way to estimate angular momentum of part of the system. We learned we could do that sort of stuff in 7th grade algebra without physically changing anything. And most of us had figured out that we could spin the mobile above our cribs. Cats do that all the time.
Nate says:
”It of course happens to be a rotation around an external axis. Only because its rotation rate matches its orbital rate.
There is no way for the fired cannonball to acquire rotation on its own.”
Gravity rules all ballistics Nate and you are ignoring it. The fact that the moon could spin on its COM doesn’t automatically mean that it is doing so independently via a second motion.
“may as well not exist”
Absurd. How bout stop misrepresenting what I say?
I clearly said it exists. What I discussed was how to get it.
“Basically comes down to his very strong belief”
FALSE! What I said about torque and rotation is correct and agrees with both physics and common sense.
But you ignore my explanations as to why that is the case
All you do is make nonsensical incorrectassertions about what a force applied thru the COM of an object can do.
Where is evidence?
“We just put a spin on the entire earth/moon system with a zero amount of the energy to start up being around either the moons COM or the earths COM”
The system of 2 balls rigidly connected by a stick has rotation. Which could not have been obtained by applying a force thru the COM of it which is at the center of the stick.
Only by applying a force away from the COM like on one ball, could it start spinning.
For our Moon, there is no rigid attachment of it to another body. It is not part of a larger rigid body..
So a force applied to the COM of the Moon cannot cause it to rotate.
Re Tesla
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700721
Yes, Nate. You agreed that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is movement like the MOTL. Agreement with my point 2) from the famous list of points 1) – 4) was finally, explicitly made. That’s great. That can be referred back to, forever.
The problem is that you are saying to actually get the motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” always, in practice, involves a torque about the internal axis (and thus “spin” about the internal axis). Then, you don’t see the problem!
Then, you cry “misrepresentation” when I simply and correctly point out the logical consequences of your words.
In the same breath, you then misrepresent me by saying that I’m suggesting a force through the CoM of the object produces “orbit without spin” like the MOTL, when I’ve made it clear 100 times that it is both gravity and the objects linear momentum combined that does it. And, you can see that in the cannonball animation.
If the cannonball were replaced with an astronaut walking the equatorial road, the arrows would be the same as in the animation. Replace it with the car on that same road, the ship moving along the ocean, or the aircraft circumnavigating the globe, the arrows would still move exactly the same way, and movement like the MOTL is the result. Just because the cannonball lacks markings to indicate its orientation does not mean the arrows don’t “work” the exact same way!
“you then misrepresentmeby saying that Im suggesting a force through the CoM of the object produces orbit without spin like the MOTL, ”
You have many times asserted that force thru COM of a body produces torque about an external axis, which is true.
And then assert, without evidence or explanation.that this torque on a body about an external axis produces rotation around an external axis, which is not true.
“Ive made it clear 100 times that it is both gravity and the objects linear momentum combined that does it.”
Yet still offer no explanation as to whow this works. Pure assertion lacking evidence.
“And, you can see that in the cannonball animation.”
Again I need to question your sanity. The animation shows no such thing!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700546
The last link was a reply to your first response.
Now, for your second:
“Again I need to question your sanity.”
Now, that’s gaslighting!
“The animation shows no such thing!”
Follow the flow of the text, Nate. I explain how it shows it, in the following paragraph, which you have ignored completely!
Again you cherry pick only parts that you like from a Wikipedia article (that can have errors!) while ignoring the parts on Astronomy that don’t agree!
Disingenuous.
All Earth-bound examples use bodies that have a front and a back. The front must align with the direction of motion!
Not not NOT true for bodies in space!
Why you keep ignoring this relevant fact?
“The arrows would be the same as in the animation”
Yes. The arrow is for momentum. The whole point is to demonstrate Orbital Motion and how the direction of motion gets turned to make the body orbit.
Nothing whatsoever to do with orientation of the body, which cannot be seen in the animation!
So you appear to be imagining something in the animation that IS NOT THERE.
Nate, the part I quoted is support for the position that torque about an external axis leads to rotation about an external axis. It’s the opening section from the Wiki article on rotation! You wanted evidence, you have it. How about you provide a reference to support your assertion that a torque about an external axis leads to “translation in a circle”!?
The arrows themselves are moving as per the MOTL, Nate! They are shown “pivoting” around the centre of the Earth! Look at what barry quoted from the aviation stack exchange discussion. As the object moves forward, the direction of “down” changes…
“the position that torque about an external axis leads to rotation about”
It makes no mention of torque.
And it wrongly claims an orbit is a rotation.
See the section on
‘Circular Motion’
“It is possible for objects to have periodic circular trajectories without changing their orientation. These types of motion are treated under circular motion instead of rotation, more specifically as a curvilinear translation.”
And the section on Astronomy
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.”
“How about you provide a reference to support your assertion that a torque about an external axis leads to translation in a circle!?”
Already gave several times.
“Google/AI says:
When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but not rotate.”
As far as ‘in a circle’ requires gravity of a planet, eg Newtons cannon.
Again confusion over the meaning of the arrows.
What would happen if I put an arrow representing momentum onto the MOTR, and animated it.
It would look exactly like the arrows in your cannonball animation.
So this should convince you that your animation arrows tell us nothing at all about body orientation.
It doesn’t need to mention torque, since it clearly states that “orbital angular momentum” corresponds to “rotation about an external axis”.
Whereas your “Google/AI” quote mentions nothing about an external axis, in fact it specifies an internal one! So how you can say that proves a torque about an external axis leads to “translation in a circle” is anyone’s guess!
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.”
That supports neither “Spinners” nor “Non-Spinners”, as explained ad nauseam.
“Why dont we try this a different way. Imagine you had a metre stick lying on an ice rink at right angles to you (i.e. not pointing at you). and shoved it in the exact centre. Does it seem obvious that it would slide away from you and not rotate?
Now, same set up, but you push it one cm from the end. Does it seem obvious that the place youd push would go back farther, so the stick would rotate a bit as it slid away”
As I said common sense.
https://www.quora.com/Why-will-a-force-applied-to-the-center-of-mass-generate-no-rotational-motion
“What would happen if I put an arrow representing momentum onto the MOTR, and animated it.
It would look exactly like the arrows in your cannonball animation.“
Then, anybody rational would be wondering why the cannonball is flying “backwards” halfway around the orbit. “Cannonballs/aircraft” do not fly backwards.
Good to see Nate still bashing his “only one vector” straw man in his most recent comment, too.
Nate is being inconsistent. He recognizes that a push on a tetherball with an attachment to an external axis then turns around and denies such a push on a particle of the tetherball will produce the same result.
He then tries hide behind a concept of relative rigidity of the connection to the tetherball of obfuscate the fact that the same forces are in effect on both the tetherball and the individual particles of the tetherball.
Yes indeed Nate the moon and its particles all under the same forces is ”relatively” freer to take on an additional spin and look like the MOTR but you have admitted that would be a second force.
Then to cap it all off you finally recognize the original push (re: the volleybal) then becomes the same force that caused the volleyball to rotate around the external axis to now cause the moon to become tidal locked.
As I have argued repeatedly before there is but one force at play here, not two. And there is no physical definition of rigidity as its concept is relative to the problem at hand. You though want to specify it as inherent and invent out of your imagination a second force on the moon’s COM when in fact it is the same identical force that got the moon moving in the first place exposed to sufficient gravity to get it to orbit.
the same force is exerted on the moon’s particles as on the whole moon. The moon would not stretch if there were just a force that applied to the whole moon and not its particles.
Can’t you see your argument is all over the place like a soup sandwich? Totally undisciplined. You just make up new forces and concepts of inherent rigidity to qualify something for rotating on an external object and then you start willy nilly dividing up how the individual particles are effected or not effected by this start up force via the push.
“Then, anybody rational would be wondering why the cannonball is flying backwards halfway around the orbit. Cannonballs/aircraft do not fly backwards.”
Only the people who think people in Australia are upside down and should fall off the Earth. You are taking a rather child-like view of things.
Cannonballs have no back or front!
There are plenty of pics and videos of the space shuttle or the lunar command module oriented ‘backwards’ or differently while in orbit.
“Cannonballs have no back or front!”
Paint an F on the front (side facing forward in the cannon, before launch) and a B on the back (side facing the rear of the cannon, before launch). “Cannonballs/aircraft” do not fly backwards!
Bill, you need to quote what I’ve actually said in context, then offer a rebuttal to that.
Otherwise I an not going to bother wasting my time talking to you
“And there is no physical definition of rigidity as its concept”
Abdurd. Of course there is.
“n physics, a rigid body, also known as a rigid object,[2] is a solid body in which deformation is zero or negligible, when a deforming pressure or deforming force is applied on it. The distance between any two given points on a rigid body remains constant in time”
“Cannonballs/aircraft do not fly backwards!”
Silly assertions like that are not arguments.
Why make yourself look foolish?
Again we are talking about objects in orbit in SPACE.
Your failure to understand such a simple point, and the accompanying animation, make you look far more foolish, Nate.
The cannonball, launched without spin, changes orientation as it moves because the very directions “forward” and “down” are reorienting as it moves! Not because it spins.
“Your failure to understand such a simple point, and the accompanying animation”
Your thinking appears to be very child-like. Unable to think beyond your personal experience.
You made no logical or factual point. You just assert that things in space must behave like terrestrial vehicles that you have personal experience with.
While ignoring that bodies in space experience no drag and no friction with the surface, and thus are not compelled to orient in any particular way. Or that they are governed by Newtons first law which has been explained to you
“very directions forward and down are reorienting as it moves! Not because it spins.”
Uh yes, again in the rotating and geocentric frame!
The straw men you attack appear to be very child-like, Nate.
No problem with Newton’s First Law of Rotation, as has been explained 100 times, the torque is about the external axis.
Nate moves his king one step at a time. With every step, I have to point out why he’s in check. So he moves it back, and tries somewhere else. I tell him he’s in check again…and on and on. It’s checkmate, but Nate refuses to lay down his king. Just keeps moving it and asking me to explain why it’s in check. Round and round we go…
“Uh yes, again in the rotating and geocentric frame!“
The great thing about ““cannonballs/aircraft” do not fly backwards” is that it applies both wrt a rotating reference frame and wrt an inertial reference frame.
Nate says:
” ”And there is no physical definition of rigidity as its concept”
Abdurd. Of course there is.
n physics, a rigid body, also known as a rigid object,[2] is a solid body in which deformation is zero or negligible, when a deforming pressure or deforming force is applied on it. The distance between any two given points on a rigid body remains constant in time” ”
—————-
LMAO!
First off as I itemized about we are not talking about a ”rigid body”. We are talking about a system.
Whether the body is rigid or not one would expect that the force of gravity would produce the same result on the whole rigid body as well as disconnected individual particles of the body if no additional forces are present to cause them to collide. Sure the moon exerts gravitational pull on its individual particles but none of those forces would cause a change to the effect of the earth’s gravity on the moon and its particles.
Second, ”Negligible”? You are arguing that that is not a relative concept?
““the very directions forward and down are reorienting as it moves! Not because it spins.”
Uh yes, again in the rotating and geocentric frame!”
That’s actually wrong, anyway, Nate. The directions are changing in the inertial reference frame, and not changing in the rotating reference frame.
“the very directions forward and down are reorienting as it moves! Not because it spins.
In the inertial frame, correct. A valid point for you!
Then what us your larger point?
You are still simply asserting, without evidence, the cannonball absurdly can’t fly backwards..in space!
Explain why.
You’ve lost me on that one.
Bill.
There is a difference in how a sphere responds to a force thru its COM, as compared to if the sphere was part of a larger rigid body. Like your two spheres connected by a stick, with the force still applied to one sphere.
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700744
and respond to it. Or not.
“You’ve lost me on that one.“
I know, Nate. You don’t understand…and I’m not sure how to explain it to you.
Whereas, I’ve understood everything you’ve explained, and fully grok the “Spinner” position, you still don’t get the “Non-Spinner” position. You don’t get the Newton’s Cannonball example, even after the astronaut, quite literally, “walked you through it”! You don’t get why reference frames are not the issue, and you still don’t get why a ball on a string is not “spinning”. You do agree that “orbit without spin”, and “spin”, are separate motions, from either perspective, so you agree with point 4) from my old list of “points 1) – 4)”. You recently agreed with point 2). So, that’s half of the list of points agreed with. If you can just agree that the ball on a string is not “spinning” (point 1) from the list) and agree that reference frames are not the issue (point 3) from the list) then we would be in agreement, finally, on all four points!
Just think about the progress we would have made.
“I know, Nate. You dont understandand Im not sure how to explain it to you.”
That is evident. Nice evasion there.
But if you cannot explain it how do you know it’s correct?!
Obviously then it is pure assertion with no logic behind it.
You claim to understand all that has been discussed, but still fail to grok some of the key points.
No Newtons First Law of Rotation, as has been explained 100 times, the torque applied to the sphere about the external axis does not result in rotation about that axis!
So the meter stick on ice for example. A force applied to its COM just resulted in pure translation of it.
Then that force*distance to ANY external point you pick, gives torque around that point.
But not a bit of rotation! The stick just translates.
Now you’ve tried a billion times to say its the force plus gravity.
But NO. Gravity also acts through the COM!
So let’s have some else push the stick from the side, along its length, to mimic gravity.
All that can result is more translation, a curvilinear translation.
When are you going to grok this logic?
There really is no evasion, Nate. I really did try every way I could to explain the Newton’s Cannonball example. Like I said, I even got the astronaut to literally “walk you through it”! Your continued refusal to understand is really not my problem, and it takes a special kind of arrogance for you to argue that because I cannot successfully get you to understand something, that must mean I don’t know it’s correct, or that there’s no logic behind it!
We’ve already done the external axis/torque/“two vectors vs. one vector”/“curvilinear translation” vs. “rotation about an external axis” thing to death, Nate. All the arguments have been made, already. It’s not a question of whoever makes the last argument, wins, so it’s time to just call it a day, surely? Move on with our lives.
Or, you can carry on talking to Bill, and Clint R. Maybe Bindidon, too?
“There really is no evasion, Nate. I really did try every way I could to explain the Newtons Cannonball example”
No. I asked you to explain why and how your proposed reasons would work.
You never did.
1. Its momentum plus gravity. No explanation as to how this creates rotation. Nothing, nada.You told me to take with your science advisor, Clint.
2. Its torque around an external axis. Which comes from force applied to com of ball. Nope no explaining how that creates rotation. I gave you several counterexamples where no rotation is created. You assure me that it works.
3. Just look at the animation. I looked.. There is nothing to see! Ur bonkers!
4.A new one. Cannoballs can’t fly backwards! No explanation given.
Case closed.
Newton’s cannonball was only ever intended to show orbital path, how a body can be fired and then never hit the ground. Nothing to illustrate about the balls rotation or orientation.
“Its not a question of whoever makes the last argument, wins, so its time to just call it a day”
Good demonstrate that is actually true. Just stop posting.
“1. It’s momentum plus gravity. No explanation as to how this creates rotation. Nothing, nada.You told me to take with your science advisor, Clint.”
That’s what the whole Newton’s Cannonball discussion is about, Nate. An attempt to explain to you how the two vectors produce motion like the MOTL. So not “nothing, nada”. In fact…dozens of comments, going back for days.
“2. Its torque around an external axis. Which comes from force applied to com of ball. Nope no explaining how that creates rotation. I gave you several counterexamples where no rotation is created. You assure me that it works.”
No, it comes from the force applied to the CoM of the ball and the connection to the external axis (gravity, etc), as you’ve continuously left out for about 1,000 times now…and, I have supported it with the Wiki link, because it plainly states that “orbital angular momentum” corresponds to “rotation about an external axis”. You have no such support…in fact, do you ever link to anything!?
“3. Just look at the animation. I looked.. There is nothing to see! Ur bonkers!”
See response to 1).
“4.A new one. Cannoballs can’t fly backwards! No explanation given.”
See response to 1).
I’ll try and explain it again. The front of the cannonball (painted F) is facing in the direction of motion as it leaves the cannon, launched without “spin”. As it moves, the direction of “forwards” and the direction of “down” are changing wrt an inertial reference frame. The direction of “forwards” may change, but the cannonball is still moving “forwards”. It never moves “backwards”. F is still facing “forwards” halfway around the Earth because there was no torque to cause it to “spin” and start facing any other way. All that changed was the direction of “forwards” and “down”.
Nate says:
”There is a difference in how a sphere responds to a force thru its COM, as compared to if the sphere was part of a larger rigid body. Like your two spheres connected by a stick, with the force still applied to one sphere.”
You are incorrect there as force is NOT exerted on the COM. The force of gravity of earth on the moon is exerted on each individual particle with some particles receiving more forces than more distant particles. In fact the sum of these forces is greater than the force on the distance of the COM from earth’s times the mass of the moon.
Nate says:
”So a force applied to the COM of the Moon cannot cause it to rotate.”
I never said the force was applied through the com of the stick with balls on either end. I said the axle was there.
Push on one of the balls and this system will rotate, like when you push on a tether ball the ball and rope will rotate around the axle.
Pushing on the axle doesn’t cause anything to rotate except in general plane motion with wheels on the surface over which you are pushing the axle. Then you have the 2 actions you propose for the MOTL.
But for the tetherball and the stick with balls on both ends pushing on the ball causes a rotation. When you have no stick, rope, or gravity when you push on the ball you get a translation instead of a rotation.
Bottom line Nate. If you can’t explain why you believe that when exposed to the gravitational pull of earth the moon as an object will behave differently than does its particles; you have no argument at all.
to me it seems you expect the result from this single perturbation to be different. You claim that you expect that our MOTL moon will rotate around the earth while its particles are induced by the same perturbation to rotate around the COM of the moon.
Yeah sit in the corner and wear a dunce hat until you figure out the correct explanation.
This is actually pretty simple when you look at earth’s motion. We know that earth has a spin in addition to its orbital rotation.
We have 365.25 times per year where the earth rotates around its internal axis. And we have one additional rotation that occurs on an axis at the COM of the earth sun system with an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic that points a different direction than the earth’s axis by about 23.4 degrees. You have two rotations going on. One on the earth and one on the earth sun system. You know that you just ignore that its obviously a different axis.
This is how discussions with you guys always go, though. The discussion was, originally, for you, Nate (representing “Spinners”), to defend your position that “orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR. Somehow you guys always bait and goad so that it eventually becomes the “Non-Spinners” defending their position.
This was the original argument you made for why you think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR:
P1) Gravity can produce no torque about a sphere’s internal axis.
P2) An object cannot change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without torque about the object’s internal axis.
C) “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
The aircraft example showed P2) to be false. The rational debate on your position thus ended when I posted the aviation stack exchange link. Of course, even the ball on a string shows your P2) to be false, so your argument was technically refuted years before we even started! You just dig your heels in, though, and the denial goes on forever. You should have just switched to a different argument in support of your position, and conceded that this one was refuted, but no…that was never going to happen!
Thing is, whether you accept or understand my explanations in defence of the “Non-Spinner” position is by the by. Your argument in defence of your position is still refuted, anyway!
There is just so much gas-lighting going on in your last two posts, that it is difficult to keep up.
1. Its momentum plus gravity. No explanation as to how this creates rotation. Nothing, nada.You told me to take with your science advisor, Clint.
Thats what the whole Newtons Cannonball discussion is about, Nate. An attempt to explain to you how the two vectors produce motion like the MOTL. So not nothing, nada. In factdozens of comments, going back for days.
Nope. If there were anything of significance you could point it out, you would. But no. Because this is gaslighting.
2. Its torque around an external axis. Which comes from force applied to com of ball. Nope no explaining how that creates rotation. I gave you several counterexamples where no rotation is created. You assure me that it works.
No, it comes from the force applied to the CoM of the ball and the connection to the external axis (gravity, etc), as youve continuously left out for about 1,000 times now
Nonsense, I explained to you about 1000 times, how the gravity force is ALSO through the COM, and thus ALSO does not produce torque. It should be no surprise that addition of two torques = 0 produces a net torque = 0.
and, I have supported it with the Wiki link, because it plainly states that orbital angular momentum corresponds to rotation about an external axis. 4
Again, a sly sleight of hand. You substitute orbital angular momentum for rotation around an external axis .
They are not the same. Even the MOTR has orbital angular momentum!
‘3. Just look at the animation. I looked.. There is nothing to see! Ur bonkers!
See response to 1).
Nothing to see in the animation and nothing to see in response to (1).
Consistent gas-lighting.
4.A new one. Cannoballs cant fly backwards! No explanation given.
Ill try and explain it again. The front of the cannonball (painted F) is facing in the direction of motion as it leaves the cannon, launched without spin.
Yes.
As it moves, the direction of forwards and the direction of down are changing wrt an inertial reference frame.
Yes.
The direction of forwards may change, but the cannonball is still moving forwards. It never moves backwards. ”
Yes. That is what an orbit is all about. Gravity causes acceleration of the cannonball toward the Earth.
Nothing you indicated up to now suggested that the orientation of the cannonball should change, ONLY the velocity should change. They are not the
same!
Since there was no torque on the ball to cause it to turn and face any other direction than the one it was facing as
it left the cannon.
“All that changed was the direction of forwards and down
And yet the F on the ball feels no compulsion to follow these changes!
Loads of gas-lighting there!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“The special case of a rotation with an internal axis passing through the body’s own center of mass is known as a spin (or autorotation).[1] In that case, the surface intersection of the internal spin axis can be called a pole; for example, Earth’s rotation defines the geographical poles. A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1] Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum“
You should apologise for your false accusations, Nate. As I said, “rotation about an external axis” corresponds to “orbital angular momentum”. Find a link suggesting “translation in a circle corresponds to “orbital angular momentum”, after your apology, and I will begin to take you seriously, again.
“Nonsense, I explained to you about 1000 times, how the gravity force is ALSO through the COM, and thus ALSO does not produce torque. It should be no surprise that addition of two torques = 0 produces a net torque = 0…”
…about the internal axis. But, we’re not talking about the internal axis. We’re talking about the external axis. And, I have now explained that about 1001 times.
nate simply doesn’t understand what is going on. he avoids understanding that torque is a ”turning force”. the moon and its particles do a 180 change of direction in half an orbit. it also requires that the innermost particles adopt the same angular speed as the outermost particles and this is accomplished via the same process as the tetherball. for gravity there is more reverse acceleration on the closer particles vs the outermost particles.
like small balls floating on a large bowl filled with water that begins to accelerate into a spin. the water being liquid will not accelerate as fast as the large bowl and the balls will not accelerate as fast as the water. it will just take longer for the balls to get their angular speed up to the bowl. slippage has to has to be considered. what can’t be ignored is the stretching of both the tetherball and the moon by the force of its connection to the correct real axis of rotation. imaginary axes have no physical involvement in any of this. they are there purely as analytical purposes and can be used as such in any situation and are used frequently to simplify calculations of what is going on mathematically without actually necessarily representing any reality and as a result only informs us of reality when we finally actually understand reality. the inexperienced need not apply.
“P1) Gravity can produce no torque about a spheres internal axis.
P2) An object cannot change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without torque about the objects internal axis.”
Very true, agrees with common sense and satisfies Newton’s First Law
”
C) Orbit without spin is as per the MOTR.”
Follows logically, because the MOTR experienced only the effects of gravity, must satisfy Newtons First Law: If orientation of a body is fixed it will remain fixed unless acted on by a torque.
“The aircraft example showed P2) to be false. The rational debate on your position thus ended when I posted”
THe gas-lighting never ends. Here you pretend that we didn’t spend dozens of posts discussing the horrible airplane analogy.
You asserted without evidence, that the airplane has no torque on it. Ignoring all the reasons why it would!
The number 1 reason being that it MUST fly with its nose forward in the direction of motion, else it will experience aerodynamic forces to return it to alignment (ie torque).
Unlike orbiting bodies!
But this flimsy example, you claim, shows that Newtons First Law is just a suggestion. You can get around it.
Bwa ha ha ha!
“nate simply doesnt understand what is going on. he avoids understanding that torque is a turning force.”
Sure Bill, I’m a physicist who cannot understand torque! I need an auditor to explain it to me.
The rest is gobbldegook.
Unless you directly quote me and try to rebut it in a concise few sentences, there is just no point in talking with you.
Is Nate pretending Newton’s 1st Law of Rotation specifies an internal axis again? It doesn’t specify any axis, Nate.
The ball on a string shows your P2) to be false, let alone the aircraft. Gee whizz.
Nate says:
” ”nate simply doesnt understand what is going on. he avoids understanding that torque is a turning force.”
Sure Bill, Im a physicist who cannot understand torque! I need an auditor to explain it to me.
The rest is gobbldegook.
Unless you directly quote me and try to rebut it in a concise few sentences, there is just no point in talking with you.”
LOL!
Yes Nate I was an auditor. A student is not an auditor or an actuary, or a physicist. One with a degree in physics is not a physicist. One is defined as a physicist by what they do doing their careers. Within that discipline these people specialize and get real time experience in what they are talking about. Fact is besides having been an auditor I was also a builder using physics to do my job via engineering skills.
So let me point out your problem. A real axis is one which contributes physically. It can simply remain rigid and hold something in place. Or it might do that plus have a force applied through it which does produce torque around that axis.
One can imagine torque being applied through an axis or it can really be applied through that axis. Or in the case of gravity a gravitational force capable of accelerating the rotation of an object may emanate from that axis.
But a purely imaginary axis from which no forces emanate contributes nothing and can always be imagined to exist in the absence of the force which caused the rotation in the first place.
Like a cannon ball or baseball exiting the barrel or hand respectively that imparts a spin on a thrown object. No real axis exists but one can imagine one being their that essentially does nothing except as an anchor point for symbolic analysis.
So non-spinners don’t claim there is nothing that can be deemed on an imaginary axis. We do it all the time when we don’t know where a real axis is. Further we understand via the cannonball and baseball that an external axis may impart a rotation on the ball and no longer have any control over the spin of the ball.
Such is not the case with rotations on an external axis. External axes are almost always if not always deemed to be real.
So yes non-spinners recognize that imaginary axes can always be imagined as existing at the center of a rotating object no matter where a real axis is.
And thats your only problem, elevating your physics education above reality. While it may have some useful symbolic purposes that doesn’t diminish from any observed reality.
DREMT has been incredibly patient, providing demos and real world observations. . .and you just continue to lock the real world out due to your preference for an imaginary world but that’s not considering real physics.
As I said Bill, unless you directly quote me and try to rebut that in a concise few sentences, there is just no point in talking with you.
Obviously you are unable to do that. So there is nothing we can talk about.
I can’t help but notice that Nate hasn’t apologised or found a link…
“You should apologise for your false accusations, Nate. As I said, rotation about an external axis corresponds to orbital angular momentum. Find a link suggesting translation in a circle corresponds to ”
Ok.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#am
It shows a point particle in an orbit that has orbital angular momentum.
FYI, a particle cannot have rotation!
Oh, I thought we were talking about the motion of rigid bodies, not abstract concepts which are unable to rotate about either an internal or external axis.
“The ball on a string shows your P2) to be false, let alone the aircraft. Gee whizz.“
More to the point, the very existence of the concept “rotation about an external axis” shows your P2) to be false!
“And yet the F on the ball feels no compulsion to follow these changes!”
Is it your assertion that if we had a ball floating in a bowl of water, red half on the top, blue half on the bottom, if you moved it from the cannon to a point halfway around the orbit, it would have turned around 180 degrees so that the blue half was on top?
“Oh, I thought we were talking about the motion of rigid bodies, not abstract concepts”
Nice try, but as usual, a flimsy excuse.
Yes angular momentum is an abstract mathematical quantity used in physics and engineering, because it’s useful.
You can see its definition on the page.
It can be just as well applied to any body.
If you don’t know how to make sense of, or how to apply such abstract physical quantities, stop using them to make ignorant arguments!
Trying to learn physics by Google is very ineffective. Sorry.
“More to the point, the very existence of the concept rotation about an external axis shows your P2) to be false!”
Wrong again. As I clearly stated rotations about external axes exist.
Look, by now you should have learned that a force through the COM of a body, simply causes it to translate, not rotate.
But it can cause a body to go into orbit, can create torque around an external point, which will give the body orbital angular momentum.
But none of those require rotation of the body.
Sorry that this doesn’t agree with your intuition, but physics often doesn’t for people who have not taken a course in it.
“Is it your assertion that if we had a ball floating in a bowl of water, red half on the top, blue half on the bottom, if you moved it from the cannon to a point halfway around the orbit, it would have turned around 180 degrees so that the blue half was on top?”
If the balls were perfectly spherical and the water was frictionless sure, why not?
Tell me your answer, but give a rationale that agrees with Newtons Laws.
So you cannot find a reference that suggests “translation in a circle” corresponds to “orbital angular momentum” in the same way that my reference makes clear “rotation about an external axis” corresponds with “orbital angular momentum”. That is clear.
“As I clearly stated rotations about external axes exist.”
Great, then logic dictates you agree your P2) is false.
“Look, by now you should have learned that a force through the COM of a body, simply causes it to translate, not rotate.”
Keep bashing the same straw men all you like. What I am actually arguing has been made perfectly clear.
“If the balls were perfectly spherical and the water was frictionless sure, why not?”
So you are asserting that (wrt an inertial reference frame), by halfway around the orbit:
The person holding the bowl would be inverted.
The bowl would be inverted.
The water itself would be inverted.
The direction of “down” would be inverted.
Somehow, the ball would not be inverted.
Nah, my link clearly demonstrates that a point mass in orbit, with no rotation, only translation, has orbital angular momentum.
If you could think logically, you could understand that all point-mass parts of a rigid body like the MOTR also have orbital angular momentum. The the whole body does!
If you could read, understand and accept what my link said, and if you understood rotation, you would get that an object orbiting like the MOTR would have both “orbital angular momentum” and “spin angular momentum”.
“So you are asserting that (wrt an inertial reference frame), by halfway around the orbit:
The person holding the bowl would be inverted.
The bowl would be inverted.
The water itself would be inverted.”
Obviously that would be you absurdly extrpolating, not me.
Only the floating ball is able to freely adjust its orientation, and thus is only constrained by Newtons first law to keep its orientation fixed in the inertial frame.
More gas-lighting please.
Sorry Nate, but Newton’s 1st Law of Rotation does not specify an internal axis. As long as we consider the ball to be rotating about an external axis, there is no need to believe it will not also be inverted wrt an inertial reference frame by the time it gets around half the orbit.
“As long as we consider the ball to be rotating about an external axis”
That was not the stated condition of the ball.
Sorry no changing the rules in the middle of the game or circular logic allowed!
You just have no honest debate left in your tank.
Nate, the ball is either going to be inverted, or it isn’t. Seems you are no longer able to follow the discussion. And, you’re starting to blame me for it.
“Sorry Nate, but Newtons 1st Law of Rotation does not specify an internal axis”
C’mon use your noodle. Think. I know you can do it.
That ball has an initial orientation with the inertial frame. It is sitting in frictionless water. Gravity is cancelled by the buoyant force of water.
It has no torque on it, therfore:
It cannot change its orientation..
If you think it does, point out the force or torque that is doing it.
In science we understand that changes have a CAUSE. And it isn’t magic.
The torque is about the external axis, located within the Earth itself, as has been explained ad nauseam.
But, you don’t even understand the ball on a string. So, we get nowhere.
“If you could read, understand and accept what my link said, and if you understood rotation, you would get that an object orbiting like the MOTR would have both orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum.”
I missed this gas-lighting.
You just have no honest debate left in you.
“The torque is about the external axis, located within the Earth itself, as has been explained ad nauseam.”
You couldn’t be any more vague then that.
Just admit you have no idea, other than magic!
Nate, your “goldfish memory” tactics and repeated false accusations are not “honest debate”.
This:
“So you cannot find a reference that suggests translation in a circle corresponds to orbital angular momentum'”
was quite dishonest.
as was this:
“So you are asserting that (wrt an inertial reference frame), by halfway around the orbit:
The person holding the bowl would be inverted.
The bowl would be inverted.
The water itself would be inverted”
and this:
If you could read, understand and accept what my link said, and if you understood rotation, you would get that an object orbiting like the MOTR would have both orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum.”
I showed a link, not you.
You’re done. You’re spent. You have no honest answers left.
Gaslighting is all you can manage.
No Nate, none of that was dishonest.
Here is a link to me showing you my link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700840
So how you can say I didn’t show you it, is beyond belief.
Nate quote mines:
“This:
“So you cannot find a reference that suggests translation in a circle corresponds to orbital angular momentum’”
was quite dishonest.”
The full quote:
“So you cannot find a reference that suggests “translation in a circle” corresponds to “orbital angular momentum” in the same way that my reference makes clear “rotation about an external axis” corresponds with “orbital angular momentum”.”
Correct. My reference clearly states the correspondence. Whereas your understanding is your own extrapolation from what your reference actually states.
Nate continues:
“as was this:
“So you are asserting that (wrt an inertial reference frame), by halfway around the orbit:
The person holding the bowl would be inverted.
The bowl would be inverted.
The water itself would be inverted”
All three are true. For example, the person holding the bowl would be inverted, wrt an inertial reference frame. Unless you’re picturing them standing on their head!
The dispute was over the ball, whether or not that would also be inverted.
“All three are true. For example, the person holding the bowl would be inverted, wrt an inertia”
Not something I stated or suggested or implied.
I only made claims about the ball floating in a bowl.
So that was exttremely dishonest.
“So you cannot find a reference that suggests translation in a circle corresponds to orbital angular momentum
Yes, this was quite dishonest.
Because my link proves that one particle orbiting with no rotation has orbital angular momentum.
It is not believable that you would be so stoopid as to think that a collection of particles orbiting with no rotation (MOTR) would somehow not have orbital angular momentum.
It is too absurd to believe.
Nate, let’s see if you can understand my comment this time:
So you are asserting that (wrt an inertial reference frame), by halfway around the orbit:
The person holding the bowl would be inverted [obviously true, not in dispute].
The bowl would be inverted [obviously true, not in dispute].
The water itself would be inverted [obviously true, not in dispute].
The direction of “down” would be inverted [obviously true, not in dispute].
Somehow, the ball would not be inverted [in dispute].
The purpose of the comment was to give the necessary context to the motion of the ball! There’s nothing dishonest about it.
Here is the question you asked me about the ball:
“Is it your assertion that if we had a ball floating in a bowl of water, red half on the top, blue half on the bottom, if you moved it from the cannon to a point halfway around the orbit, it would have turned around 180 degrees so that the blue half was on top?”
And I answered yes, it will continue to stay fixed in the inertial frame, so long as there was no friction.
Then you tried to suggest quite dishonestly that
“As long as we consider the ball to be rotating about an external axis”
But we do not. Because that is not in the premise of your question!
So yes it is true that you have had quite streak of dishonesty in your posts.
Will you stop, now, please?
Once again, Nate:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“The special case of a rotation with an internal axis passing through the body’s own center of mass is known as a spin (or autorotation).[1] In that case, the surface intersection of the internal spin axis can be called a pole; for example, Earth’s rotation defines the geographical poles. A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1] Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum”
The above clearly and directly states that “rotation about an external axis” is involved in a corresponding type of angular momentum (“orbital angular momentum”). Whereas your link does not say the same thing about “translation in a circle”. You have just extrapolated from your link what you believe to be the case.
Re an object orbiting like the MOTR, it is clear from the above link and quote that it should be considered to have both “orbital angular momentum” and “spin angular momentum”, since the former corresponds to “rotation about an external axis”, and the latter to “rotation about an internal axis”.
So, you can keep telling me I think an object orbiting like the MOTR has no “orbital angular momentum” for as long as you like…that is not what I think.
“Then you tried to suggest quite dishonestly that
“As long as we consider the ball to be rotating about an external axis”
But we do not. Because that is not in the premise of your question!”
Once again, you are not paying attention to the flow of the discussion. You had tried suggesting that Newton’s 1st Law of Rotation meant that the ball would not be inverted wrt an inertial reference frame halfway around the orbit. However, that would only be the case if the Law specified an internal axis. However, it does not. Since the ball could be rotating about an external axis, located within the Earth itself, the ball could in fact be inverted, and not violate that Law!
Hence why I wrote the sentence you quote-mined.
Quote-mining is not “honest debate” either, Nate.
“So yes it is true that you have had quite streak of dishonesty in your posts.
Will you stop, now, please?”
You have identified no dishonesty. You have simply failed to follow the discussion.
Nate continues to rest his entire argument on four falsehoods/fallacies.
1) Moon could spin and therefore it does spin. This is essential to his rigid body argument the denies a rotation on an external axis Obviously a fallacy.
2) That a translation can have angular momentum when in fact in converting the rotation on an external axis he factored the ”r” factor out of Lorb. And r is a required factor for calculating angular momentum.
He can find no support for this nonsense.
3) Appeal to authorities that have no documented work directly on the topic.
Fallacy of appealing to authority without evidence that the authorities statement is true.
4) And he argues in P2) that for the moon cannot develop a spin without torque on the internal axis.
We know in fact that for the moon torque only exists on the moon’s internal axis when it IS spinning.
Science understands that when earth’s gravity exerts torque on the moon it is to resist an existing spin.
Once the spin ends there is no more torque and you have a tidal locked moon as the MOTL. So Nate has this concept 180degrees backwards.
Nate also completely screwed up the link I gave him showing how to calculate a particle rotating on an external axis.
He notes that particles cannot spin and refuses or can’t do the math to show that a cloud of balanced particles around a COM (even 2 particles spread equidistant from the COM of the two can be calculated using L=mvr and that calculation will equal Lorb + Lspin. But apparently doing that math is too difficult for Nate and he just ignores this mathematical proof that DREMT and the non-spinners are correct.
Nate tells us that particles so to have a spin on an internal axis you need more than one particle in the object.
DREMT demonstrated why the non-spinner argument is correct here and Nate has failed to demonstrate anything. All he does is obfuscate, commit fallacies, and sponsor impossible ideas.
OK, I misinterpreted your ‘you assert the water, bowl, person, would be inverted..’ statement as saying these things would be reversed from their normal condition on the other side of the Earth. Now I understand what you meant. My bad.
See it is not so hard to admit one has been wrong. Try it sometime.
Now yes I think only the ball stays aligned with its initial orientation wrt to the inertial frame, which means it reorients wrt the water/bowl.
All the others are compelled to align with the local horizontal.
For example you can never see water with its free surface pointing down! Humans walk with their feet on the ground, etc.
And the human does experience tiny torques to orient him to the local horizontal.
In contrast only the ball in frictionless water, can freely reorient to satisfy Newton’s Laws. It has no constraint on its orientation.
Again, you need to think carefully about how each of these aligns with local horizontal, and not just knee-jerk apply incredulity.
“However, that would only be the case if the Law specified an internal axis. However, it does not”
Yet another nonsense assertion without evidence.
Newton’s First Law of rotation states that a body’s orientation, if at rest wrt the inertional frame, will remain at at rest (ie unchanged) wrt the inertial frame.
There is nothing in there about an axis! Orientation has only to do with the universe.
Sorry you are wrong about that.
If you want try to disagree, show us evidence.
Nate, if that is your way of apologising for your false accusations, you have a long way to go! Saying “sorry” would be a start.
The simplest explanation for the person, bowl, and water inverting wrt an inertial reference frame is that they have rotated about an external axis, located within the Earth. So, we would expect the ball to invert, too. After all, the very direction of “down” has also inverted!
“There is nothing in there about an axis!”
My point exactly. No axis, internal or external, is specified. Just that a torque is required for rotation to commence. Which could thus be about an internal or external axis. Or both!
“The simplest explanation for the person, bowl, and water inverting wrt an inertial reference frame is that they have rotated about an external axis, located within the Earth. ”
Sure that works for all of them, they all are compelled by local forces and torques to invert along with the Earth.
“So, we would expect the ball to invert, too”
Faulty generalization. The ball is different as I discussed above.
It is not compelled to align as the others are.
Remember gravity apples no torque, and in any case is perfectly cancelled by buoyant forces of the water. Also the water is frictionless.
As I asked before, but you evaded, what specific force or torque is acting on the ball?
You’re not listening, again.
The torque is applied to the external axis, not the internal axis. So the person is rotating about an external axis, not an internal axis, when on “level ground” (only Earth’s curvature). If he walks up and down a hill he would then be rotating about an external axis and an internal axis, with the internal axis rotation in one direction, whilst pitching to go up, and in the opposite direction, whilst pitching to go down. Once back on “level ground” (only Earth’s curvature) he is only rotating about an external axis again. So, there are your “internal axis” torques. I’m not denying they’re there, I’m saying they are only required for local changes in topography besides the curvature of the Earth.
What produces the torque about an external axis? Think of the ball on a string, and what I have already tried to explain.
Now I noticed that you still have not addressed this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700944
Let remind you what that was in response to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700868
which was a response to this demand from you.
“Find a link suggesting translation in a circle corresponds to orbital angular momentum, after your apology, and I will begin to take you seriously, again.”
I found a link that, with a tiny bit of thought, does just that, as I discussed above.
Will you now admit you were wrong?
It’s just not that difficult.
Response is here, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700950
And for the third time you completely evade answering my question, while hand waving about everything else.
Here it is again:
“As I asked before, but you evaded, what specific force or torque is acting on the ball?”
If you can’t answer than we will have to assume you have no clue.
Neither do I, because there are none.
That leaves only magic to be responsible for giving the ball rotation.
“A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earths orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1] Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum”
a. Anybody can edit Wikipedia. Thus you find in this same article contradictions of the above.
b. The statement above is correct that the Earth has both spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum.
So how in God’s name does that contradict the fact the MOTR has orbital angular momentum? My link clearly indicates that it does.
And if you want to argue about this stuff you need to understand the basic equations.
Orbital angular momentum, as my link shows is MVR*sin(theta). And sin(theta) is 1 for circular orbits.
So for the MOTR its angular momentum is simply MVR. And that is only orbital angular momentum.
If it additionally had rotation (like the MOTL) than it would have ADDITIONAL angular momentum. That can only be the SPIN angular momentum.
“As I asked before, but you evaded, what specific force or torque is acting on the ball?”
For the twentieth time, the “sideways force” on the ball, acting at right angles to the force of gravity produces a torque about the ball’s external axis. Both of them, combined. Not each, individually. Refer back to the tetherball explanation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700598
Nate, read the whole thing. Take a breath. Think. Then respond:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700950
DREMT,
Read the whole thing this time. Don’t do as usual, ignore the key points.
Instead quote and respond to them specifically.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700987
“For the twentieth time, the sideways force on the ball”
This is the first mention of it!
In any case as you already claim to understand: a force applied to the COM of the ball only causes translation.
Recall again the meter stick on ice pushed at its center does not rotate?
And yet that force*(perpendicular distance to a person in the audience) produces a torque around that external person.
And yet, NO ROTATION around that person results.
So torque on a isolated body around any external point does not need to produce rotation.
When are you going acknowledge these super basic facts and principles?
Nate, could you stop quote-mining, and start to debate honestly, please?
So just distracting in order to evade?
We can assume you are unable to respond to the specifics in my posts.
Got it.
“This is the first mention of it!”
False. One of the many examples of its usage is in the tetherball comment I linked you to!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700598
“In any case as you already claim to understand: a force applied to the COM of the ball only causes translation.”
I’m not talking about only one force, though, am I, Nate? This is why I asked you to stop quote-mining. Again:
For the twentieth time, the “sideways force” on the ball, acting at right angles to the force of gravity produces a torque about the ball’s external axis. Both of them, combined. Not each, individually. Refer back to the tetherball explanation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700598
I’ll just post it again:
So strip the atmosphere from the equation. No atmosphere. We’re already getting closer to the real thing. Great.
We’ll go back to the tetherball. Consider its motion to begin “perfectly”, in other words the string is kept taut at all times, there is never any slack in the string. The person pushes the ball, perfectly, in the direction of motion, with the exact force required to get the ball swinging about the post so that the string is perpendicular to the post. Now, the force he applied would have been through the CoM of the ball, sideways, to initiate the swing. Nevertheless, the result is that torque is applied about the external axis and the ball rotates about that axis. There was never any torque applied to the internal axis of the ball (string was taut throughout [in other words the string always acts through the CoM of the ball]) and thus the ball is not “spinning”. Is that clearer?
It is utterly pointless to keep bringing up the ball on a string, which for the millionth time, is compelled by the string to stay oriented to the center, and the similar tetherball which us too complicated to give any insight.
Please just stick to the topic, the ball in water. It us not compelled by anything to point its same face to the Earth.
No gravity is not acting on it, since, it us cancelled by the buoyant force of the water. Unlike for the cannonball, gravity does act on it and compels it into orbit.
Still awaiting your specific responses to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700987
Nate, if you can’t accept that the tetherball provides a perfect example of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, then you may as well believe “rotation about an external axis” does not exist. You can keep claiming that you think it exists, but if it has no actual real world application (in your view) then you may as well be denying its existence altogether.
Still awaiting you slowly and carefully reading through this, and reconsidering what you wrote to me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700950
“Now, the force he applied would have been through the CoM of the ball, sideways, to initiate the swing. Nevertheless, the result is that torque is applied about the external axis and the ball rotates about that axis. There was never any torque applied to the internal axis of the ball (string was taut throughout”
This is wrong, as I already explained and you ignored.
The rope has mass. The COM of the ball/rope system is not at the COM of the ball. The rope has elasticity. The rope needs to be dragged by the ball, but since it has mass, it lags behind the ball and makes an angle with it.
It is way beyond your ability to analyze correctly. Thus it cannot usefully model any general phenomena.
“Still awaiting you slowly and carefully reading through this, and reconsidering what you wrote to me”
Already did. Wrote exactly what I wanted to convey.
It is evident you have no answers and are now just seeking distraction.
I have written exactly what I wanted to convey, too, Nate. So, I’m happy to leave it at that.
Your obfuscation on the tetherball is never-ending. The ball is not rotating about an internal axis, Nate. If you disagree, argue it out with Bindidon.
“The rope has mass…”
Then make it a “massless rope”. Closer to an analogue for gravity, then. All the adjustments and qualifications you want to make for the tetherball actually bring it closer to the reality we’re trying to explain. Removing the atmosphere, perfect “sideways” push, rope always taut, etc. You’re then left with the rope acting always through the CoM of the ball, and a “sideways force”, resulting in a torque about the external axis, and rotation about that axis.
“I have written exactly what I wanted to convey, too, Nate. So, Im happy to leave it at that.”
Then we’ll have to leave it at you having no answers, thus throwing out endless chaff about irrelevant other things.
It is plain that you don’t understand the basics of angular momentum.
The MOTR has only orbital angular momentum MVR, agreeing with my link.
And this explains why a torque on the cannonball about the Earth leads to orbital angular momentum, and motion like the MOTR.
But no spin or spin angular momentum.
The MOTL additionally has spin angular momentum. Since spin is defined as all other motions in the inertial frame.
And your Wikipedia link does not help you on this, simply stating that orbiting bodies can have both.
Very sorry this does not agree with your beliefs.
OK, Nate. You cannot understand what the Wikipedia link clearly states. Your brain won’t allow you to process it. That’s OK.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700950
Many nonsensical things from Bill, that are not things I’ve said, because he refuses to quote me.
One part is of interest:
“He notes that particles cannot spin and refuses or can’t do the math to show that a cloud of balanced particles around a COM (even 2 particles spread equidistant from the COM of the two can be calculated using L=mvr and that calculation will equal Lorb + Lspin. But apparently doing that math is too difficult for Nate and he just ignores this mathematical proof that DREMT and the non-spinners are correct.”
I’d like to see Bill show us the math that leads to that strange conclusion.
I will just remind him about the angular momentum of a sphere spinning around its COM, at rest. It is L = Icm*w. Where Icm is moment of inertia of a sphere around its CoM, which is 1/2Mr^2. And w is the angular velocity of the sphere.
Now if we allow the sphere to rotate instead around an external axis, like the MOTL, what is its angular momentum? We can use the parallel axis-theorem. Which states that I = Icm + MR^2, where R is the radius of the orbit.
Now lets calculate the angular momentum. It is L =I*w = Icm*w + MR^2*w. Now for a body in orbit w =v/R, where v is its velocity.
So we can rewrite the angular momentum, L =Icm*w + MR^2*v/R = Icm*w + MvR. So you should notice this is the angular momentum of a spinning sphere at rest + MvR, which is the orbital angular momentum of a Mass with velocity, v, and average radius R.
So the MOTL, clearly has orbital angular momentum + spin angular momentum…because it is a body orbiting and spinning.
FYI Parallel Axis Theorem
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/parax.html
“Now if we allow the sphere to rotate instead around an external axis, like the MOTL, what is its angular momentum…so the MOTL, clearly has orbital angular momentum + spin angular momentum…because it is a body orbiting and spinning.”
Lol. Upthread, Nate agreed that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was movement as per the MOTL. Down here he tries to pretend that movement like the MOTL could involve two axes of rotation, because his mathturbation confuses him into forgetting about the basics of rotation…
FYI angular velocity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
“There are two types of angular velocity:
Orbital angular velocity refers to how fast a point object revolves about a fixed origin, i.e. the time rate of change of its angular position relative to the origin.
Spin angular velocity refers to how fast a rigid body rotates with respect to its center of rotation and is independent of the choice of origin, in contrast to orbital angular velocity.”
UGGH.
what I said:
“the MOTL clearly has orbital angular momentum + spin angular momentumbecause it is a body orbiting and spinning”
What DREMT claims I am saying
“he tries to pretend that movement like the MOTL could involve two axes of rotation”
Notice the difference.
DREMT has embraced dishonest debating
Nate still doesn’t understand that as soon as you say movement like the MOTL involves “rotation about an external axis”, you are automatically saying it’s not “spinning”.
Better luck next time.
…which reminds me…earlier, Nate said:
“[Quoting me] “The simplest explanation for the person, bowl, and water inverting wrt an inertial reference frame is that they have rotated about an external axis, located within the Earth.”
Sure that works for all of them, they all are compelled by local forces and torques to invert along with the Earth.”
His agreement that these things, moving as per the MOTL, were “rotating about an external axis” meant he agreed they were not “spinning”. Of course, he won’t understand that…
DREMT you are avoiding the facts about angular momentum which show unequivocally that the MOTL has spin angular momentum and therefore spin.
While the MOTR has only orbital angular momentum and no spin.
Instead you want to focus on what was said.
I have been consistent:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700719
No. Not what I meant. Both are apt descriptions.
I was talking about what forces or torques can lead to these motions.
To get a body like a sphere rotating in place it requires a torque around its COM.
To the get it orbiting requires it to translate past a planet. That is the motion of the fired cannonball.
Together these two motions can produce the MOTL.
It of course happens to be a rotation around an external axis. Only because its rotation rate matches its orbital rate.”
And for the billionth time: astronomy seeks to describe orbits IN GENERAL, not just the special cases that would give the MOTL: circular orbit, synchronous rotation, orbital and spin axes aligned.
Even our Moon does not fit this description.
In general then, we need to describe elliptical orbits with various spins with various spin axes.
Obviously these are most easily described as two independent motions.
Sorry that your model will not work in general.
You’re funny, Nate. You just don’t get it. And, you never stop “not getting it”!
We could continue this for the rest of our lives, because you simply refuse to understand.
You cannot claim that you agree “rotation about an external axis” exists, and then turn around and do everything in your power to try and argue that in no practical situation does it ever actually apply!
Your P2) is falsified by the existence of the very concept of “rotation about an external axis”. Here’s your P2):
P2) An object cannot change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without torque about an internal axis.
That presupposes that it is not possible for an object to change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with torque about an external axis. If you can’t see that, you’re blind to it.
“P2) An object cannot change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without torque about an internal axis.”
This happens to be true. And you keep ignoring all the reasons you have been shown that demonstrate it.
“That presupposes that it is not possible for an object to change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with torque about an external axis. ”
The only thing you offer is a misinterpretation of the physics of torque and angular momentum.
These are topics that you obviously never studied, and just don’t really understand
“If you cant see that, youre blind to it.”
I understand these topics very well. I teach them to science and engineering students. And you are aware of that.
What I am ‘blind to’ is fake physics.
“Sorry that your model will not work in general.”
The model of “orbit without spin” is for a hypothetical “perfect” orbit, which would indeed be circular. Just think about the “perfect tetherball” example. Once you understand that the string can only act through the CoM of the ball, the physical attachment position of the string to the ball becomes kind of irrelevant to the example. It would require a torque about the internal axis of the ball itself to get it to move other than the MOTL. That’s the point. Everyone gets so angry that “the ball cannot spin”…the point is, it would require a torque about the internal axis of the ball to even attempt to make it spin, which yes, the string would then resist, unlike gravity, but that doesn’t distract from the point of the example. Since nobody is arguing that orbiting objects can’t also spin!
Sorry, Nate, but for your P2) to be true, “rotation about an external axis” would have to simply not exist. I’m sorry that you lack the logic skills to see that.
You keep returning to special cases with properties (like the string) that just so happen to constrain the motion to be like your model.
Then you erroneously try to generalize from these special cases.
This is a straightforward logical flaw.
You need to start from the general principles. But first you need learn and embrace them.
No you are not properly analyzing the tetherball, as explained multiple times. You dont know how.
Making the string “massless” removed the last of your objections, Nate.
Now you have no excuse not to understand that the string always acts through the CoM of the ball.
“Sorry, Nate, but for your P2) to be true, rotation about an external axis would have to simply not exist.”
Weird ill-logic, which you cannot explain.
In any case wrong, since P2 is true. Sorry.
“Now you have no excuse not to understand that the string always acts through the CoM of the ball.”
Wrong. Again failing to analyze how the ball gets going.
The ball “gets going” perfectly, Nate. As was explained. String is always kept taut. Perfect amount of force applied in the perfect place. You’re clutching at straws.
What forces and torques are applied to the ball. Show us how those give the motions.
Your P2) presupposes that it is not possible for an object to change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with torque about an external axis, leading to rotation about that axis.
If torque about an external axis can never lead to rotation about that axis, in your view, then “rotation about an external axis” may as well not exist, in your view.
See? The logic really wasn’t that difficult to follow.
“If torque about an external axis can never lead to rotation about that axis, in your view, then rotation about an external axis may as well not exist, in your view.”
More absurdity.
A bug crawls onto a record on a record player. Someone plays the record, it rotates. The bug experiences torque around an external axis, and starts rotating around it.
The difference is that the bug is rigidly connected to the record, and it can exert torque on the bug.
Or a person is standing on edge of a merry-go-round.
Someone applies a sideways force to her thru that her COM.
She and the whole merrygoround start rotating.
Why?
Because the force was not applied to the COM of the Merrygoround plus person system which is rigidly connected. It can acquire rotation.
Sometimes careful analysis is required
Nate, the absurdity is there because your position is absurd.
So, it seems you are now giving examples where a torque about an external axis does lead to rotation about an external axis.
Thus, you should agree that your P2) is false.
Looks like you missed this, as you did when I discussed it awhile back.
“Because the force was not applied to the COM of the Merrygoround plus person system, which is rigidly connected. It can acquire rotation.”
You just don’t understand this material, yet seem unaware of this fact.
No, I missed nothing.
The axis of rotation is external to the person. The force is applied to the CoM of the person. Via the connection to the MGR, a torque is exerted about the external axis (in the centre of the MGR) and the person rotates about the external axis, not their own internal axis.
“Via the connection to the MGR, a torque is exerted about the external axis (in the centre of the MGR) and the person rotates about the external axis, not their own internal axis.”
Yep so the MGR-with-attached-person is a system, a rigid body, that receives torque around its COM, and by-golly it rotates!
Exactly what I have been saying all along!
When are you going to figure out that you have way too poor an understanding of this subject to be man-splaining it to those who do understand it?
“Yep“
Great. So, since you agree that a torque about an external axis can lead to rotation about an external axis, and thus a change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame can occur with no torque about the object’s internal axis, you agree that your P2) is false. Your argument fails, accordingly.
I’m glad we got that sorted.
“with no torque about the objects internal axis, you agree that your P2) is false. Your argument fails, accordingly.”
Your usual return to absurd total dishonesty when you are losing so badly.
Kindly go off and tr.oll someone else.
Nate, when are you going to stop falsely accusing me of dishonesty?
It follows, logically, that as you have agreed a torque about an external axis can lead to rotation about an external axis, then a change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame can occur due to that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis (and thus no torque required about the internal axis).
That proves your P2) to be false. Then your argument fails, accordingly. There is little point in you getting upset about it.
False.
The MGR-with-attached-person is a system, a rigid body, that receives torque around its COM, and by-golly it rotates!
Now go away and self-soothe however you need to.
Your P2) is false, Nate, as explained above. No self-soothing for you.
And lastly we can put this
“Yep so the MGR-with-attached-person is a system, a rigid body, that receives torque around its COM, and by-golly it rotates!”
in context of the argument about the cannonball (or the Moon) It is fired by applying a force through its COM. It experiences a torque around an external axis, the Earth.
Then why does it not rotate?
Because unlike the person on the MGR, it is NOT attached to another body. So the torque on the cannonball is not applied around the COM of an attached rigid body.
As was the case for the person on the MGR.
What did the torque applied to the cannonball do?
It gives the cannonball angular velocity. Of the type where angular position in its orbit is changing. As discussed here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
And orbital angular momentum.
So this physics shit makes sense to those who can learn it.
Nate, the cannonball is “attached” to the external axis, located within the Earth itself, by a little thing called “gravity”. It’s kind of like the “massless rope”. The “sideways force” from the cannon is like the person pushing perfectly on the tetherball, always held with the rope taut, giving it that perfect start to ensure that the rope always acts through the CoM of the ball. Just like gravity acts through the CoM of the cannonball. The result is movement like the MOTL. A torque about the internal axis of the cannonball would thus be required to make it move differently to the MOTL. Same as with the tetherball…the only difference being the rope would resist such torques.
That’s that.
“Nate, the cannonball is attached to the external axis, located within the Earth itself, by a little thing called gravity. Its kind of like the massless rope.”
Endlessly trying to alter reality to suit your beliefs.
No, sorry, gravity behaves nothing like a rigid arm or even the string.
Neither one allow the body to reorient, spin freely, or move closer and farther from the cente, as gravity does.
Sorry.
Now go ahead and double down on your unreality.
Nate, your “objections” have already been “dealt with”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701071
Seems you just want to keep repeating points until I get fed up of repeating my responses to them, so you can assert I have no response!
There is nothing left to discuss.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701079
Meanwhile, the conversation was about the clear difference in the motion of a body rigidly attached to a larger body, vs. that of a free body in a gravitational field, when a sideways force is applied to them.
So what can you do? Try to alter reality. Gravity IS just like a rigid attachment after all!
Just stop spreading manure.
Despite it being obvious to anyone, by now, that reference frames are not the issue, and that a ball on a string is not “spinning”, I’ve yet to see Nate concede either point. He won’t even concede his P2) is false!
Yet he expects me to continue to play his silly games with him, forever.
True, I will not concede that a known fact is not a fact just to soothe your ego.
You can stop posting misinformation anytime you want, so we can be done.
“Known fact”?
Presumably you are referring to what you believe your P2) to be.
Well, let’s put that to bed, again. You can either be arguing that a torque about an external axis can never lead to rotation about an external axis, in which case the very concept of “rotation about an external axis” may as well be stripped from the physics books.
Or, you can be arguing that a torque about an external axis can lead to rotation about an external axis, which, as I explained before, means that your P2) is false.
And, it has nothing to do with my ego.
Literally just repeating talking points that were just thoroughly debunked.
Do I need repeat all the reasons why you are wrong again?
Will you again ignore them? Most likely.
What is the point?
“Seems you just want to keep repeating points until I get fed up of repeating my responses to them, so you can assert I have no response!”
Hmm
Your response last time was to consider the MGR/person as one single rigid body and that the axis of rotation was thus an “internal axis” to that body. I would put that response in the “rejection of the entire concept of rotation about an external axis” category.
Or a person is standing on edge of a merry-go-round.
Someone applies a sideways force to her thru that her COM.
She and the whole merrygoround start rotating.
Why?
Because the force was not applied to the COM of the Merrygoround plus person system which is rigidly connected. It can acquire rotation.”
If we look just at the person, she is rotating around an external axis.
But that IGNORES the fact that she is part of a larger body, that is rotating around its COM as a result of torque applied around its COM.
What about this explanation do you not get?
I understand every part of it, Nate.
But, either “rotation about an external axis” exists, in your mind, or it does not. You need to work that out in your own head, first.
“If we look just at the person, she is rotating around an external axis.”
So that hopefully puts to bed your weird notion that “the very concept of ‘rotation about an external axis’ may as well be stripped from the physics books.”
It’s not my “weird notion”, Nate. I’m quite happy with the existence of the concept of “rotation about an external axis”. It’s you that struggles so very hard with it.
‘If we look just at the person, she is rotating around an external axis.’
Is showing that I don’t have a problem with it occurring under the right conditions.
Which are not the conditions of the fired cannonball.
“Is showing that I don’t have a problem with it occurring under the right conditions.“
As you agree it occurs, logically you must see that your P2) is false.
as you agree it occurs, logically you must see that your P2) is false.
No such logic.
Youve missed the point.
Straightforward denial.
Your line of argument just hit a dead end. All has been explained.
There is no logic to deny. Sorry.
If a torque about an object’s external axis can lead to rotation about that axis, then that object can change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame without needing a torque about its internal axis. Which falsifies your P2).
Just trying to argue that the object in question could be considered to be part of a larger object which is itself rotating about its own internal axis does nothing to change that. You can’t even argue that with the ball on a string, in any case.
You’re clutching at straws, desperate to avoid admitting you were wrong, as usual.
The object in question, the person, was indeed part of a larger object, which is rotating about its internal axis, indeed proves P2 was correct.
But you are to stubborn to admit you were wrong.
This is how you always behave when you lose an argument.
GBye
“The object in question, the person, was indeed part of a larger object, which is rotating about its internal axis, indeed proves P2 was correct.”
The person was rotating about an axis that was external to them, and not rotating on their own internal axis, thus they were changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with no torque about their own internal axis, proving your P2) false. That the MGR is rotating about its own internal axis is neither here nor there.
Don’t “do” logic, do you?
“The person was rotating about an axis that was external to them, and not rotating on their own internal axis”
Yes as I already agreed. Proving your absurd claim that I believe such a motion ” may as well not exist” totally wrong.
“thus they were changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with no torque about their own internal axis,”
False. Your having not analyzed what torques are acting on the person, this claim lacks evidence.
I await your analysis of it!
“proving your P2) false.”
Again pure assertions without evidence leads again to false claims of ‘proof’.
“That the MGR is rotating about its own internal axis is neither here nor there.”
False. The MGR acquires rotation only because it had torque applied around its COM, as required by P2.
“Dont do logic, do you?”
No actual logic shown here.
“Proving your absurd claim that I believe such a motion ”may as well not exist” totally wrong.”
It was conditional, Nate. So, you’re wrong to suggest I claim you believe it may as well not exist. Lol.
OK, let’s finish this:
DREMT: The person was rotating about an axis that was external to them, and not rotating on their own internal axis.
NATE: Yes as I already agreed.
DREMT: Thus they were changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with no torque about their own internal axis
NATE: False.
OK, so…Nate must think that the person is not rotating about their own internal axis, and yet they require a torque about their own internal axis not to do so.
Make that make sense, if you can, Nate.
“DREMT: Thus they were changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame with no torque about their own internal axis
NATE: False.”
Here you forget why I indicated it was false.
You having done no analysis of what torques are acting on the person. Yet claim without evidence “no torque about their own internal axis”
You have no knowledge either way about this, yet you assert that it is ‘proof’ anyway.
I asked you for your analysis. And notably it is still missing.
The fact that you cannot provide it ought to give you pause about making such claims, then repeating them.
Why doesn’t it?
“OK, soNate must think that the person is not rotating about their own internal axis, and yet they require a torque about their own internal axis not to do so.
Make that make sense, if you can, Nate.”
You’ve not paid attention, have you.
As explained several times, the orientation of a body and its change (rotation) is purely measured wrt the inertial frame. Nothing to do with any point in space.
How do we know a body is rotating? Different parts of the body have different rotations. That will be equally true for the MOTL as it would be for a body spinning at rest.
How do different parts of a body acquire different velocities?
Velocity arises from acceleration, which as you know from Newtons Laws comes for Force.
Thus the different parts of a body are experiencing different forces, which leads to internal torque on the body.
Rotation requires internal torque on a body.
correction:
‘How do we know a body is rotating? Different parts of the body have different velocities’
Are you saying there is a torque about the person’s internal axis, but it does not lead to rotation about the person’s internal axis?
Or are you saying there is a torque about the person’s internal axis, and it does lead to rotation about the person’s internal axis?
If the latter, then the movement would have to be “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”. It could not then be “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, as you originally agreed.
Nate says:
”The simplest explanation for the person, bowl, and water inverting wrt an inertial reference frame is that they have rotated about an external axis, located within the Earth.”
Sure that works for all of them, they all are compelled by local forces and torques to invert along with the Earth.
So, we would expect the ball to invert, too
Faulty generalization. The ball is different as I discussed above.
It is not compelled to align as the others are.
Remember gravity apples no torque, and in any case is perfectly cancelled by buoyant forces of the water. Also the water is frictionless.
As I asked before, but you evaded, what specific force or torque is acting on the ball?”
This is ridiculous. Nate is so locked into a conceptually flat world he starts making stuff up to support his concept of it.
He says gravity exerts no torque and denies the torque that causes anything to rotate around an external axis.
That denial effectively denies the existence of a rotation on an external axis.
To cover up the denial he knows he is making in compounds that by claiming the force only results in a translation, which may have existed at one time and expressed as translational momentum before the moon or ball enter into its rotation around an external axis.
He then conceptualizes this momentum as a translation and without any vision claims the Lspin attribute is a rotation around the moon’s internal axis rather than a rotation around and external axis. Newton may have stumbled upon the realization that the spin angular momentum can be conceptually sparsed out as being the same amount of energy that would result to a spin plus translational momentum. But he would have to be in denial that the moon is rotating around the earth and instead traveling in a straight line and only spinning on its internal axis instead of the entire moon spinning around the earth.
Of course torque can be used to start or stop a spin. And we know beyond any doubt whatsoever, gravity can exert a force of torque on any rotating object by distorting the shape of the object. Forcing the particles closest to the external axis to slow andown relative to the outermost particles. It also saps rotational energy and applies that to the orbit distance conserving angular momentum.
So this spin stoppage force is complete once the moon becomes tidal locked which which science currently recognizes it to be and the rotational energy is all conserved in the moon’s orbital angular momentum.
So Nate’s assertion that gravity exerts no torque is just plain wrong. Its not just a little bit wrong but its universally wrong. Its so ubiquitous that Nate feels compelled to call the real world wrong to match his level of understanding of the world.
DREMT,
Your questions were fully answered here. This time maybe actually read and respond to it. What don’t you get?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701196
Bill you are off in your own not paying attention. No need for another gish gallop. Respond to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701026
Its easy to prove that Lorb does not correspond to sum of L=mvr of particles orbiting around an external axis.
Take 3 particles of 3, 4, 5 units distance from the external axis bound together in a single object with no other particles.
The ratios of their orbit velocity is the same as the ratio of their distance because their angular velocity is the same and their actual velocity is a simple multiplier of the ratio of their radius from the external axis.
So the formula of each particle’s mvr is mass is the same so we set that to 1unit each. Its 1 times 3, times 3 or 3squared.
3, 4, and 5 squared equals respectively 9, 16, and 25. The sum of these mvr’s is equal to 50.
However Lorb of this system equals mass times the mean distance of the particles or 3 for the mass times 4 times 4. as 4 is the mean velocity and mean radius.
The answer for Lorb is 3x4x4 or 48.
The spin angular momentum of the 2 particles 1+1 as each particles angular momentum around the mean center of the 3 particles Lspin= 1x1x1 + lx1x1 + 1x0x0 = 2 the last term represents that the particle on the mean has zero angular momentum around itself.
Fact is it the sum of each particles angular momentum around an external axis is equal to Lorb+Lspin. . . and not just Lorb.
“The ratios of their orbit velocity is the same as the ratio of their distance because their angular velocity is the same and their actual velocity is a simple multiplier of the ratio of their radius from the external axis.”
Good work Bill. What you have described though is the motion of 3 particles on the MOTL.
And I agreed that it has both orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701026
Because the MOTL as orbit and spin.
However your analysis will show that the MOTR only has orbital angular momentum and thus no spin.
Former or latter, Nate?
Nate says:
”However your analysis will show that the MOTR only has orbital angular momentum and thus no spin.”
Your logic here is wrong.
I showed mathematically how the MOTL which has one rotation per month without spin on its internal axis accounts for all angular momentum of the moon with none available for a spin on its internal axis.
Your problem is you see the equation Lmoon = Lorb+Lspin as proof that the angular momentum of an orbit is less than particle science establishes and the error of substituting the square of a mean value for the individual actual values of angular momentum for each particle produces a mathematical error for Lorb that is picked up by Lspin.
and it doesn’t have to be limited to squares. Any two values compiled by multiplying that a locked together into a set ratio will produce the same mathematical error.
In other worlds Lorb in the popular formula is representative of nothing. Its simply a residual value representative of translational energy being converted into rotational energy by vector forces applied on every particle.
The moon would not be stretched out of shape by a force of gravity on only its COM if forces on individual particles were not occurring.
.
The moon is not a point mass. Only in the case that a moon was a point mass is what you are doing would be proper.
So the MOTL is the only proper representation of a rotation on an external axis with zero spin on its internal axis.
You claim it has to be the MOTR since it appears to have no spin from a single frame of reference.
But that would also be the case if you had an additional force to spin the moon in the opposite direction at exactly the same rate and that statistically impossible given a random force.
Thus the angular momentum of the MOTR has to be the sum of L=mvr for each particle of the moon rotating around the earth plus a spin on its internal axis to visually negate the appearance of a spin on the MOTL’s internal axis rather the reality that the MOTL only has angular momentum around earth and none available for changing its appearance.
DREMT,
Did you read? What don’t you get?
Read and understood, Nate. Now, stop evading, and respond with either “former” or “latter”. Those are your options, since you believe there is a torque about the person’s own internal axis.
Sorry Bill, you proved mathematically that the MOTL has orbital angular momentum MVR and spin angular momentum. While the MOTR has only orbital angular momentum MVR.
Obviously the MOTL has extra because it has spin.
Which agrees with what I have been saying all along.
Orbital angular momentum is real and useful in physics.
You appear to be now trying to hand wave it away, but are not making much sense.
Clearly, DREMT, you didn’t understand, because your questions were answered there. What don’t you get?
OK, your answer is “latter”…
…and, that means you’re contradicting yourself.
I thought the issue at hand was whether P2 is true.
It is true. And if you understood my post, as you claimed, then you now know why its true.
Now you want to, as always, not acknowledge that, and as usual change the subject.
A body has rotation or not, nothing to do with any external point.
The person on the MGR clearly has measurable rotation wrt the inertial frame.
But clearly she is also being translated around. That’s what a lazy Susan is for!
But she ALSO can be described as rotating around an external axis. As all other parts attached to the MGR can.
There is no problem being able to describe her motion in two ways.
It says nothing about whether P2 is true or not!
It all comes back to your P2) not being true, Nate, indeed.
Because if the person has torque about their internal axis, as you claim, then they really would be rotating about their own internal axis.
Which means that their other motion would have to be translation in a circle (since they are, overall, moving like the MOTL).
And that then means “rotation about an external axis” may as well not exist, again, since in all practical situations (even the MGR!) you are claiming that actually, the “real” motion going on is translation in a circle (with rotation about an internal axis).
Even though the MGR is, itself, rotating…you’re still going with “translation in a circle”!
You won’t understand this comment. That’s OK.
“As explained several times, the orientation of a body and its change (rotation) is purely measured wrt the inertial frame. Nothing to do with any point in space.
How do we know a body is rotating? Different parts of the body have different rotations. That will be equally true for the MOTL as it would be for a body spinning at rest.
How do different parts of a body acquire different velocities?
Velocity arises from acceleration, which as you know from Newtons Laws comes for Force.
Thus the different parts of a body are experiencing different forces, which leads to internal torque on the body.
Rotation requires internal torque on a body.”
Here’s the thing. “Rotation” (no axis specified) can be said to be a change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. Sure. But, “spin” (rotation about an internal axis) rate is not necessarily to be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame. Since, it should be obvious by now, if an object is rotating about an external axis (and thus already changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame), then the “spin” rate of that object will need to be quantified wrt a rotating reference frame! The key is in the name of the reference frame…sheesh.
Only if an object is translating would its “spin” rate be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame.
…and, finally, since you agree the MGR itself is rotating, you cannot claim any part of it (including the person, if you choose to see them as part of it) is translating! The “spin” rate of the person must be quantified wrt a rotating reference frame. You know…since they’re “rotating” about an external axis! That means their “spin” rate is…zero.
“It all comes back to your P2) not being true, Nate, indeed.”
Nothing you said shows otherwise.
“Because if the person has torque about their internal axis, as you claim, then they really would be rotating about their own internal axis.”
Whether a body has rotation has nothing with axis, as you claimed to understand.
“Which means that their other motion would have to be translation in a circle (since they are, overall, moving like the MOTL).”
Why not? Lazy Susan is device for moving things from one person to another. Unquestionably that is translation
“And that then means rotation about an external axis may as well not exist”
Silliness in your mind only. Nobody else thinks that way.
As I predicted, Nate: “You won’t understand this comment. That’s OK”.
“You cannnot claim any part of it (including the person, if you choose to see them as part of it) is translating!”
I can!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.crateandbarrel.com/wood-and-marble-lazy-susan/f83939%3Fbvstate%3Dpg:2/ct:r&ved=2ahUKEwiAk86CpqGMAxUplYkEHZOAEQIQqa4BegQIbxAA&usg=AOvVaw2jMAxLWibiY9VLu4vHTDlH
Really I don’t know why you can’t deal with a motion having more than one description!
Well, Nate, since one of the descriptions involves the object in question “spinning”, and the other description involves the object in question “not spinning”, and the entire point of these discussions is to decide once and for all which description is “correct”, do you not think it important to devise a way to choose between the descriptions!?
Let’s consider the CSAItruth equipment replicating movement like the MOTR. There is a motor beneath the model moon, “spinning” it. So, there is a torque being applied about the model moon’s internal axis, and so it is “spinning”. In that case, “orbit without spin”, for that piece of equipment, is as per the MOTL.
Now consider the XY Plotter equipment replicating movement like the MOTR. There is a motor beneath the model moon, but it is not “switched on”. So, there is no torque being applied about the model moon’s internal axis, and so it is not “spinning”. In that case, “orbit without spin”, for that piece of equipment, is as per the MOTR.
Now consider a “perfect orbit”, represented by the “perfect tetherball”. We went through it and eliminated any reason you could think of for the string not to be acting through the CoM of the ball. So, just like gravity, the string acts only through the CoM of the ball. So, there is no torque being applied about the ball’s internal axis, and so it is not “spinning”. It moves as per the MOTL. Thus, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“the entire point of these discussions is to decide once and for all which description is correct, do you not think it important to devise a way to choose between the descriptions!?”
No. Outside of this blog, there is no controversy. Astronomy has a perfectly good description of ‘orbit’ and ‘spin’ that works well, and has a very strong physics-based rationale.
Given multiple opportunities here, you’ve offered no sound science rationale to change it.
Now, after coming to yet nother dead end, you are looping. Now back to old tired, poor, irrelevant models for planetary motion, for the billionth time.
I will not follow.
“Outside of this blog, there is no controversy.”
You don’t think there’s a controversy, when only physicists and their apologists tend to think a ball on a string is “spinning”!? You think that since “rotation” (no axis specified) is defined by a change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame, that means “spin” (rotation about an internal axis) rate should be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame in all circumstances, even though that would effectively eliminate “rotation about an external axis” from existence! Even though that would mean you have to think every object on Earth is “spinning”, when motionless, just because the Earth itself is “spinning”! There’s no end to this stupidity…
“Astronomy has a perfectly good description of ‘orbit’ and ‘spin’ that works well, and has a very strong physics-based rationale.”
The only argument put forward for “orbit without spin” being as per the MOTR contained a false premise.
“Given multiple opportunities here, you’ve offered no sound science rationale to change it.”
The rationale to change it is so that “orbit without spin” is correctly understood to be as per the MOTL. And, I thoroughly explained (to the best of my ability) why “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
LOL!
Nate’s argument has boiled down to astronomy does just fine not answering which axis the moon rotates on.
Thats the same argument as civilization did just fine for thousands of years believing the world was flat.
Now we have Nate ignoring the mathematics, multiple demonstrations, the conflict between engineering science and astronomy’s point of view, and his answer is now astronomy does just fine. ROTFLMAO!
Bill
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701221
“Nate’s argument has boiled down to astronomy does just fine not answering which axis the moon rotates on.”
Yep, Nate clearly answered “no” to whether we need to be able to distinguish between “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”. He’s obviously happy not knowing the answer to the moon issue and just lazily accepting the status quo.
Then when anything triggers his cognitive dissonance, like the CSAItruth equipment replicating movement like the MOTR, he must just sweep it under the rug in his mind with thoughts like, “that motor’s just turning the model moon so that it’s not spinning”…
I thought he had finally accepted that the person on the MGR was objectively rotating about an external axis, which is why I made the comments to him that I did, but it turned out he was still not even aware of the concept that an object could be objectively rotating about an external axis or objectively translating in a circle. Despite going over it with him for several days in a previous discussion.
No wonder he doesn’t get why his P2) is false.
“Nates argument has boiled down to astronomy does just fine not answering which axis the moon rotates on.
Nonsense. Never said any such thing. This is why I cant have any discussion with Bill.
Our Moon has a well defined internal axis of rotation which passes through its poles, which are on all the lunar maps.
Anybody claiming the Moon rotates around any other axis is absolutely bonkers.
Well, Nate, some people think the moon has two axes of rotation, despite that being geometrically, mathematically impossible. Then they claim to be here to teach physics. Then you do absolutely nothing to correct them. Now that’s “absolutely bonkers”.
“some people think the moon has two axes of rotation, despite that being geometrically, mathematically impossible”
Cranky Still?
Back to shamelessly spreading manure.
Quote me saying any such thing.
You weren’t one of the ones that said it, Nate. You were one of the ones that knew better, but refused to correct them. “Spinner” shalt not argue against “Spinner”. The eleventh commandment.
I see. So the discussion has been with me. But you want to moan about what someone (not me, not an expert source) said sometime.
So it is just a distractor. Just chaff.
OK.
No, Nate, you don’t get it.
You stated that you thought it was “absolutely bonkers” to suggest the moon is rotating about an external axis. I pointed out that there have been “Spinners” who have suggested the moon is rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. That should put things into perspective for you. And yes, like you, these are people that regularly “play the expert”. The great thing about the moon issue is how revealing it is.
So many supposedly intelligent and educated people, saying such ridiculous things…
Where as this manure, was definitely about me:
“Hes obviously happy not knowing the answer to the moon issue and just lazily accepting the status quo.”
This must refer to my statement about the person on the MGR.
“clearly she is being translated around. That’s what a Lazy Susan is for.
But she ALSO can be described as rotating around an external axis. As all other parts of the MGR can.
There is no problem being able to describe her motion in two ways”
I think the fact that this can be described in two ways makes you squirm for some reason, regardless of the fact that it is true.
Then, you guys falsely tryvto suggest that I want extrapolate this logic to the Moon.
False because the Moon’s motion cannot
ever be described as a ‘rotation around an external axis’, as you know quite well.
It can ONLY be successfully described as an orbital translation on an elliptical path in one plane, plus a rotation in a DIFFERENT PLANE, around a tilted internal axis.
No, Nate, you guys only ever want to pay lip service to the idea that something like the person on a MGR can be described as “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. You say that it can be described that way, when really you still think of it as “translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”. You would still argue that the person has torque about their internal axis, for example.
You definitely don’t understand the concept that the person could be objectively “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.
“You say that it can be described that way, when really you still think of it as translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis. You would still argue that the person has torque about their internal axis, for example.”
I see, now trying to read my mind and argue with it!
Just stop with the absurdity.
“You definitely dont understand the concept that the person could be objectively rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.”
You present no objective evidence of that or anything.
You are oddly contradicting your earlier understanding that there are two ways to describe the MOTL motion.
For the Moon, OTOH, there is objective evidence that it is rotating around a tilted axis, which cannot possibly be the orbital axis.
Yet you endlessly evade dealing with this inconvenient fact.
No, Nate, I’m not contradicting anything I’ve said. You just don’t listen. And, that’s not my fault.
I tell you what. I will discuss elliptical orbits and lunar libration etc. with you when you have conceded the following:
1) A ball on a string is not “spinning” (rotating about an internal axis).
2) Reference frames are not the issue.
3) “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL (as demonstrated by the “perfect tetherball”).
4) Your P2) is false.
“I tell you what. I will discuss elliptical orbits and lunar libration etc.”
Bwa ha ha! Endless gaslighting.
Let’s return for a moment to rotation around an external axis.
Physics and engineering students learn how to analyze countless problems involving rotations around external axes such as levers and doors on hinges or a human arm lifting a weight.
Not having this experience, you cannot do that analysis.
All of these involve attachments of the body to the external axis, unlike an orbiting planet.
The point of attachment, like a hinge also applies force on the body.
It is that force together with other forces that results in a net internal torque on the door, lever, etc. That gives rise to rotation of that bod
Here’s one. A board is resting horizontally with one
end on a hinge and the other end on the hand of a person.
The person let’s go. The board rotates downward around the hinge.
When we look at the forces there is an upward force at the hinge and a downward gravity force at the COM of the board.
The torque around the hinge can be analyzed to find the rotation around the hinge, an external axis.
Students will also be able to see that
the two forces together result in a net internal torque around the COM.
In contrast if their was no hinge force. The door would not rotate but simply fall straight down.
Nate, don’t forget the “perfect tetherball”.
Just keep reminding yourself:
The string always acts through the CoM of the ball…
The string always acts through the CoM of the ball…
The string always acts through the CoM of the ball…
And I asked you a couple of times to present your analysis of the tetherball to account for its motion and you having nothing to offer.
Then your claims about it are based on no actual knowledge.
Look a horizontal board is dropped. It falls but does not rotate.
Why? Because the only force acting on it is gravity, and that is through its COM.
Now if on the way down, one end hits a wall. Now it rotates!
Because now there is a second force, NOT, through the COM.
This is basic. Yet you still fail to get it. Are you just dense?
Nate, who says I don’t get what you’re saying!?
Back to the “perfect tetherball”. I know the string always acts through the CoM of the ball, because we went through it and eliminated every reason for it not to. Every change we made brought the example closer to the reality it is modelling!
“I know the string always acts through the CoM of the ball, because we went through it and eliminated every reason for it not to.’
No you don’t. You need to show analysis of how the ball gets started, what forces and torques are acting to give it translation and rotation.
As I already did for the real world tetherball and BOS. If you didnt understand those analyses, than what is going to be different now?
“Nate, who says I dont get what you’re saying!?”
Obviously not. You are always missing the main point.
If you did catch it, you would not be claiming that a body with only forces acting through its COM, can start rotating.
Again, you seem to believe that there is some magical reason its starts rotating.
Nate…the ball “gets started” perfectly. What don’t you understand about that?
The string is always kept taut.
Exactly the right amount of force is applied, sideways, through the CoM of the ball, to set it off swinging, with the string always acting through the CoM of the ball.
How? It doesn’t even matter! It’s a thought experiment. Use your imagination. Maybe a robot is programmed to start the ball, perfectly. Get creative!
“How? It doesnt even matter!”
It does. Because you have no explanation.
Just as you have no real explanation as to how the cannonball acquires rotation, other than to parrot what some dimwit on this blog claimed, also without an explanation.
And that you have no explanation should be red flashing light that you don’t know what you claim to know.
Imagine…a grown man…a physicist, no less…not understanding how a tetherball works.
Remarkable!
So wrong answer and you do not show your work. Sorry I can’t even give you partial credit on this problem.
Yet another dead end argument.
Sorry there is no magical way to get around Newtons laws.
What answer do you require, Nate?
If there is never any slack in the string at the startup, your usual obfuscation about the string applying torque to the ball cannot possibly apply.
Then again, even if you had an imperfect start, as Bill put it:
“Indeed the tension of the rope will exert a torque to resist any torque you have applied to the com of the tetherball by a less than perfectly straight instantaneous push.”
“Sorry there is no magical way to get around Newtons laws.“
Once again Nate forgets that Newton’s 1st Law for Rotation does not specify an axis, either external or internal. As long as there is a torque about the external axis, then, the “perfect tetherball” can begin to rotate about it, with no violation of that law.
No need for any torque about the ball’s internal axis. That is the mistake Nate repeatedly makes. He even stated, upthread, words to the effect that for an object to “rotate about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, it must have torque, and thus rotate, about its internal axis!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700617
Uh oh. You’ve correctly tossed out Clint as your science advisor…but replaced him with Bill!?
Bill is not even a reliable narrator of his own thinking, much less yours.
He tried to support your claims about angular momentum, but then did the math and inadvertently proved my claim was correct: the MOTR has only orbital angular momentum, while the MOTL has orbital and spin angular momentum.
Darn!
In this instance his post is full of contradictions.
Endless confusion from you.
You appeared to understand that
“Heres the thing. Rotation (no axis specified) can be said to be a change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. Sure.”
involves no axis at all!
Thus when the BOS is in motion, and the string is cut, it is experimentally observed that the rotation of the ball continues.
And you call that roration ‘spin’.
So this is purely your personal semantics, you labeling rotation ‘spin’ sometimes and not others.
Nate, the confusion is all yours. I’ll simply repeat my comment:
“Sorry there is no magical way to get around Newtons laws.“
Once again Nate forgets that Newton’s 1st Law for Rotation does not specify an axis, either external or internal. As long as there is a torque about the external axis, then, the “perfect tetherball” can begin to rotate about it, with no violation of that law.
No need for any torque about the ball’s internal axis. That is the mistake Nate repeatedly makes. He even stated, upthread, words to the effect that for an object to “rotate about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, it must have torque, and thus rotate, about its internal axis!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700617
Again, you continue to mansplain physics principles to me while having little expertise in this subject.
For the dozenth time, torque about an external axis can result in angular velocity (change in angular position) which is what the MOTR has.
It does not result in rotation of the orientation of the body itself.
But you are determined to stay ignorant of these facts.
And neutral readers can easily discern who knows of what they speak on this topic and who doesnt.
“For the dozenth time, torque about an external axis…does not result in rotation of the orientation of the body itself.”
If that were true then “rotation about an external axis” would not exist.
“If that were true then rotation about an external axis would not exist.”
This ill-logic failed 5 times already. So you try it again?
Besides I keep showing you examples of it!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701326
Are you bonkers? Yes there is no other explanation.
Of course you left out the inconvenient middle of the quote.
“For the dozenth time, torque about an external axis can result in angular velocity (change in angular position) which is what the MOTR has.
It does not result in rotation of the orientation of the body itself.”
As discussed, only if the body is attached to another body, which also applies torques on it, can a body end up rotating.
Eg.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701328
Oh, I forgot you ignored that one.
Nate describes it, in his first comment, as “ill-logic”…then, obviously realising I am correct, writes a second comment in which he makes clear that torque about an external axis can result in a change in orientation of the body itself.
“then makes clear that torque about an external axis can result in a change in orientation of the body.”
Playing dumb again?
“As discussed, only if the body is attached to another body, which also applies torques on it, can a body end up rotating.”
Recall in the example the other torque is around the COM.
You cant be bothered with such details.
Nate, it’s not my fault that you can’t keep your story straight.
You initially said that a torque about an external axis does not lead to a change in orientation of the body itself.
Then, after I corrected you, you changed your tune.
Regardless, the “perfect tetherball” example settled the entire issue some time ago. I was just correcting your “violation of Newton’s laws” lie.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701384
A little perspective.
Here are the consequences of the “Spinners” belief that “spin” (rotation about an internal axis) rate should always be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame. In other words, the following is what they have to think is true:
1) The person on the MGR is “spinning”, when the MGR “spins”.
2) The person on the MGR is still “spinning”, even when the MGR is not “spinning” (due to the Earth’s rotation).
3) The MGR itself is “spinning”, even when it is not actually “spinning” (due to the Earth’s rotation).
4) Every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is “spinning” (due to the Earth’s rotation).
5) Mt. Everest is “spinning” (due to the Earth’s rotation).
6) The ball on a string is “spinning”, when swung around.
7) The ball on a string is “spinning”, even when not swung around (due to the Earth’s rotation).
8) “Rotation about an external axis” does not exist, and all movement like the MOTL is “translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis”.
You again show that you simply cannot understand how to apply physics to these problems.
Yet laughingly, absurdly, claiming you know what would be the result!
The word for that mental condition: bonkers!
The “perfect tetherball” settles the issue. It’s done. “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
For the billionth time, expressing your personal incredulity is not an argument!
But naturally you thinking making this non-argument 10 times in a row will work!
“The perfect tetherball settles the issue. Its done.”
You mean the problem that you cannot explain how it works!
But again claim you know how it works!
Nobody is buying your crap.
Here’s “how it works”, Nate. I’ve used my imagination here.
The “perfect tetherball” is taken out into deep space, far from the gravitational influence of any nearby body. Let’s have it set up on the side of a spaceship, just for fun. A robot holds the ball between its thumb and forefinger, with the “massless string” kept taut, perpendicular to the pole. With its other hand it holds a small “gun” or “cannon” type device which can “shoot” a small platform out onto the side of the ball to impart the “sideways force”. The robot aligns the device “perfectly”, so that the force will be applied through the CoM of the ball, in the right direction. As the device is triggered, the robot lets go of the ball at the perfect moment to allow the motion to begin.
The string thus always acts through the CoM of the ball.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701403
“Because you have no clue how the ball gets its rotation.”
Explain how a force (or two) applied only through the COM of the ball can causes it rotate.
Reminder:
“When a force acts through the center of mass (COM) of a body, it produces no torque about the COM itself, meaning the force will cause the body to translate (move linearly) but NOT ROTATE.”
Not only is this a fact, but it also agrees with everyday experience and common sense.
Do you have any?
The Story of Nate: One Physicist’s Epic Struggle to Understand How a Tetherball Works.
I’d watch it! Oh, I already am.
Your ‘perfection’ story is clever. But it again is yet another in a long series of hopeless attempts to get around the laws of physics and common sense.
Still can’t explain how you get a force throught the COM to create rotation.
It reminds me of the long history of proposals to create ‘perpetual motion machines’, to get around the law of conservation of energy.
“Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists.
Leonardo da Vinci, 1494
Many of these involved ‘perfect’ setups that don’t actually in reality exist.
For example, all strings in reality have mass.
In reality (and in th
“For example, all strings in reality have mass.“
Gravity doesn’t, though. You’re forgetting that all the adjustments made to the example bring it closer to the reality we are trying to model.
“Gravity doesn’t, though, have mass.
Indeed, nor does it have rigidity.
Nor does it have any attachment to the body.
Nor does it, like the string, compel the body to be aligned with it.
This is you again, trying to pursue a ‘vain chimera’ that does not exist.
Wow, Nate clearly and correctly stated that won’t create any torque on the COM of the ball.
Wonder what the ball is going to do with that rope attached to the pole? Shouldn’t it exert a direct pull also through the COM of the ball but perpendicular to direction of the ball thereby also not exerting any torque on the COM of the ball? Thats Nate’s claim for gravity and the moon. Why not for the ball too?
But Nate keeps making stuff up to deny that the moon rotates on an external axis. He doesn’t realize that his formula for a rotation on an exterior axis that states the angular momentum value for this rotation parts cannot be viewed separately because the Lorb term is NOT an angular momentum.
It is only an angular momentum when complete with the Lspin term. Thus the Lspin term has simply been factored out of the angular momentum formula for an object rotating on an external axis. Nate just imagines he can ignore it and make claims that amounts to a denial of a rotation on an external axis.
I even showed Nate proof of that mathematically and he just ignores it. Its simply a fact his belief system is built purely on arbitrarily ignoring everything going on around him when its obvious that both the tether ball and the moon rotate on an external axis ala the MOTL.
Its OK if he wants ignore that to solve for portions of problems but the problem he can’t solve by holding hard and fast is what a rotation on an external axis physically is and what part of that Nate has chosen to ignore.
Its no doubt a waste of time trying to educate him of those facts as Nate has no desire to have knowledge. What his daddy told him about such a rotation is inadequate but he remains willing to BS his way through.
“Youre forgetting that all the adjustments made to the example bring it closer to the reality we are trying to model”
But conveniently you leave out the on adjustment that would guarantee no torque is applied by the string.
Which would be to have the string attach to the ball like it does to a yo-yo, wrapping without friction around the COM of the ball.
Then the fired ball will, by its inertia, continue with a fixed orientation.
Here is a demonstration you can try at home.
Hold a meter stick up by one finger under the 50 cm mark.
Now walk in a straight line. The meter stick, experiencing a force only through its COM, will simply translate.
Now, walk in a circle. The meter stick will initially continue to stay oriented in its original direction. Because it has rotational inertia, and is experiencing very little torque.
Of course eventually the friction with your finger will cause a small torque and the stick will begin to turn.
But we can invent a much lower friction way to hold it.
“because the Lorb term is NOT an angular momentum”
Uh oh. Bill chimes in with his usual shameless denial of established facts.
Ah, the “frictionless yo-yo”. The last, desperate throw of the dice from the “Spinners”. Seems like an excellent, rebuttal, except…[take it away, Bill]:
“the same force is exerted on the moon’s particles as on the whole moon“
Will Nate understand, or will he need me to explain?
Uhhh…relying Bill as your ‘expert’ shows extreme indiference to credibility or sanity.
Did you try the meter stick, or do you deny that it demonstrates that simply applying a force through a COM csn move an object in a circle without causing any rotation of the body.
Only torque around the COM does.
When are you going to understand this basic principle?
Gravity actually acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body. It is only “on average” that we consider it acting through the CoM.
Thus, the “frictionless yo-yo” doesn’t work. Only the “perfect tetherball” does.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“Gravity actually acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body. It is only on average that we consider it acting through the CoM.”
Yep, and as a result it exerts no torque.
Thus dropping a long horizontal board just falls straight down. It does not rotate.
Unless one side hits something, then an off-COM force is applied, and the board experiences a torque, and rotates!
Sorry, but this physics shit works just fine without your contributions.
Try the meter stick experiment.
Then you will see that forces applied only thru the COM never cause rotation.
If you won’t try the experiment, then stop making claims inconsistent with it.
“Yep, and as a result it exerts no torque”
Indeed. It exerts no torque about the CoM of the orbiting body. Just as the “massless string” exerts no torque about the CoM of the “perfect tetherball”. The string always acts through the CoM of the ball.
But, because all parts of the orbiting body are attracted to the orbited body, you can consider there to be “additional massless strings” connecting the orbiting body to the orbited body. For the orbiting body to move as per the MOTR would thus require a torque about the CoM of the orbiting body, in order to “twist up” those strings.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
Another way to look at it:
The fallacy of the “frictionless yo-yo” is to treat gravity as though it really were only acting through the CoM of the object. It ignores that actually all parts of the orbiting object are attracted to the orbited body.
The “frictionless yo-yo” moves as per the MOTR, to be sure, but if there were two other “massless strings” either side of the central string, and parallel to it, then, of course, it would move as per the MOTL.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
” Just as the massless string exerts no torque about the CoM of the perfect tetherball. The string always acts through the CoM of the ball.”
So you assert, but since it does acquire rotation, that means there was a COM torque.
Else it was magic.
The reality is that the ball has rotational inertia, like the meter stick.
And in the experiment, which you are afraid to do, the meter stick maintained its orientation when only a com force was applied.
Even when the force pushed it into circular motion.
Sorry.
Nate, I don’t need to do your experiment. I’ve already said the “frictionless yo-yo” moves as per the MOTR.
I also just explained the fallacy of the “frictionless yo-yo”.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“The frictionless yo-yo moves as per the MOTR, to be sure”
Yep. And the only reason is because the string can apply no torque around its COM!
So do you not see how that falsifies your entire argument?
“but if there were two other massless strings either side of the central string, and parallel to it, then, of course, it would move as per the MOTL”
Gobbldegook.
Clarify what you are trying to say.
Nate, I am speaking plain English, perfectly clearly.
Gravity does not only act on the CoM.
All parts of the orbiting object are attracted to the orbited body.
The yo-yo only has the CoM attachment.
Have two other “massless strings”, one either side of that attachment, and parallel to it, and the yo-yo now moves as per the MOTL (the additional strings represent the attraction of the other parts of the object, besides the CoM, to the orbited body).
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
Yes you are speaking plain English, but without explaining why it matters.
The meter stick has a COM and a Center of Gravity, COG.
And they are the same.
And as a result gravity does not cause the stick to rotate. Because it puts no torque on the body.
And all of that is the same for an orbiting cannonball.
Still not making sense. How do you envision these side strings are attached?
And how would they allow the ball to spin freely as gravity allows.
As a model for gravity this is absurd.
Look you admit that attaching the string to the COM without friction, which removes its ability to force the ball to align with the string (because it can no longer apply torque), makes it orbit like the MOTR.
And you agree that gravity can apply no torque, because it acts, on average, through the COM, and it produces miniscule friction.
Then your entire argument falls apart.
Nate, the “three-string yo-yo” doesn’t have to be able to “spin” to prove the point being made. The point is, an orbiting object requires a torque about its own internal axis to move other than the MOTL.
The “perfect tetherball”, and the “three-string yo-yo”, objectively “rotate about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. There is no torque about the object’s CoM. The torque is about the external axis.
For the former, the string always acts through the CoM of the ball. For the latter, the central string acts through the CoM of the ball, and the other strings can’t exert a torque about the CoM because each one “balances out” the other. All they can do is resist any torques that would cause the yo-yo to start “spinning” (move differently to the MOTL).
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“Nate, the three-string yo-yo doesnt have to be able to spin to prove the point being made. The point is, an orbiting object requires a torque about its own internal axis to move other than the MOTL.”
Totally backwards. What you have demonstrated with the single string Yo-Yo model is that when the force cannot apply torque because it goes through the COM and has no friction, and does allow free rotation, (IOW all the props of gravity) then we get the MOTR!
Then you create a vain chimera, with the aim to reverse the properties of the Yo-Yo that specifically mimic gravity (free rotation, no torque, no forced alignment) then you get the MOTL.
So are your argument falls apart.
Sorry. That is the end of the story.
Nate believes the “frictionless yo-yo” settles the issue, so shuts down his brain and forgets absolutely everything that has been slowly and carefully explained to him.
P1) Gravity acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body, not just the CoM.
P2) The attachment point of the string to the “frictionless yo-yo” only represents gravity acting specifically between the CoM of the orbiting body and the orbited body.
C) The “frictionless yo-yo” thus fails to represent a body “orbiting without spin”.
Whereas with the “perfect tetherball”, the attachment is to the outside of the ball. The “massless string” still only acts through the CoM of the ball at all times, but the attachment point does not represent gravity only acting specifically between the CoM of the orbiting body and the orbited body. It instead allows for the fact that gravity acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body. The “three-string yo-yo” shows that only more clearly. Both move as per the MOTL.
Nate just cannot shake his belief that there must be a torque about the CoM of the orbiting object itself in order to get motion like the MOTL! His belief thus amounts to a total denial of “rotation about an external axis”.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
Leonardo got it right:
You create a vain chimera, with the aim to reverse the properties of the Yo-Yo that specifically mimic gravity (free rotation, no torque, no forced alignment).
Obviously gravity does not prevent planets from having various spin rates, because it applies no torque! It has no attachment to planets!
Here you dream up a multi-armed beast, a chimera, to eliminate this key property of gravity.
Then you shamelessly try to claim this better represents the behavior of gravity!
You are just deluding yourself.
You need to stop.
“Obviously gravity does not prevent planets from having various spin rates, because it applies no torque! It has no attachment to planets!”
The “Non-Spinners” are not suggesting otherwise. Stop attacking silly straw men.
“gravity does not prevent planets from having various spin rates”
“The Non-Spinners are not suggesting otherwise.”
No just pushing a model that prevents planets from having various spin rates
Just stop gaslighting!
So silly. The “Non-Spinners” are simply saying that torque is required about the CoM of the orbiting object in order for it to move other than the MOTL.
” The Non-Spinners are simply saying that torque is required about the CoM of the orbiting object in order for it to move other than the MOTL.”
Quite the contrary has been demonstrated.
You agreed that the one model that has NO internal torque, the frictionless yo-yo, moves naturally like the MOTR.
Nate says:
” ”because the Lorb term is NOT an angular momentum”
Uh oh. Bill chimes in with his usual shameless denial of established facts.”
Its not. As a standalone term it has no ”r” value due to factoring of the equations I gave you and converting the radius of the moon in earth’s orbit into a ”difference in radius” for all the particles in the moon.
Thus what the equation says is: The angular momentum of the moon’s orbit around the earth is equivalent to the speed of the moons com times mass (a translation) plus the angular momentum of a spin of the moon on its COM.
It doesn’t say the individual parts are each an angular momentum and you have no source that supports that idea.
You are ignorant that an equivalence cannot be turned into something else that is equivalent. An apple and an orange can be the equivalent weight of grapefruit. But that doesn’t mean apples and oranges can each be considered to be grapefruit.
And you have zero scientific-based support supporting your conversion. You also fail to acknowledge that enduring equivalence of all rotations on external axes being as the MOTL.
Indeed if the moon ceased to be a rotation on an external axis and the moon was not destroyed in the process Lorb would still not be an angular momentum and the angular momentum of the moon could possibly be the equivalent of Lspin.
But the fact is neither term Lorb or Lspin has any true physical representation in reality given the current moon.
These facts are true for all symbolic disciplines whether in physics or linguistics.
Your argument is a fallacy as the fact is you can symbolically represent the moon’s angular momentum, but you can’t assume that the individual terms of that symbolic representation can then be broken down into individual angular momentums.
Arguing you can without proof is a violation of the fallacy of confirming the consequent.
Sure you can argue endlessly without a shred of support that you are right. But that doesn’t make you right. So if you choose to reply bring your scientific references showing that Lorb is an angular momentum. One can prove that Lorb+Lspin is an angular momentum and I did that mathematically above.
Now its your turn to provide an argument that rises above that of a 3 year old stomping his foot.
“You agreed that the one model that has NO internal torque, the frictionless yo-yo, moves naturally like the MOTR.”
You believe that the “perfect tetherball” must have received a torque about its CoM from the string, at startup, to set it in motion. This is despite the fact the example eliminates every possible source of such a torque that you have so far come up with.
Does it not even cross your mind that maybe the motion of the “perfect tetherball”, or just a plain old “ball on a string” generally, is simply “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”!? Why do you have to try and insist that translation is involved!?
Of course, Nate the Physicist couldn’t possibly be wrong…
…could he?
More to the point, I’ve already shown the fallacy of the “frictionless yo-yo”, and astute readers will have noticed that you have zero rebuttal…
“More to the point, Ive already shown the fallacy of the frictionless yo-yo”
As usual, you only asserted that.
In reality it captures the key features of gravity.
Sorry.
It was not an assertion, it was an argument.
In reality, an object “attached” by many “massless strings” through all of its parts is going to move like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
So when Earth spins, what happens to all the ‘attached’ gravity ‘strings’?
Do they just keep wrapping around the Earth?
Bill chimes in to double down on his denial of basic facts. Justified with more incomprehensible gobbldegook.
“Does it not even cross your mind that maybe the motion of the perfect tetherball, or just a plain old ball on a string generally, is simply rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis!? Why do you have to try and insist that translation is involved!?”
As explained a billion times, Astronomy needs to model orbits in general, not just your special case.
Nate says:
” ”More to the point, Ive already shown the fallacy of the frictionless yo-yo”
As usual, you only asserted that.
In reality it captures the key features of gravity.
Sorry.”
ROTFLMAO!
Nate argues that the fallacy of the frictionless yo yo is false by using his theory of gravity and a frictionless sphere.
Nate you can’t invoke the frictionless sphere because there is no such thing as a frictionless grip. Another of your oxymorons.
Fact is gravity stretches spheres, there is no such thing as a frictionless connection. If you have a rotation on an external axis you can’t have a frictionless connection.
So using a fallacy to refute a fallacy simply shows how ignorant of science and physics you remain. Why not just try using another fallacy to refute your second fallacy which in turn refutes a third fallacy and then writing 1,000 posts on why that makes sense to you.
LOL!
No sensible rebuttals?
OK, then. As it has been for years, the issue remains settled.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“OK, then. As it has been for years, the issue remains settled.”
Bwa ha ha!
We can always tell when you are losing, badly. Because you start saying its settled.
Look you agree with me that the frictionless yo yo, which can have no torque around its COM, acquires no rotation, and moves like the MOTR.
Then for the BOS, you CLAIM it had no torque around its COM, but it does acquire rotation, somehow, and moves like the MOTL.
So there is a great big hole in your logic for the BOS.
And you just have not filled it.
It’s called “rotation about an external axis”, Nate.
Obviously not a concept you are familiar with.
The issue has been settled for years. I gave you a chance to defend your absurd position, and you failed. As was to be expected.
It was really only for the benefit of any readers, anyway. Nobody expects you to understand.
“The issue has been settled for years”
In favor of Astronomy and the spinning Moon.
What has been settled in this discussion is that there are huge holes in your logic, and you seem to realize it, thus you switch to pure tro.lling mode.
Also settled is that models that come closest to matching the properties of gravity acting on planets, such as the frictionless yoyo, produce orbits like the MOTR.
In the face of this contradiction of you core beliefs, you add additional string attachments that behave nothing like gravity, whose only purpose is t
which would absurdly prevent planets from spinning as Earth does.
Sorry that your entire argument has been revealed to be a house of cards.
No, Nate, there are no holes in the logic. Your complaint about “adding additional strings” is nonsensical, as the “perfect tetherball” is unable to spin, also. It was never necessary for the model of “orbit without spin” to be able to spin. If you wanted a model that can also spin, you have always had the CSAItruth equipment, as you know. It’s not necessary, though, since nobody is arguing that orbiting bodies can’t also spin! It just requires a torque for them to do so.
You have no rebuttal to the argument made against the “frictionless yo-yo”.
So, that’s that.
“the perfect tetherball is unable to spin, also. It was never necessary for the model of orbit without spin to be able to spin.”
Totally absurd.
The entire argument is about the nature of planetary orbit and spin.
But here you assert that it doesn’t matter that your favorite model doesn’t allow the body to spin as gravity does!
Just deep stoopid denial.
“Tou have no rebuttal to the argument made against the frictionless yo-yo.”
Total shameless lie.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701438
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701452
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701460
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701505
As noted several times, your ‘3 armed chimera’ model is beyond ridiculous. Gravity has no ‘attachments’ that force a body to align with it and prevent free rotation, as your ‘chimera’ model does.
‘There is no hole in the logic’
Other than the fact that the entire aim of your ‘perfect tetherball’ effort was to ‘perfectly’ eliminate internal torque, yet acquire rotation by some unexplained means and move like the MOTL.
But this ‘logic’ perfectly unravels when we find that the frictionless yo-yo, with no internal torque as its main built in feature, moves like the MOTR!
It is precisely the lack of internal torque on the frictionless yo-yo which stops it from acquiring rotation.
The hole in your logic is glaring.
Now go ahead and just declare again that there isn’t one!
“…yet acquire rotation by some unexplained means and move like the MOTL.“
Not “unexplained”, Nate. It’s called, “rotation about an external axis”.
And, it’s not possible for me to “prove” there is no torque about the CoM. I cannot “prove” a negative. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof. You have looked for your “unicorn” of torque about the CoM and were unable to find it. You should reasonably conclude that it isn’t there!
As for your four links…nothing there, Nate. No rebuttal to the specific argument I made against the “frictionless yo-yo”. Just an attack against my models. I don’t think you even understand the difference between attacking my arguments, and defending your own. You only seem to possess an “attack” mode!
Nate says:
”Look you agree with me that the frictionless yo yo, which can have no torque around its COM, acquires no rotation, and moves like the MOTR.
Then for the BOS, you CLAIM it had no torque around its COM, but it does acquire rotation, somehow, and moves like the MOTL.
So there is a great big hole in your logic for the BOS.
And you just have not filled it.”
————————–
You are confounding a lot of different principles here Nate.
First no torque around the COM is required to produce the MOTL from a non-spinning object in trajectory for orbit.
The math for angular momentum of orbiting particles at hyperphysics clearly establishes that.
Where you go wrong is that gravity does not act on any COM. The idea of a COM is only a statistical compilation of forces acting on the moon.
Thus the argument of torque around a COM is effectively a red herring.
The torque that causes a particle to go around an external axis is on that particle not the COM of the moon. There is a different torque on each particle. As witnessed by astronomy recognizing that the moon’s shape is modified by gravity.
The differences of torque between two individual particles will cause a virtual torque to exist between the two particles via the ratio of their relative distance from earth.
that cause these particles to assume the same angular velocity by adjusting their relative speed. This clearly is not a process relative to the COM of the moon. You are the one that wants to judge everything from a distant star so you can’t ignore the relative speed of each particle.
You though simply assume no torque exists around the external axis when clearly it does.
this only produces a real torque around the COM of the moon such that it will eventually eliminate any existing spin bringing it to a tidal locked no-spin condition ala the MOTL.
The idea of gravity not producing real torque around the COM of the moon is correct from a static point of view. An object falling directly toward earth with zero forward momentum will exert no torque around an external axis or around the COM of the moon. Thats the static viewpoint and why the torque around the COM of the moon is a virtual torque with regards to a rotation around an external axis. It doesn’t exist without the rotational physics of rotating around an external axis.
Thus all your claims of the MOTR as the correct representation of a rotation on an external axis with no spin is wrong. Quite the opposite. Torque only exists if there is a change in angular momentum occurring.
Thats why the MOTL is the best representation of a rotation around an external axis and that is true despite where forces on particles may differ such as at the string connection of a ball vs gravity that is more evenly distributed around the ball while being different.
Again review the math here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701210
and the support of the principle here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
“Not unexplained, Nate. Its called, rotation about an external axis.”
That is a motion, not a mechanism. Sorry. You still offer no sound mechanism.
“And, its not possible for me to prove there is no torque about the CoM. ”
Thanks. You didn’t but did endlessly claim there was none.
The point is your stated goal for your ‘perfect model’ was for it to have no internal torque, AND then have it acquire rotation by unexplained magic.
OTOH, we KNOW the frictionless YOYo has no internal torque, like gravity. And we both agree it does NOT acquire rotation naturally and moves like the MOTR.
So you are contradicting your claim that zero internal torque results in motion like the MOTL.
Sorry, you have no logic left to make your case.
For Bill..again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701026
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701211
“That is a motion, not a mechanism. Sorry. You still offer no sound mechanism.”
The mechanism is “a ball on a string”, Nate. How do you, a physicist, still not know how that works!?
Nate quote mines, again: ““And, it’s not possible for me to prove there is no torque about the CoM.”
Thanks. You didn’t but did endlessly claim there was none.”
No, Nate. I can’t prove a negative. You endlessly claim there is torque about the CoM but can’t demonstrate that there is any! That’s the correct way around. The burden of proof is on you. We eliminated any possible cause for torque about the CoM from the example. Yet, you still claim that somehow there is a torque. Well, sorry, but that’s not good enough. How is there torque about the CoM? And how do you not get that if all movement as per the MOTL had to involve a torque around the CoM, then “rotation about an external axis” would not exist!?
Since you have no counter to my argument against the frictionless yo-yo, you concede the entire issue, I’m afraid.
Throwing up endless irrelevant chaff about ‘burden of proof’ while again missing the large Neon sign flashing your logical flaw:
“The point is your stated goal for your perfect model was for it to have no internal torque, AND then have it acquire rotation by unexplained magic.
OTOH, we KNOW the frictionless YOYo has no internal torque, like gravity. And we both agree it does NOT acquire rotation naturally and moves like the MOTR.
So you are contradicting your claim that no internal torque results in motion like the MOTL.”
“Since you have no counter to my argument against the frictionless yo-yo, you concede”
Other than the four posts pointing out how absurdly bad it was.
Straight up lying tends to wreck one’s credibility. But you obviously don’t care anymore.
No lying, Nate. Not one of those four posts actually addressed the argument I made against the “frictionless yo-yo”. You were just attacking my models, not defending your own, as I already said (and you ignored).
Your false accusations and repetitive comments grow tiresome.
Nate we know there is no torque around the moon’s COM.
Physicists understand that if there is torque around the COM of an object, then the rate of rotation will change. The moon’s rotation rate about its COM is not changing.
We know that because other forces caused the moon to stop rotating around its COM if it ever did rotate around its COM.
Certainly that logic should suffice since experiments can never suffice to establish a negative.
I explained here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701561
The rotational axis of a rotating object can be identified by the difference between the speed of particles closest to the axis versus particles further from the axis.
A simple examination of those speed differences will identify the earth as being the axis of that rotation.
https://www.britannica.com/science/diurnal-motion
”The axis of this apparent motion coincides with the Earths axis of rotation.”
If the moon was rotating around its own internal axis the speed differences of the moon’s particles would point to the center of the moon instead of the earth as they do.
See the first reference in this post for why that would be the case for a moon with no rotation entering orbit would create a torque between particles, like a runner using his arm to gain speed for himself and slow a competitors speed. The COM of the moon has absolutely nothing to do with this relative change in speed of the particles. You can only imagine it does by ignoring the primary rotation of the moon. Thus the fact is your only argument is fallacious via an imagining the moon does not rotate around an external axis which is tantamount to ignoring real observations.
I realize you think you are smart. But its hard to apply that label to somebody who imagines the unreal solely on the basis of what his daddy told him. Thats identical to being a flat earther. It sure as heck isn’t science.
“No lying, Nate. Not one of those four posts actually addressed the argument I made against the frictionless yo-yo.”
Still lying. Those posts actually addressed your argument, which erroneously suggests gravity ‘attaches’ to particles of a body and forces a body to align with it as if it applied torque.
It doesnt, as evidenced by the planets freedom to spin at any rate, mentioned in all those posts!
Which is exactly what the frictionless YOYO does allow.
Thus your vacuous complaint about the YoYo lacks logic or evidence.
You keep pretending this doesn’t matter, when since we are talking about spin, it obviously does.
Since you refuse to even look at or address the Neon sign flashing your logic hole, that is the end of the debate. QED
Go back to your retirement.
“Those posts actually addressed your argument, which erroneously suggests gravity ‘attaches’ to particles of a body and forces a body to align with it as if it applied torque.“
Wrong. The additional “massless strings” on the “frictionless yo-yo” exert no torque about the CoM to force any alignment. How could they? Each one “balances out” the other.
Again, though, this is just criticism of my model. You are still not defending your own.
“Physicists understand that if there is torque around the COM of an object, then the rate of rotation will change.”
yep, Bill. Now try to get DREMT to understand that.
“Wrong. The additional massless strings on the frictionless yo-yo exert no torque about the CoM to force any alignment. How could they? Each one balances out the other.’
They balance out and supply no torque, only if the body stays aligned with the strings.
If you erroneously think of the gravity strings as being ‘attached’ then if the body becomes mis-aligned, the strings attached to particles that have moved farther away will stretch and pull harder. And thus produce an imbalanced force and a torque, to pull the body back into alignment.
This is nothing like how gravity behaves. With gravity, when a particle moves further away the force decreases.
On average the gravity force is through the COM of a sphere and produces no torque, nor rotation. Yet free rotation is not hindered by it.
Thus the frictionless Yo-Yo captures these features of gravity.
Gravity attracts all parts of the orbiting body to the orbited body. Not just the CoM. With the “frictionless yo-yo” you only have the attachment point at the CoM!
Have your “frictionless yo-yo” but make the body out of metal. Have it “swinging around” a powerful, central magnet. Now it moves as per the MOTL, again.
!”Gravity attracts all parts of the orbiting body to the orbited body.”
I am not disputing that.
“Not just the CoM. With the frictionless yo-yo you only have the attachment point at the CoM!”
To mimic gravity which applies its force on average through the COM, and like gravity NO torque.
With the BOS you have the attachment on the outside. Not always thru the COM, thus if not aligned, it APPLIES torque.
I don’t see how you can possibly not see that is problem for the BOS as a model for gravity.
“The rotational axis of a rotating object can be identified by the difference between the speed of particles closest to the axis versus particles further from the axis.”
How would that work for a ball rotating while translating lonearly past a person. The nearest part of the ball to the person could be the slowest. Is the person the axis?
Will not work for the Moon, which rotates around an axis tilted wrt the orbital axis. Not to mention the elliptical orbit.
Your link is about some other thing.
“With the BOS you have the attachment on the outside. Not always thru the COM, thus if not aligned, it APPLIES torque…”
…which would immediately be cancelled by an opposing torque induced by the tension in the string. The ball on a string is not spinning. When are you going to accept that?
The model is of “orbit without spin”. It is not necessary for the object to be able to spin. How many times must we have the exact same conversation!?
“which would immediately be cancelled by an opposing torque induced by the tension in the string.”
WTF are u talking about? The string torque cancels itself??
“The ball on a string is not spinning. When are you going to accept that?”
A good model for BOS, not planetary orbits. When u going to acknowledge that reality?
“The model is of orbit without spin. It is not necessary for the object to be able to spin”
When discussing the nature of orbit and spin? Riiiight..
Just stop gaslighting.
“How many times must we have the exact same conversation!?”
When are you going to address the Neon sign flashing ‘Logic Hole’?
Not ever it appears.
“WTF are u talking about? The string torque cancels itself??“
Any imperfections that could possibly lead to the ball “spinning” are cancelled by the string. The ball on a string is not “spinning”.
Can’t even get you to accept that.
Comment on something more interesting, Nate. How about the “magnetised yo-yo”?
Or, just stop squawking at me, altogether.
“Any imperfections that could possibly lead to the ball spinning are cancelled by the string. The ball on a string is not spinning.”
More gobbldegook. You just have no idea what you are talking about.
“Or, just stop squawking at me, altogether.”
Easy, stop responding, stop spreading BS.
Only you can prevent dumpster fires.
No, Nate, your failure to understand something does not mean I’m talking “gobbledegook”.
I didn’t mean you had to stop talking to me. I wanted you to stop “squawking” at me. All the hatred, the anger, the bile, the false accusations. It’s so unnecessary.
You are repeatedly ignoring the “magnetised yo-yo” example. I wonder why?
Still want to talk, address the Elephant in the room:
“Look you agree with me that the frictionless yo yo, which can have no torque around its COM, acquires no rotation, and moves like the MOTR.
Then for the BOS, you CLAIM it had no torque around its COM, but it does acquire rotation, somehow, and moves like the MOTL.
So there is a great big hole in your logic for the BOS.
And you just have not filled it.
Already addressed it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701589
Ah, Nate realises the “magnetised yo-yo” is a big problem for him. Hence he is going to avoid talking about it. I see!
Sorry, absolutely nothing in there addresses it.
Endless evasion.
I think we’ll have to leave it there, with you simply unable to fill the glaring logical hole in your argument.
The “magnetised yo-yo” and the “three-string yo-yo” settle the issue in the “Non-Spinners” favour, to any neutral, rational observer. Happy to leave it there.
Actually, I’ll just leave this here, to finish:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/756451/when-we-swing-a-ball-around-in-circle-there-is-a-centripetal-force-on-the-string
“If a ball is swinging in a circle at a constant rate, there is no torque. Torque is like acceleration. It makes the ball circle faster or slower.
Centripetal acceleration does not produce torque. Torque would come from a force in the direction the ball travels, speeding it up. Or in the opposite direction, slowing it down. Centripetal acceleration is perpendicular to the direction of travel. It does neither.”
That answer makes it clear the only torque they’re thinking of with a ball on a string is about the external axis. Then we have:
“There is no net torque because there is no angular acceleration. For a ball rotating at constant circular speed in a horizontal plane there are only two forces involved: gravity and the tension in the string. The lines of action of both act through the COM of the ball and therefore create no torque about the COM.
The downward force of gravity is balanced by the upward vertical component of the tension in the string for a net vertical force of zero and no vertical acceleration. The unbalanced horizontal component of the tension in the string is the centripetal force causing the ball to accelerate towards the center thereby creating circular motion.
Hope this helps.”
No torque about the CoM of the ball. Case closed on that.
“There is no net torque because there is no angular acceleration. For a ball rotating at constant circular speed in a horizontal plane there are only two forces involved: gravity and the tension in the string. The lines of action of both act through the COM of the ball and therefore create no torque about the COM.”
Of course, if the ball has ALREADY acquired rotation, then Newtons First Law requires it to continue, unless acted on by a torque.
This of course is not what we have been discussing throughout this thread. We have been discussing how objects like the fired cannonball ACQUIRE their rotation.
And Newton’s First Law again requires a torque for a body to acquire rotation.
So this is again obfuscation, and more evasion of answering for the glaring logical hole in your argument.
“And Newton’s First Law again requires a torque for a body to acquire rotation…”
…about which axis?
Nate knows full well that no axis is specified in the Law. Thus, the torque can be about the external axis, or the internal axis, or both!
That first response again:
“If a ball is swinging in a circle at a constant rate, there is no torque. Torque is like acceleration. It makes the ball circle faster or slower.
Centripetal acceleration does not produce torque. Torque would come from a force in the direction the ball travels, speeding it up. Or in the opposite direction, slowing it down. Centripetal acceleration is perpendicular to the direction of travel. It does neither.”
A force in the direction the ball travels. As imparted by the gun/cannon-type device held by the robot in the “perfect tetherball” example.
“The magnetised yo-yo and the three-string yo-yo settle the issue in the Non-Spinners favour”
Your claims about them are pure assertion, which therefore cannot settle anything.
An endless list of ‘vain chimeras’, all of which aim to get around the laws of physics, will do you no good.
Just like none of the ‘perpetual motion machines’ ever work.
Like their inventors, you fail to understand the general principles at work.
Until you do, your arguments will continue to fall flat.
Nate continuously asserts that if the string is “out of alignment” then it will exert a torque about the CoM of the ball, and this is how he believes a ball on a string ultimately “acquires rotation”.
He ignores that for the string to get “out of alignment” in the first place requires a torque about the CoM of the ball! The string would thus only be exerting a torque to cancel that initial torque. That is what I was trying to explain to him earlier.
With the “perfect tetherball” example, however, the string never gets “out of alignment”. It is started “perfectly”.
“And Newtons First Law again requires a torque for a body to acquire rotation
about which axis?”
We have been over this endlessly.
“There is no net torque because there is no angular acceleration.”
Newtons 2nd law states that a net torque produces angular acceleration, which is change in angular velocity over time.
”
In physics, angular velocity (symbol ω) also known as the angular frequency vector,[1] is a pseudovector representation of how the angular position or orientation of an object changes with time”
The torque about the external axis on the fired cannonball does produce angular acceleration, and as a result angular velocity.
But it’s angular velocity is of the type in which the bodys angular POSITION in its orbit is changing.
So Newtons Law is fully satisfied.
Obviously not its ORIENTATION since the force on the cannonball is through the COM, and CANNOT cause the ball to rotation.
But I understand that you are highly motivated to remain ignorant of these facts.
The “magnetised yo-yo” moves like the MOTL. The attraction from the central magnet will always be strongest on the parts of the yo-yo closest to the magnet. This “works” like the additional strings on the “three-string yo-yo”.
Nate arrives at the above by denying facts. If what he is saying were true the moon would look like the MOTR. But the moon looks like the MOTL and Nate has not explained the forces that causes it to look like that.
On the other hand the non-spinners explain that using the tetherball analogy and explaining it in detail that in fact gravity will only approximate operating through the COM but that the turning force of gravity works on every particles which will cause particles closer to earth to slow while transferring speed to particles less influenced by gravity creating the same kind of torque that causes the moon to go around the earth.
Nate is stuck on the idea that gravity affects the moon only on its COM. But whether by tetherball connection or gravitational connection the ball/moon will stretch creating tension between the particles of the ball/moon.
The angular acceleration Nate speaks of has to be applied universally to the big and the small.
So Nates effective argument is to recognize the angular acceleration gravity exerts on the moon while denying the angular acceleration differences that exist between the particles. We are left with the MOTR via this denial.
And the evidence show we are left with the MOTL and not the MOTR. Even Nate has to acknowledge that fact.
So Nates argument is woefully incomplete. He is missing a force to cause the MOTL to be.
So what is this force Nate?
Really a new ‘perpetual motion machines? Another ‘vain chimera’ to find a way for rotation to be acquired by magic?
Round and round we go.
Whenever you come up with a new one, you are unable to explain how it obtains rotation, other than to defer to misunderstood and and mis-applied Newtons laws.
Until you learn the basic principles, as discussed just above, and learn how they apply here, you will nevrr make a convincing argument.
And yet again Bill fails to quote me thus is able to endlessly distort my views, and gish gallop.
There is no honest debate possible with him.
Too bad.
Exactly, Bill. You nailed it with that one!
Meanwhile DREMT continues to evade dealing with the obvious logical hole in his argument.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701671
Sadly it just doesn’t go away.
“You nailed it with that one!”
Random unexplained high-fiving with lunatics again?
Also not an argument!
Nate still has no response to my destruction of his “frictionless yo-yo”.
Yet he’s trying to use the yo-yo to pretend there’s some kind of hole in my argument!
That ain’t honest debate.
Bill “distorts my views”
Such as here:
“So Nates effective argument is to recognize the angular acceleration gravity exerts on the moon while denying the angular acceleration differences that exist between the particles. We are left with the MOTR via this denial.”
NOT my argument at all.
He said it’s your “effective argument”, Nate. As in, it’s effectively what you end up doing. He’s right. Your use of the “frictionless yo-yo” and rejection of the “magnetised yo-yo” proves that.
Nate continues to deny the realty and physics of the motl the tetherball and the magnetic yoyo because he has no answer for any of them
“Magnetic yoyo”
Explain how this one acquires rotation.
Given that you can’t explain how any of your other absurdly bad models of planetary motion do that, I won’t hold my breath.
So if DREMT thinks this
“So Nates effective argument is to recognize the angular acceleration gravity exerts on the moon while denying the angular acceleration differences that exist between the particles. We are left with the MOTR via this denial.
somehow reflects my views, maybe HE can explain it in plain English, and explain how it is my ‘effective argument’.
“Nate still has no response to my destruction of his frictionless yoyo”
More shameless lying. This is the desperation level that you have reached.
Other than in your mind, where did you ‘destroy the frictionless yoyo’.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701454
There’s (one of) the comments about the “frictionless yo-yo” that you are unable to rebut.
As for the rest, if you’re still going to sit here and pretend not to understand how the “perfect tetherball” “acquires rotation” (Nate term) then you’re in no position to lecture me about “desperation”!
The ‘destruction’ of the frictionless YoYo is full of holes:
“P1) Gravity acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body, not just the CoM.”
P2) The attachment point of the string to the frictionless yo-yo only represents gravity acting specifically between the CoM of the orbiting body and the orbited body.
C) The frictionless yo-yo thus fails to represent a body orbiting without spin.
Yes indeed, but all agree that it’s average force is through the COM and it can apply no torque around the COM.
These are exactly the same properties that the frictionless YOYO has. This is a difference with no consequence!
”
Whereas with the perfect tetherball, the attachment is to the outside of the ball”
Which fails to represent gravity properly since the force is applied to one point.
If this ‘defect’ destroys the frictionless yo-yo then it also destroys the perfect tetherball.
Perfect contradiction.
Now there actually is a consequence of attachment to the outside of the ball. It allows it to apply torque if the ball becomes unaligned.
Not a property of gravity.
Oh well, so much for the ‘destruction’ of the frictionless yo-yo.
FYI
“Isaac Newton proved the Shell Theorem, which states that: A spherically symmetric object affects other objects gravitationally as if all of its mass were concentrated at its center”
Nate, your “frictionless yo-yo” has nothing to represent the fact that gravity acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body. As soon as you add something to represent that attraction (be it the additional strings of the “three-string yo-yo” or the magnetic attraction with the “magnetised yo-yo”) then it moves as per the MOTL. That is the destruction of your “frictionless yo-yo”, again.
Now, start your rambling…
DREMT, your BOS has nothing to represent the fact that gravity acts between all parts of the orbiting body and the orbited body.
So this line of argument is just another self-goal.
In fact gravity has nothing like the string which COMPELS the ball to align with the string, only with the BOS.
On the contrary, Nate – attachment to the outside of the orbiting object (closest to where the orbited body is, thus where the attraction between them is strongest) better represents the fact that gravity acts between all parts of the two bodies than does an attachment point at the CoM of the orbiting object.
Nate responds to:
”So Nates effective argument is to recognize the angular acceleration gravity exerts on the moon while denying the angular acceleration differences that exist between the particles. We are left with the MOTR via this denial.”
with:
”NOT my argument at all.”
————————
Wrong! Its absolutely your argument! Your argument has consistently been that gravity operates on the moon’s COM which is a denial that it operates individually on every particle.
Your viewpoint ignores the fact you know that gravity stretches the moon and as a result creates a tension between the individual particles depending upon how far each particle is from earth.
Perhaps you are lying or just don’t get it that figuring its operating on the COM is only a mathematical approximation of the mean pull on the moon. But its certainly not the case that you have argued anything that disputes that characterization of your argument.
Bottom line is your arguments are juvenile. I have to figure that scientists that claim the moon rotates on its own COM is the same kind of confusion you display in denying all rotations on external axes which all hold the same characteristics.
Nate says:
” “Whereas with the perfect tetherball, the attachment is to the outside of the ball
Which fails to represent gravity properly since the force is applied to one point.”
—————-
It does so in many ways Nate. The attachment of the rope to the tetherball creates a tension between the attached particles and all the other particles attached to those particles.
The fact that gravity acts individually on all the particles doesn’t change the tension created because the force of gravity diminishes with distance from the axis of rotation.
So my suggestion is you finally man up and admit that the non-spinner argument is valid. But you are also perfectly welcome to continue to beat a dead horse.
Fact is most of the non-spinners in here, if not all, accept that one can breakdown this rotation on an external axis to a next to useless translation (in terms of it being a rotation and not a translation that tells us nothing about its actual path) and a rotation about the center of the moon for many purposes such as landing on the moon after obtaining an orbit around the moon.
I don’t even have any problem with calling it a synchronous rotation as certainly a rotation on and external axis is forever synchronous with an imagined rotation of the moon/ball around its own COM. After all if you ignore the spatial displacement of the orbit what is left is a lot of particles apparently moving around the COM. We also recognize that can be quite useful for many purposes but not all.
Now the only question is whether you are going to man up or not and admit that.
For Bill, Newton’s argument. I can’t take credit for it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701780
“On the contrary, Nate..” followed by yet another bogus claim.
After the latest self-goal, and endless foolishness, your team needs to bench you for the season.
Nate says:
”FYI
”Isaac Newton proved the Shell Theorem, which states that: A spherically symmetric object affects other objects gravitationally as if all of its mass were concentrated at its center”
—————
Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension. The shell theorem is saying that if earth were a sphere it would affect the moon as if the earth’s mass were all concentrated at ”its” center.
It is clear 1) that we are talking about the effect of earth on other objects. and 2) ”its” (singular) is not an appropriate pronoun for ”other objects” (plural).
You are getting way too fast and loose with your arguments here.
In addition there clearly is a total effect on the moon that is the sum of its affect on individual particles. That can be proven mathematically and its also true that effect can be deemed for most purposes as acting through the COM. However, our understanding has advanced to knowledge that the effect is not equal on all the particles. Otherwise the moon would not stretch.
You need to stop trying to skate between these two different positions and acknowledge your viewpoints between the two are not compatible.
If you still want to go there you will need to advance an argument for a force that brings about the common and expected MOTL outcome for moon’s in the solar system.
And for Bill:
I have never denied the tidal-locking mechanism that required millions of years to slow the Moon’s spin angular velocity until it matches (on average) its orbital angular velocity.
So this is a red herring.
The discussion with DREMT is about whether orbital motion, in general, is somehow, naturally, like the Moon’s.
Eg the whether the fired cannonball must orbit like the MOTL.
So far, after many dead-end arguments, DREMT has failed to give a sound physical rationale for why it should.
Perhaps you have one…
“Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension. The shell theorem is saying that if earth were a sphere it would affect the moon as if the earths mass were all concentrated at its center.”
And vice-versa. If the Moon were a sphere it would act gravitationally the same on the Earth.
Thus two spheres act gravitationally on each other as two point masses.
Is Nate trying to argue that particles of an orbiting object that are closer to the orbited body do not experience a greater force of attraction than particles further away!?
Is DREMT trying to argue that Newton got this wrong?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701780
No. Now, answer my question.
He sure is maintaining his ignorance of that fact. . .continuing to drive a misread interpretation of Newton’s Shell Theorem as having any relevance to this conversation.
Newton’s sphere is static (thus not recognizing any tension between particles) and even the law of gravity only attributes stretch of an object from the attractor and is not being applied to the attracted.
He knows this but is in desperation mode with his ”thus two spheres act gravitationally on each other as two point masses”. Yes thats correct. What is incorrect is to imply that the object being acted on my another object fits the same criteria.
Likewise he does a two-step recognizing that earth’s gravity forces the MOTL while continuing to refuse to acknowledge this as fundamental to the concept of a rotation on an external axis.
For that he continues to insist that an orbit is a translation even while acknowledging that it can’t maintain a translation when an object enters into orbit. His misinterpretation of firing a cannonball from a mountain top creating an orbit proves his theory is more than laughable as it rests entirely on a point he has already surrendered, that objects stretch in the presence of gravity and become the MOTL.
He is trying to maintain his argument hilariously like watching a guy try to stand up with each of his two feet in two different canoes.
And finally, his statement about a cannonball or other object being a spin residual is nonsense. First this cannonball is projected as a translation in the presence of a turning force that creates tension between particles and thus an acceleration that speeds one particle at the expense of another like two runners with one extending his arm in front of the other gaining speed at the expense of the victim runner.
Thats why that action is illegal in races though a lot of runners not believing they can just outrun the other guy tries to do that surreptitiously. For Nate he must believe God is doing it illegally as he both acknowledges and denies the effect post over post. After all isn’t his misinterpretation of Newton the only God he recognizes?
“For that he continues to insist that an orbit is a translation even while acknowledging that it cant maintain a translation when an object enters into orbit.”
BS!
Quote me acknowledging any such thing.
Obviously Bill has not been following this discussion.. just invents my positions.
Nobody will be surprised that Nate hasn’t answered my question.
Or that he ignores the meat of Bill’s posts and instead focuses on whatever detail he can that might cast Bill in a negative light.
It should be beyond obvious by now to any neutral observer that Nate has nothing. So he just gets more unpleasant as time goes on.
“Nobody will be surprised that Nate hasnt answered my question”
Because it is stoopid question that you know the answer to if you’ve been paying any attention at all to my posts.
Readers will see what I mean about the unpleasantness.
OK, so Nate agrees that particles of an orbiting object that are closer to the orbited body will experience a greater force of attraction than particles that are further away.
He should understand, then, that the “magnetised yo-yo” will move as per the MOTL.
“Or that he ignores the meat of Bills posts”
If you csn point out the meat and translate into comprehensible English that would be great.
Some meat I saw was that agreed with me that
“Thus two spheres act gravitationally on each other as two point masses.”
Yet he oddly asserted that the Earth’s effect on the cannonball not be like that:
“First this cannonball is projected as a translation in the presence of a turning force”
What turning force? That sounds like torque which gravity does not apply to a cannonball.
I would like somebody on your team to
finally explain that in comprehensible English.
Try again Bill
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701823
Where do you get the idea that I have any interest in talking about any other of your endless absurd vain chimeras?
I am still waiting for you to address the fundamental hole in your logic.
Here it is again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701546
So, you agree the “magnetised yo-yo” moves as per the MOTL.
Great. Then, you agree “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
Excellent! Case closed.
Obviously you have no answers, so once again turn to the dark side: total dishonesty.
Ah…Nate cries, “dishonesty”!
That must mean he does not agree that the “magnetised yo-yo” moves as per the MOTL. He must think it would move as per the MOTR.
Interesting.
On what grounds does he think the “magnetised yo-yo” would move as per the MOTR?
I was optimistic in thinking that you would realize the relevance of this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701780
Newton used the actual law of gravity to show that two spherical bodies act on each other gravitationally like point masses.
That means your magnetic yo-yo (never actually described) and your 3 string yoyo serve no purpose.
Now, now, Nate…Newton would never have said that particles of an orbiting object closer to the orbited body do not experience a greater force of attraction than particles that are further away.
Given that, the “magnetised yo-yo” (briefly described further up-thread) would move as per the MOTL.
Right?
Again you play dum..why?
Read what Newton proved, carefully, and yry to understand its implications.
Then try to make an intelligent comment.
Particles of the orbiting object that are closer to the orbited body experience a greater force of attraction than particles that are further away.
Do you agree with that, or disagree, Nate?
Simply reply with the word “agree”, or the word, “disagree”.
Here is a nice example of how the Trump-ing boy’s best friend Putin and his United Russia party tick – found in today’s edition of the French newspaper Le Monde:
https://img.lemde.fr/2025/03/08/0/0/959/719/664/0/75/0/96747ea_sirius-fs-upload-1-qvgt6sdmn6vi-1741396979745-vladimir-putin-s-ruling-political-977919223.jpg
Anna Makhunova (right), secretary of the local branch of Putin’s United Russia party, and Maxim Chengaev (left), mayor of the city of Polyarnye Zori, present a meat grinder to a mother of a soldier killed in combat, in Polyarnye Zori, Russia, March 7, 2025.
*
” To celebrate March 8, International Women’s Day, United Russia, the party of President Vladimir Putin, is not short of ideas.
Meat grinders were offered to the mothers of fighters killed on the front in Ukraine during ceremonies organized in the Murmansk region, in the far northwest of the country.
*
The aim was to show that the mothers of the “heroes” are not forgotten, that the party takes care of them, in accordance with the instructions given by the head of the Kremlin, for whom veterans and their families now form “the new elite”.
The gift was an initiative of the local branch of the presidential party, which boasted about it, posting on the VKontakte network, the equivalent of Facebook, photos of the winners with their bouquets of flowers and their state-of-the-art meat grinders.
*
It should be noted that in Russian, the meat grinder (miasoroubka) refers to sending successive waves of infantrymen to assault enemy lines, a tactic regularly practiced by the Russian army, which is not very particular about casualties.
Having become a common term in military vocabulary since the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the word is widely used by fighters, military bloggers and commentators.
*
In 2023, Russian mercenaries from the Wagner paramilitary group awarded those of their veterans who had survived a medal called “Bakhmut’s meat grinder”, named after the Ukrainian city in Donbass that they took more than a year to conquer. ”
*
Yeah.
Whitewashing of our military history.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5183080-pentagon-flags-historic-images-dei-purge/?tbref=hp
“They include the removal of digital files dedicated to accomplishments of women in the military, the esteemed Tuskegee Airmen and the aircraft that dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb on Japan.”
Cuz, you know it was the Enola Gay!
Thanks for the link, Nate, because I was aware only of the absolutely incredible ‘Enola Gay‘ story.
” Tuskegee Airmen
Numerous photos of the nations first Black military pilots the Tuskegee Airmen who served in a segregated World War II unit were listed in the database. Their efforts in fighting the war have been credited with ushering the eventual integration of the armed forces.
*
Trailblazing women
Photos of historic milestones of U.S. Air Force Col. Jeannie Leavitt, who was the countrys first female fighter pilot; of the first female Marines; and of World War II Women Air Service Pilots were also marked for removal.
*
Womens History Month/Black History Month pages
Several web pages and images of cultural celebrations, including Black History Month, Womens History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, as well as symposiums and other programs to highlight achievements made the purge list, as well. ”
*
This clearly shows how incredibly stupid the little, devoted servants of the Trump-ing boy in freality are.
*
But… how can over 60% of the population of your country welcome such cruel, mindless exclusion, and over 50% even be proud of it?
The cult kids find something at one of their cult sites and salivate over it.
They didn’t even read it all: “In the rare cases that content is removed that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct components accordingly.”
” In the rare cases… ”
Stop your ‘cult’ blah blah, Clint R, your are just ridiculing yourself.
Bindi got caught salivating over his cult’s nonsense…again.
Yes, in the MAGA cult, the dear leader can do no wrong.
For the fans of the brazen Trump-ing boy
No one outside of the MAGA community believes his utter lies that only Zelensky and his near staff want to continue the war until Urkraine gets rid of the cruel Russian aggressor.
*
Just a hint…
About 70,000 Ukrainian women are involved in this tremendous task, all volunteered. Conscription still does not apply to women in Ukraine.
And above all, 5,500 of these women even fight together with Ukrainian men in the front lines.
*
This Trump lie is really extremely impudent – coming after all from a man who was never in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard, and who managed to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War with a little help from bone spurs, which miraculously never caused him any problems afterward.
Have you ever been in the military, Blinny? The Nazi Party does not count.
Oh look… Neofascist Anderson and his Nazi syndrome are back.
Enjoy!
Roy, your arguments are silly and beneath even you:
You wrote:
“The regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by the EPA has also mystified me. However many of the EPAs ~185 lawyers worked on the 2009 Endangerment Finding, they must have known that regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate, including sea level rise (which was a major argument in Massachusetts v. EPA).
None.”
By this argument no one should do anything about CO2 emissions because, individually, all regulations are “too small” to do anything.
I’m sure you know the fallacy of this argument, so I’m wondering why you made it.
This is why people don’t trust you or your science.
“Their reason for existence is to regulate pollutants (and it doesnt matter if Nature produces far more of a pollutant than people produce).”
Another extremely vapid argument.
Yes, Nature emits more CO2 than do humans. But Nature *absorbs* this amount of CO2 and *even more*.
You certainly know this. So why do you pretend not to, why do you make such scientifically trashy arguments? Do you wonder why no real scientists take you seriously? Or did you give up on the long ago? (Seems so.)
What does everyone think about the Biden/Obama Climate United scheme? Climate United received $7 billion dollars. We will find out how much of that went to Democrats.
I don’t know anything about it. But you can get spending reports from the government if you are genuinely interested in seeing how funding is disbursed. Here to get you started:
https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=5c6ccec9a0ba643a7ffb59f7849ec577
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-08/ncif-workplan-cuf.pdf
Let us know how many Democrats stuffed their pockets. Alternatively, wait for DOGE or Elon or Trump to tell you what you what to believe.
That’s got to be the biggest scam in the history of scams.
And Donald Rumsfeld was a lizard person. Innit great we can just say things and they are true?
No details? I guess your idols haven’t spoon-fed you their twaddle yet. You could click on the first link and see where the money went – maybe count up the democrats listed there, hell, even name some of them.
But that could hurt your index finger from the clicking and your brain from all the reading. It’s just easier to wait for other people to tell you what to think, eh?
The daily average CO2 at Mauna Loa was 430.60 ppm on March 7, 2025, the highest daily average on record. To find higher levels, one needs to go back millions of years.
CO2 typically reaches its maximum in May, which means that even higher daily averages can be expected over the next few months. This reading of 430.6 ppm at Mauna Loa is much higher than the highest daily averages recorded in 2024.
“the highest daily average on record”
How long is the record?
“They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958”
So less than you thought.
“So less than you thought.”
Huh?
We need it to be between 600-1000ppm. That would be about right.
Oh yeah, I’ve always wanted to live in a greenhouse! High temps and high humidity rock!
First, you don’t know what CO2 levels were “back millions of years”, Ark. You’re confusing science with beliefs, again.
Second, the optimum CO2 for plants is about 550 ppm. I’m not sure we can get there, but we should try.
Drill baby drill and burn baby burn.
I would be happy with a level of about 600-1000ppm. This is about 3 to 5 times the amount necessary for life on Earth. This would give us a good cushion.
You don’t know ” the optimum CO2 for plants is about 550 ppm”
For all of human history since the development of agriculture, co2 has been ~ 280 ppm. And we thrived.
No it wasn’t. You don’t know what it was.
Second, we have a lot more people to feed.
The ice cores recorded it
That you’re using as direct temperature measurement. It is only guesstimation.
Or direct CO2 measurement. A lot of assumptions are made to fit a model or a hypothesis.
Yes Stephen. Its called science. Unless you can point out what they are doing wrong, this is just another one of your fake controversies.
Nate STILL confuses science with beliefs.
Real science must be verifiable.
So you believe the Vostok Ice Core samples are accurate? Even though they show that the Holocene is not as warm as the last two interglacials?
“So you believe the Vostok Ice Core samples are accurate?”
I believe that when that result is corroborated by the EPICA Dome C Ice Core, the Law Dome Ice Core, the Dome Fuji Ice Core, GISP2, GRIP, Taylor Dome, Siple Dome and the WAIS Divide Ice Core, there is excellent evidence for a holocene concentration of 280ppm.
When this result is further corroborated by other proxies, it now becomes a reliable estimate.
I also believe that people like you, who are skeptical of AGW, are ignorant of the vast majority of the science behind it, and actually believe that the estimate of 280ppm comes from a single proxy.
It doesn’t matter what the concentration of CO2 is. What matters is that the spectrum is largely saturated.
There is not more energy to absorb than already exists no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
False.
Derp
Get enlightened, Ken.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
From the French (very) right wing newspaper ‘Le Figaro’
A hint to Anderson, the dumb boot-licker of the Trumping boy and his altar boy JD Vance
*
“We are Vladimir Putin’s useful idiots”
says Nate, JD Vance’s first cousin and volunteer fighter in Ukraine
PORTRAIT – The Texan spent three years in Ukraine, two and a half of which were spent fighting on the bloodiest fronts. He despairs of the position of his cousin and Donald Trump.
*
When Nate heard his cousin JD Vance attack Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office of the White House, he flew into a rage.
In his camper van, lost on the roads of the American West that he has been crisscrossing since his return from Ukraine in January 2025, Nate was disappointed.
Disappointed in this cousin, a few years his junior – Nate is 47 – whose integrity he has never stopped defending.
“JD is a good guy, intelligent,” he explains.
“When he criticized aid to Ukraine, I told myself that it was because he had to please a certain electorate, that it was the game of politics. But what they did to Zelensky (with Donald Trump, Editor’s note) was an ambush of absolute bad faith,” he fulminates.
*
No, 6.9L pickup driver and fan of insulting me as a Nazi (something YOU are way way nearer than I could ever be): I spent 12 months in the army but was never fighting.
Were you?
Nate Vance is the guy who might best appreciate your answer, wouldn’t he?
Shallow words coming from a Jack Boot licker.
Strong words coming from an insurrectionists lickspittle.
This is part of a post from above. The question was whether cold weather affects a heat pump, and the answer is yes. There are more elaborate and expensive systems that evaporate with surface water from a lake or river, or underground piping that stays warm in winter. A typical residential system, that is expensive anyway, evaporates to the outside air, and that is problem.
Like everything being pushed about climate, there is lot more hype than substance in heat pumps. The news media explanation is that a heat pump extracts heat from cold air. That is true, but does not explain the problem.
The heat from the condenser (inside the house for heating and outside for cooling mode) is simply the flow of refrigerant times the latent heat with some other effects that are usually minor. The problem with cold weather is that the flow of refrigerant (frig) depends on the ability to evaporate outside. As the temperature outside drops, the flow of frig is reduced. If it drops too much, it is possible to draw liquid into the compressor resulting in an unplanned rapid disassembly that is not repairable.
There has to be a system in place to assure superheat at the compressor inlet. One method is something called hot-gas-bypass where hot gas from the compressor outlet is redirected back to the suction. The obvious effect is to reduce flow of frig to the condenser for heat.
Yes, outside temperature is important and heat pumps that evaporate to outside air are completely useless in freezing cold weather. There needs to be a backup plan for those times when you really need it the most.
“heat pumps that evaporate to outside air are completely useless in freezing cold weather”
As usual, Tim is not up to date.
https://jaymoodyhvac.com/2023/10/09/heat-pump-efficiency-during-a-massachusetts-winter/
T (F) COP
0 2
32 2.7
42 3.7
50 >4
Apart from some technical details, the difference between Tim S and Robertson is equal to zero.
Tim S namely also never seems to do any research before posting: his only interest is in appearing as a technically savvy and knowledgeable gentleman farmer who is constantly trying to impart pseudo-knowledge to the blog based on his gut feeling – and to top it all off, in a condescending tone.
Otherwise he would search for valuable information e.g. about the use of heat pumps in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland), in Canada or… in Maine, US.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-heat-pumps-became-a-nordic-success-story/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213138822008773
and so on, and so on…
*
Caution: I’m NOT AT ALL interested in showing with these hints anything about carbon emission levels.
All I want to show is that Tim S has it all wrong with his incompetent post on heat pumps.
After a technical post with facts and analysis, I get the usual hype, insults, and crappy links with more hype from the peanut gallery. I very clearly explained the technical issues, which I agree may be too difficult for some poorly educated people to understand. I will give one concession that the term “completely useless” is an opinion, and I should have stayed with the technical analysis of very much less effective. The interesting part is that these links, posted as a rebuttal in opposition to my facts, effectively support my observation that heat pumps are expensive, and air-to-air pumps do not work well. Here are some direct quotes from Bindidon’s links:
[Carbon taxation has played a key role in making heat pumps economically competitive in all three countries. ]
[In Denmark, electricity used for heat pumps in homes is exempt from energy taxes to the minimum amount allowed under EU law. In Germany, levies have been shifted from bills to the public budget.]
[It is notable from the RAP data presented above that two-thirds of the heat pumps sold in the three countries are air-to-air heat pumps. This differs from other major European heat pump markets, such as Germany and Poland, where the majority of heat pumps are air-to-water. ]
[Many homes continue to use wood stoves after having installed a heat pump as a study from the Oslo Centre for Research on Environmentally Friendly Energy (CREE) on heat pumps shows, albeit less frequently. This resulted in about a quarter less wood being used for heating in 2021 compared to 2010. ]
[The key takeaway is that there is no single policy that can deliver a mass market for heat pumps. A well-designed policy mix of economic instruments, financial support and regulation, underpinned by coordination and engagement, turns out to be the most effective recipe for scaling up heat-pump deployment, according to RAPs research. ]
Heat pumps ,my new nemesis, looking for cheeper more convenient form of heating i had one installed last September, before it was installed i improved all the insulation, first thing i noticed was a dramatic drop in output as winter took hold,my electricity consumption had trebled by December,so we switched of the central heating and left it on domestic water only,the downside was the house was freezing cold, so i reinstated the old stove, and it was back to log splitting and shoveling smokeless fuel, might be better for an eco new build but not for a 19 century stone built cottage in the hills of Northumberland, so would say buyer beware, and do some research before you spend your cash.they wont save you money,and will not save energy.
Tim S
Ylou can boast with your condescending pseudo-information as long as you want.
Fact is that you had it – I repeat – all wrong.
In your reply, you just cherry-picked some info ‘confirming’ what you claim.
The rest keeps as it is: heat pumps are very well useful complements to energy sources for family houses (like the one near ours).
Ian Brown, these folks are not trying to help you save money. Like solar panels and wind mills, these heat pumps have a limited useful life. In many areas where they are also used for cooling in the summer by reversing the refrigerant flow, they will wear much faster due to year-around use. The compressor will wear out. There is no free lunch. The desperate hard sell is needed because direct heat from resistance heaters consumes at lot of electricity that is still being produced by fossil fuel in most areas.
It is becoming increasingly expensive to propose an electric economy without nuclear power. The climate change proponents in the media are pretending to not notice that there was a massive battery storage facility fire in California. The fire made big news, but the fact that it was a storage facility did not. It was a massive facility and it burned for 2 days.
Battery storage is essential to the “New Green Deal” in the USA and similar programs in other countries. There is a lot of panic and very little intelligent planing involved in these schemes. It might be time for people to calm down and think before acting on impulse. Spending large amounts of money to save a small amount energy is a false economy for many people, but that will not stop the hysteria I am afraid.
“I very clearly explained the technical issues, which I agree may be too difficult”
You offer no COP values or any numbers like I did from a legit source.
Then you offer a qualitative statement which was both useless and wrong.
Ian Brown, you have an important observation. There are two aspects of a heat pump installation. One is the electric upgrade that may be necessary. If the main breaker is undersized it may need replacement. The other option involves the difference between connected load and demand load.
Simply stated, you can excessively load the main breaker if you remember to turn off the heating system before doing laundry or using kitchen appliances such as the stove and dishwasher. The other cost could be running wires to the heat pump. If you have an existing AC unit, you probably already have enough capacity.
The other aspect is the heat pump itself. Make no mistake about it. It will be on the order of (ball park estimate and opinion, not fact) twice to three times the cost of a simple natural gas or fuel oil heater. This is separate from the potential electric upgrades.
With all of the hype and other accusations, nobody has presented numbers for Return on Investment (ROI). I assume the usual suspects will scramble to find something impressive whether it makes sense or not. By the way, the information I found in the rebuttal links that fully supports my analysis is now regarded as “cherry picking”. Interesting isn’t it?
tim…I don’t understand why the main breaker would need replacement. They are usually rated to 100 amp or 200 amp in modern homes.
The motor in a heat pump should not draw more than a few amps. Maybe your local circuit breaker would require upgrading if it’s only 15 amps.
I agree with your previous post that reduced temperatures reduce the efficiency of heat pumps. There is simply no way around that other than to drill deeper into the Earth till warmer ground is encountered.
Excellent article, Roy.
“The vast majority of climate scientists believe CO2 controls temperature, and then temperature controls water vapor. CO2 is the forcing, water vapor is the feedback”.
***
The statement essentially claims that a feedback is acting to amplify the heat content in the atmosphere. Such a feedback must be represented mathematically in a climate model as a positive, or amplifying feedback system.
When Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS tried to explain the math, his explanation was easily defeated by engineer Jeffrey Glassman. The mathematical series provided by Schmidt could not explain an amplification.
That is easy to explain using the universal formula for such an amplifying feedback system…
G = A/(1 + BA)
where G = overall amplification, or gain
A = the amplification factor of an AMPLIFIER.
B = the feedback percent of the output signal.
How can anyone apply such an equation to the statement above? For one, there is no amplifier that can amplify heat.
For another, the feedback factor, B, is not acting as one would expect in a proper amplifying feedback system. In fact, no explanation has been provided for how it works. It appears that a heat amplification has been inferred and agreed to via consensus.
Then there is heat. Heat cannot be arbitrarily amplified. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. To increase heat, one must increase the number of atoms/molecules and/or increase the kinetic energy of the same.
It is being claimed that a trace gas, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere, can sufficiently increase the overall kinetic energy of ‘ALL’ atoms/molecules in the atmosphere. Two established equations in science prove it can’t. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation prove that the amount of heat a trace gas can add to the atmosphere is no more than its mass percent.
Although CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, due to it being a heavier molecule (slightly more mass) than O2 or N2, it’s mass percent is closer to 0.06%. The meaning is clear, CO2 can provide no more than 0.06% of any increase in temperature of the atmosphere. It is also clear that any warming of the atmosphere must come from nitrogen and oxygen, which account for 99% of the atmosphere.
Alarmist are getting away with their propaganda by fabricating new meanings for positive feedback and the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. A spokesman for alarmists, the EPA, is leading the propaganda effort along the lines of Big Brother.
I might add that the feedback described in the climate system, called positive feedback, is actually a non-amplifying feedback used in servo systems. There seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what positive feedback means in the climate community.
An example of a servo feedback system is a variable power controller feeding a motor. The motor speed is controlled by increasing or reducing the current to its armature or stator coils, depending on the application. A system is needed to interface between the motor (speed) and the controller to communicate information. Such an interface is called a servo feedback system and it works as follows.
A tachometer device is attached to the motor armature to measure its RPM. The RPM is converted to a voltage and the voltage represents the difference between the desired RPM and the measured RPM. The difference in voltage and its sign, either positive or negative wrt the voltage generated at the correct RPM, is fed back to the motor controller.
If the controller detects a negative feedback voltage, representing an RPM that is below a set point, it increases the current to the motor armature to increase the motor RPM. If the feedback voltage is positive, it means the motor speed is too high, and the controller reduces the current to the motor.
It seems obvious that WV being referenced as a feedback is referring to a servo type feedback where no amplification is required. Put simply, it cannot work to increase heat, since the hat level is controlled by mass percent of the gas in a mix, not the level of WV.
There is only one way to increase the temperature of our atmosphere and that is to raise the solar energy input or somehow interfere with it. Roy’s suggestion re cloud cover would be a good example for interfering with solar input but that would be a negative feedback since it reduces solar input. Anyone knowing of a way to increase solar input could likely claim a Nobel.
Gordon,
Your analysis is right on. However, climate change is not about increasing the temperature of air. In fact, the overall temperature and potential energy of the atmosphere are decreating. And this what makes the present climate science fail. They say that the atmosphere only provides a structure for CO2 to Change climate. Clearly, there is a lot of thermodynamics going on which the radiative model has failed to capture.
ark…”The daily average CO2 at Mauna Loa was 430.60 ppm on March 7, 2025, the highest daily average on record”.
***
Why would any ijit install a CO2 detector on the sides of an active volcano, unless he/she wanted to artificially increase the apparent level of CO2 in our atmosphere? Why are there not thousands of these meters installed globally?
barry…”1) A ball on a string is not spinning (rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself).
The ball is definitely rotating in an inertial reference frame.
***
Barry…if a mass is not physically rotating in one reference frame it cannot ‘physically’ rotate in another frame. Reference frames are a peculiar invention of the human mind that apply only in the human mind. Reference frames do not exist in the real world unless imposed by the human mind.
—————
“2) Reference frames are not the issue.
The reference frame is the crux of the matter.
A frame of reference is needed to describe an objects motion.
https://testbook.com/physics/frames-of-reference
***
A reference frame is required ***by the human mind*** to describe an object’s motion. In two semesters of engineering physics, dedicated only to statics and dynamics, I did not encounter one instance where a reference frame was specified or required. Not once in exams were we required to specify a reference frames.
Reference frames are required only in more complex physical motion studies where relative motion is an issue. That’s because the human mind is incapable of easily following such motion. Only a philosopher would require that we state motion on Earth as an inertial reference frame and if such a philosopher showed up to preach that meme we would have tossed him in the library pond.
————–
“Rotation is determined by the change in angular position of an object relative to an external, inertial frame of reference”.
***
Rotation is always with respect to an axis or a COG. No reference frame is required. Dremt has claimed that a body can rotate around an external axis and I am OK with that. I would prefer orbiting or revolving, but rotation fits the bill.
nate…you are misunderstanding what causes an object to move in an orbit in a gravitational field. The object is not following a path (orbit), rather the orbit is created as the body moves. That’s why orbits change dramatically over time. Some orbital planes even rotate about an epicentre over time.
Newton described orbital motion as a body, moving always with a linear motion, being diverted into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. That does not require the body to rotate about a local axis. The motion can be better explained through a simple examination of the local forces.
The body has a natural linear momentum and Earth’s gravity is attracting it towards Earth’s centre. That means the body must fall a certain amount per linear measure while maintaining a linear motion. If it falls just enough to make up for Earth’s curvature, it will remain in an orbit. If it falls more, it will spiral into the Earth. If it does not fall enough it will follow a parabolic or hyperbolic path into space.
An airliner following Earth’s curvature has a similar motion. Although it is powered, it is the Earth’s gravitational field that holds it in an orbital path. If the plane decreases speed it will fall and if it increases speed it will rise. Same principle as the Moon.
Note that the airliner keeps the same face pointed at earth.
At no time does a body have to rotate in order to keep the same side pointed at Earth. Rather simply, actually.
“But I did co-author a paper in Energy Law Journal (relating to the Daubert Standard) on my view that science cannot demonstrate causation in any rigorous way in the theory of human-caused climate change.”
You mean the present climate science, right? If so, I agree with you, because it is incorrect.
Science has even less causative evidence that smoking cigarettes will harm you. You reckon that doctors’ advice against smoking isn’t well founded?
AGW has a smoking gun in gas spectroscopy and direct experimentation in labs. Medical science doesn’t have an analogue for that re smoking.
In other news, the IATA has quietly admitted that they will have to “revisit” the goal of net zero carbon for aviation fuel by 2050. Sometimes reality can be a bummer. It seems that producing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is not as easy as the dreamers thought it should be. This is not for a lack of effort by the “oil companies”. They have no problem charging enough money to make a profit on whatever product the public wants to buy. Contrary to popular belief, they do not force anyone to purchase their products — not even Exxon.
Hey, EPA, Why Not De-Regulate The Discharge of Pollutants Into Bodies of Water While You are At It?
The US supreme court just weakened the rules on the discharge of raw sewage into water supplies in a 5-4 ruling that undermines the 1972 Clean Water Act.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-753_f2bh.pdf
Finally, liquid sh!t refreshment to go with our sh!t sandwich.
Up next, is lead paint making a comeback?
Ark, your constant panic comments reveal a deteriorating brain condition known as TDS.
Get help, please.
Don’t panic little man. Everything’s gonna be fine.
TDS defines MAGAts who let Trump p!ss on their leg and tell them it’s raining.
One of the most panicked children says “don’t panic”!
That’s what TDS has done to his brain.
Ark is another alien leftist who believes he has a say in US politics.
“alien leftist”
Did oo make this up youref? Or diddums learns it fwom a big bwain?
Alien-not a US Citizen.
And, Barry is another alien leftist who thinks he has a say in US politics.
Diddums is so smart! There I was thinking he meant extraterrestrial! Next thing you know he’ll be telling me that leftist doesn’t mean left-handed. Hesoprecious!
But wait, my little poopsie is trying to tell me I can’t vote in Amewica. Ohnoes!
With all our might forward into the past!
https://i.postimg.cc/266fBDKh/La-prochaine-nana-du-Trumping-boy.jpg
How many remember when this was a primary political talking point for Climate Change: “Climate is not weather.”
In the modern era it is the exact opposite. Any little variation in weather or unusual condition is now evidence of climate change. It is amusing to hear “this hasn’t happened in 30 years”, or the college student who is convinced that it is important when something happens which they have not yet experienced.
I am completely open to any legitimate evidence that climate actually is changing, but weather variability is not it. Warming from whatever source, or by whatever cause, is not climate change. The fact is that we will not really know if climate has changed until after it has happened, and then there would be no way to know how much if any human activity is to blame.
Could you remind us of this salient point when the
skeptics’ make hay out of cold weather, such as they do with every la Nina? Thanks in advance.
Indeed, weather is not climate. However, a record-breaking hot year out of a hundred is evidence of a warming climate. It’s not conclusive, and you definitely need more information.
Which we have in such great abundance that there is no more doubt.
Until one year is cooler than the last and then the ‘skeptics’ forget that weather is not climate.
nabil…”…climate change is not about increasing the temperature of air. In fact, the overall temperature and potential energy of the atmosphere are decreating. And this what makes the present climate science fail. They say that the atmosphere only provides a structure for CO2 to Change climate. Clearly, there is a lot of thermodynamics going on which the radiative model has failed to capture”.
***
I agree. I was zeroing in on feedbacks only, where the word feedback is being used in climate science in a vague manner. No one can explain how it works, either with feedbacks or with so-called ‘forcings’. Both have been redefined using incorrect applications from differential equation ‘theory’.
If you are programming a climate model, you need to use differential equations in your program. The entire premise of climate models is based on the Navier-Stokes equations, which are differential equations. However, to make them work in a model, certain presumptions have to be made. One of them is that CO2 has a warming effect between 9% and 25%, which is false. The actual warming effect is around 0.06%.
With feedbacks, it would be helpful if the programmers understood the physical meaning of feedback, never mind positive feedback. In the models they are looking for an amplification of heat and there is no heat amplifier. In lieu of that, they reach into pseudo-science, offering a lame re-definition of feedback which they cannot explain.
I am not exaggerating, a principle programmer and head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, failed to offer a mathematical explanation for positive feedback. Alarmist programmers have no idea what is required for an amplifying system using positive feedback. That does not stop them presenting hysterical warming projections based on sheer pseudo-science.
See halfway down the page under ‘Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback’.
https://tinyurl.com/drhcjh3m
“Next under the heading “Positive feedback”, Gavin begins,
A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.
The author, Jeffrey Glassman, an engineer, replies…
“Leaving room for some climate jargon, this is almost a valid and workable definition. But it omits, among other things, the necessary control system context, and the concepts of gain, ordinary feedback, open loop and closed loop. Regardless, Gavin next attempts to explain what he thinks positive feedback means:
A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc.
This explanation and Schmidt’s understanding of positive feedback, or even feedback, are fatally flawed”.
Read the rest of Glassman’s critique for a full explanation.
The point is that no one i9n climate science can explain heat amplification based on the examples they offer. As Glassman explains, a loop is required, with an amplifier in the loop, in order to amplify anything. Schmidt seems under the impression that feedack alone can cause amplification, an assumption that is left unexplained.
nabil…in your reply, you stated…”…climate change is not about increasing the temperature of air…”
***
I get that too. In fact, I have given a lot of thought to exactly what climate means. It is not possible to talk about climate without addressing weather directly, so, in essence, when we use the word climate we are using the word weather in a longer-term and general sense. In other words, climate is for statisticians and theorists.
I would like to see one example where local weather has changed significantly anywhere in the past century.
Weather describes the precipitation in a region as well as the amount and intensity of sunlight, which can severely affect temperatures. Wind could be an issue as well. So, climate defines the longer term precipitation, amount and intensity of sunlight, and wind.
There is no way a 1C rise in average temperature over 170 years could possibly affect any of the above significantly.
well said Gordon, from the Antarctic to the Arctic, the Andes to the Sahara the hype by so called climate experts, is becoming boring, the UK doom and gloomers have turned meteorology into a political sport, more interested in headlines than facts, speaking of weather Gordon, no person ever stepped out of their house in the morning,and said the climate is bad today.people see weather not climate, an old hill shepherd once told some one he met ,who was complaining about a windy wet day, no such thing as bad weather,he said,just inadequate clothing and different types of good weather.
“no such thing as bad weather,he said,just inadequate clothing and different types of good weather.”
or an inadequate house that can’t withstand a cat4 hurricane, a flood, or forest fire.
nate…speaking of hurricanes, I was watching a program on the Cottage Life channel about severe storms. It was one that hit southern Florida and the gulf coast of Alabama in 2020. I think it was Hurricane Sally, a Cat 2 storm.
Although it was not so strong the storm surge produced tremendous flooding and damage. The point is, the waterfront in Alabama in particular had only typical wood frame houses facing it. Even sea walls built to withstand the storm surge failed and in one case a large barge was parked on someone front lawn.
In one case, flying debris punched a hole in the roof. In another case, the storm surge actually moved the house on its foundations. A neighbours house caught on fire and the fire spread to an adjacent home, burning it to the ground. The fire department could not get within 1000 feet of the burning homes due to debris blocking the roads.
Roy has explained that modern hurricanes are claimed to do more damage. I took him to mean the financial costs are higher but that is surely due to the building of expensive properties. One guy lost a 50 foot yacht, mainly because he presumed parking it on the leeward side of an island would protect it. In fact, he stayed on board only to swim for it when the storm surge got crazy.
Why??? Why do people continue to rebuild in hurricane alleys with inadequate housing? And why do they not build better protection for their boats? Why do so many boats and barges still break free and cause damage?
Ian…I don’t think the average person could explain climate, but I venture that most buy into the hype that climates are not only changing, but changing dangerously.
The word climate as applied by alarmists has nothing to do with the real meaning of climate. The word was coined by alarmists to replace the failing concept of global warming, itself an obfuscation. Anyone with any sense could see there was no significant warming but they could not understand the word climate and alarmists grasped that obfuscated meaning as a way to confuse and scare the public.
“I don’t think the average person could explain climate”
Of course they could. The difference between Summer and Winter is something we all experience.
White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, turns reality upside down claiming Donald Trump’s tariffs operate as tax cuts for the American people.
Meanwhile, Trump turns the South Lawn of the White House into a car lot for Elon: https://youtu.be/TzBcmVHODrM
All of a sudden MAGAts like electric vehicles. Peak TDS!
Thats very stoopid. But so are MAGAts, so they won’t notice until it affects them personally.
When I talk to MAGAts I’ve stopped asking “How stoopid can you be?” They apparently take it as a challenge.
What’s stupid is your leftist propaganda. You believe it. Up is down, evil is good, right is wrong. Marx 101.
To a fascist everyone else is a leftist.
You understand Fascism about as well as you understand climate.
You understand Fascism about as well as you understand climate.
I understand that you’re a fascist.
Back to the point – the Whitehouse thinks tariffs on foreign goods is a tax cut for citizens?
These people are insane. Leavitt clearly has no idea what she is talking about, or she would have come up with less ridiculous spin. These are the people who truly think up is down and black is white, stephen.
For some problems, understanding what makes them unique is more important than getting the exact answer, and it’s smarter to act sooner rather than waiting. Case in point:
1/ A gardener finds that his pond has one lily pad on a certain day, two the next day four the subsequent day and so on. After 100 days the pond is completely filled with lily pads. On what day was the pond half full?
2/ Suppose that the gardener, once he realizes what is happening, quickly enlarges the pond to twice its size. On what day will the new pond be completely filled?
What’s wrong with Lilly pads? They’re pretty and frogs sit on them..
Answers:
1/ Day 99.
2/ Day 101.
Such is the power of maths. Doesn’t do anything for climate.
No math needed, RLH. It’s all “logic”.
Doubling every day means the day before would be half as much, and the day after would be twice as much.
But, as with the Moon issue, you can’t grasp the logic.
Such is the power of maths.
ClintR didn’t do exponentials.
Many climate feedback mechanisms can follow exponential growth patterns where the rate of change is proportional to the current state, leading to rapid escalation, or decline, over time.
Can is not will.
“Can is not will.”
Hence: For some problems, understanding what makes them unique is more important than getting the exact answer, and its smarter to act sooner rather than waiting.
Try to keep up!
“What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable verdict of history what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”
― Robert Heinlein
Try to keep up? Indeed.
The Donald and Elon doing their thing:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LIiiT4MGtpA
Look like a couple of phags.
Gordo is a Trudeau lover.
500 million years of temperature indicate we’re in a cold phase.
https://postimg.cc/vgfrLpxR
An average temperature of 50 to 60 F is not very warm.
Our average land is about 50 F and average ocean surface temperature is over 60 F. Though average of entire ocean is less than 40 F.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history
“Reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations and actions that rely on that Finding (Endangerment Finding)”
What means ‘Reconsideration’? Does it mean kicking the tires and saying ‘yep’; or does it mean refit from stem to stern; or does it mean towing the heap to the junkyard?
There is no credible authority to make a claim of knowing what the correct CO2 amount should be
We should strive to keep CO2 concentrations below 5000 (five thousand) ppm.
Derp.
We’d have lush planet.
“What means ‘Reconsideration’?”
It means we will set any environmental considerations aside and make decisions only based on immediate $$ benefit as we interpret it. Unless somebody sues us. Which they will.
Suing will only work if the plaintiff can prove CO2 emissions actually do anything negative to climate. Rule 702 applies. Buena Suerte.
Something to consider.
“The utility industry has also raised concerns about getting rid of the endangerment finding. In a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a group that represents electric utilities, said allowing the EPA to regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for cutting emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency’s authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group said. “This would be chaos.”
The EPA has repeatedly reaffirmed the endangerment finding, and in 2022, Congress included language in the Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Conrad Schneider, senior director for the U.S. at the Clean Air Task Force, said in a statement: “This signal to deregulate air pollution is diametrically opposed to the obligation the EPA has to protect public health.” ”
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5326354/trump-epa-environmental-rules-rollback-deregulation
As for demonstrating that AGW produces poor consequences, that shouldn’t be too difficult as the science behind it has only strengthened since 2009, and they can point not only to increasing disaster costs above and beyond growing CPI, but also to choices made by insurance companies to divest their risk schedules of coverage for disasters related to climate change. Insurance companies are at the cutting edge of financial risk, and they are backing out of fire insurance and hurricane insurance in regions where the already increasing toll of disasters is forecast to grow under global warming. Money talks.
“2022, Congress included language in the Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”
Congress has powers? Nah! Not according to Trump.
He has been consistently acting to undo policies passed by Congress and signed into Law.
Such as the unilateral dismemberment of agencies created by Congress to carry out these laws.
But Congress, as currently led by the Republican party, has voluntarily given up its power to the President. They treat him as if he were a King.
This is totally contrary to what the Founders and authors of the Constitution intended.
You might need to look at the https certificate on the vortex.nsstc.uah.edu website.
I get
“vortex.nsstc.uah.edu uses encryption to protect your information. When Microsoft Edge tried to connect to vortex.nsstc.uah.edu this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be vortex.nsstc.uah.edu, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Microsoft Edge stopped the connection before any data was exchanged.
You can’t visit vortex.nsstc.uah.edu right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.”
richard…got in using the Tor browser. The problem seems to be that the site is an older HTTP site whereas modern sites use HTTPS, where the S means secure.
The Tor browser allows you to enter the site using the HTTP format. There is a button for HTTP right on the error windows. I think most other browsers also give the option to use HTTP, but you have to find the switch and turn it on.
btw…to access the site using Firefox… go into the Tools/Settings menu or alternately the three horizontal bars at top right of screen and choose Settings. Either way you get to a Settings menu.
On the Settings menu select Privacy & Security and scroll down to HTTPS-only mode. It will likely be set at ‘Don’t Enable HTTPS-only mode. Change it to Enable HTTPS-only mode then the Manage Exceptions button becomes active. Press it.
There is a box to enter the URL, so enter it. That makes the Turn Off buttons active. I selected Turn Off and a new box appears where you have to re-enter the URL.
You’ll have to play with it a bit since I forgot the proceess from there. It is easy however. You are trying to enter the URL as an exception to HTTPS-only mode.
The question is, why does it not work if HTTPS-only is shut off in the first place.
You obviously did not read “the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials” which would mean that only http and not https would work.
On my computer, no problem in accessing
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu
using Firefox (revision 128.5.1 esr) is, without any settings change.
The https address is automatically changed to
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/nsstc
upon successful access.
Surprisingly, I was able to submit the above comment using Firefox. Normally, the blog server returns a 403 error (access denied because my dynamic IP address is as so often rejected), and I have to resubmit the comment using TOR.
OH… I suddenly see ‘Microsoft Edge’.
No wonder then.
It is simple prejudice to blame Microsoft for everything.
https://www.howtogeek.com/659857/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-microsoft-edge-browser/
“The new Microsoft Edge is based on the Chromium open-source project”
RLH
You are not insulting or discrediting me here: so there is no reason to call you as usual (which was actually my response to your misnaming me).
*
1. ” It is simple prejudice to blame Microsoft for everything. ”
Not at all.
For decades, Microsoft has been the world’s largest manufacturer and seller of highly virus-prone software (and it remains so today), and has so far utterly failed to adequately address this mega-problem.
The only positive aspect of this globally plaguing misery is that numerous small companies have been able to establish themselves on the global market with suitable antivirus software.
I dropped Windows off my life by the end of XP’s lifetime, and switched to Linux. Since then, I stopped bothering about viruses.
*
2. ” The new Microsoft Edge is based on the Chromium open-source project ”
Chromium was from the beginning an open-source development: this software was developed in parallel to the Chrome package.
Both rely mainly to free source from Mozilla Firefox; most of the further development was made by deveopers hired from Mozilla.
In comparison to Firefox, Chrome is a lame duck.
“For decades, Microsoft has been the world’s largest manufacturer”
and thus the largest target in the room.
Aaaah! Finally the usual
403 Forbidden
nginx
came again into play when posting with Firefox (it happens sometimes using TOR too, for the very same reason). So I post via TOR again…
*
Unlike using this link:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2024/December/202412_Map.png
which accessed the map, those attempts failed:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2025/January/202501_Map.png
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2025/JANUARY/202501_Map.png
*
Does anyone know where they are – if they were created?
403 forbidden, welcome back to the club,
rlh…”You obviously did not read the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials which would mean that only http and not https would work”.
***
One of us didn’t read. You said…”You cant visit vortex.nsstc.uah.edu right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later”.
I simply demonstrated how to reach the site you cannot seem to access. I presumed you were stopped by one of those error pages that claims the site is insecure and cannot be reached. What they don’t tell you is that there are sometimes ways around that ‘Big Brother’ forbidden nonsense.
I think it should be illegal for browsers to block access to sites because ‘they’ think it’s harmful for you. We are being blocked from Roy’s site because Big Brother Amazon has decided through their spy software, Cloudflare, the site is harmful.
ark…”For some problems, understanding what makes them unique is more important than getting the exact answer, and its smarter to act sooner rather than waiting”.
***
I could understand that if we truly were facing a life and death situation. However, acting on the propaganda surround the warming effectiveness of CO2 is neither a life and death situation, nor anywhere near to it.
The idea that this trace gas is dangerously warming the atmosphere is based on faulty science. There is essentially no scientific proof that a gas with the concentration of CO2 could possibly warm the atmosphere significantly and the only proof offered by IPCC papers is based on opinions of 19th century scientists who had no idea how gas molecules interact with electromagnetic energy.
In fact, those scientists believed that heat could be transported through air by ‘heat rays’. They were wrong, and so were there projections about anthropogenic warming.
The hysteria surrounding CO2 is similar to the hysteria surrounding covid. We were told during the covid hysteria that we were dealing with a dangerous pandemic and severe restrictions were imposed on people based on that terrible theory. A vaccine was claimed and when it became obvious that it did not work, and that a tiny amount of people were seriously affected, the same propagandists that started the hysteria quietly made it go away.
They now claim that covid is endemic, just like the flu. Many experts tried to tell them that and were ignored. It has now been reduced to a minimal infection and it has quietly gone away despite more hysteria about variants and the dangers they could theoretically introduce. All in all, covid was a bad theory based on hysterical inference and anthropogenic warming is no different.
I expect the theory will quietly pass into oblivion. Here in Canada, our present government, who propagandized anthropogenic warming, are now promising to cut the carbon tax.
The issue:
It’s funny to me how you choose to cope with the overwhelming amount of information out there, by just ignoring it. I couldn’t live like that.
testing DNS change
sorry…retesting because first post usually works while subsequent posts receive a Forbidden error.
Didn’t work, back to Tor.
Carbon tax officially eliminated in Canada. The new PM just signed it out of existence and he is a climate advocate. Of course, he could have something even more sinister up his sleeve.
From what I could make out reading a bit, he’s undercut the conservatives on a fairly unpopular tax.
He’s only cutting consumer carbon tax.
Farmers and industry still pays carbon tax.
Ultimately we the consumer pay the tax as producers pass their costs on to us.
Net Zero is pernicious and must be made illegal.
“He’s only cutting consumer carbon tax.”
My reading comprehension is pretty good, thanks.
Does not Canada recycle the carbon tax on industry as a credit for consumers? Same set up we had in Australia. This incentivises industry competition to meet the requirements to avoid the tax, thus being able to lower prices to consumers and get ahead in the market.
“Net Zero is pernicious and must be made illegal.”
Spoken like someone who does not believe there is a risk from global warming due to the enhanced ‘greenhouse’ effect. If only all of us would believe scientists around the world are fooled about this or lying, eh?
Zero Visibility: A severe dust storm with wind gusts approaching 100 mph caused a massive pileup on I-27 near Canyon, Texas, on March 14.
https://bit.ly/4bv4o3w
“The appearance marked Trumps clearest exertion yet of personal control over the countrys federal law enforcement apparatus, which is normally run by appointees who keep at least an arms length from the president to avoid the appearance that politics are governing prosecutorial decisions. Trump, instead, embraced the notion of the agency as his own personal tool of vengeance.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-bondi-patel-justice-fbi-retribution-ec275e730c6e75f2d6ee29eeec30fa07
“As the chief law enforcement officer in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred, Trump told the audience, with Attorney General Pam Bondi (who is technically the countrys chief law enforcement officer)”
“I believe that CNN and MSDNC, who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they are really corrupt and they are illegal. What they do is illegal.
This was a remarkable moment the president of the United States telling his Department of Justice that he believes the media are illegal because they write bad things about him.
Needless to say, CNN and MSNBC (which Trump tweaked by changing its initials) are not actually part of the Democratic Party. No matter if you think their coverage leans in that direction, theres no actual, legal connection.
Even if there was, the First Amendment allows political groups to criticize a rival politician. It certainly allows the media to do so, regardless of any perceived ideological bias.”
Enjoy the petty wannabe dictator that y’all elected!
Every accusation is an admission. After years of decrying Biden supposedly weaponising the DoJ, Trump visits the place and names his targets. The AG makes a speech expressing her loyalty to the president (instead of the constitution).
Of course conservatives will now decry what is as plain as a TV camera pointing at it, because their principles are consistent on this….
The cult kids with TDS are even funnier than when they try attempt science.
It’ll get even better when Trump gets his third term….
Clint seems perfectly ok with Trump taking a wrecking ball to the First Amendment and using DOJ as a political vengeance machine.
Cuz he is the Dear Leader who does no wrong!
Nate, when you grow up you will realize that false accusations aren’t reality.
If Trump really wanted to be a dictator, various agencies would be tracking you on the internet and you would soon be arrested and put in a concentration camp.
Keep demonstrating your immaturity, that’s really all you’ve got.
Clint R
No wonder you can’t understand the moon rotates one time per orbit. You really don’t know how to think at all. Your blind devotion to Trump and your inability to think at all are now evident. You watch Fox News and believe all the lies they feed you. Most you Trump supporters have turned your brain off and just get fed endless lies and they become real truth in your limited awareness. Stupid is as stupid does and you show great signs of stupidity. As Trump would say “Never has their been such stupidity every, it it the most stupid ever seen!” Yup you are brain dead.
Norman, here you are stalking me again.
And, as usual, you’ve got NOTHING but insults and false accusations.
You STILL can’t understand that you don’t know anything about orbital motion. That’s why you don’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Clint R pretends he understands orbital motion yet he is not able to understand how the moon is rotating slowly on its axis (that all astronomers and NASA officials understand) as it orbits so that in rotating and orbiting it is always keeping the same face to the Earth observers. I have asked the “brainless” Clint R to move a can around a center can in an orbital path. He can make a video to show his alleged intelligence but he will not do this. Show how you can move the can around the center one keeping its same side facing inward without you rotating it as you move it around in an “orbit”.
You will keep whining about insults but you will never provide insight. You show us why Trump won the Presidency. Americans turned off their minds and believe everything and anything he says is true.
Poor Norman just keeps wallowing in his own stinky crap.
All he has to do is provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
But he can’t because he’s clueless about the relevant science.
Clint R
How dense are you really.
YOU: (mister insulter himself) “Poor Norman just keeps wallowing in his own stinky crap.
All he has to do is provide a viable model of orbiting without spin.
But he cant because hes clueless about the relevant science.”
I give you what you request and you are two stupid to understand it then you falsely claim I am clueless about the relevant science. You are one messed up brain. Take the can and as you move it around don’t rotate it. If you do this you will see that if an object orbits without spin all sides will be seen by the observers in the middle of the orbit. Try it, make a video and prove me wrong. You can’t and won’t but you will attempt some stupid lame insult. You and your Trumpets are all the same. Real stupid and insulting to the max.
Sorry Norman but you’re STILL just wallowing in your own stinky crap.
Moon has two vectors acting on it. The resultant of the vectors provides the orbit. There is no torque so there is no spin. It’s the same for the ball-on-a-string, which is a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Consequently, your “two cans” model fails.
You understand none of this and you can’t learn. What nonsense will you try next.
^^ There you go, barry. Now you have your answer, “all in one place”. ^^
Are u again deferring to the authority of an ignorant person?
Talk through the vector mathematics with Clint R, Nate. Stop talking to me, start talking to other people on the subject.
Bwa ha ha!
Clint tries again to add vector force to vector momentum. Which is nonsense.
No one here considers him to be an authority on this subject
Find a proper physics source to support your POV.
No thanks, I’m fine thinking for myself.
However, you might benefit from a discussion with somebody other than me.
Of course child Nate can’t point to where I ever said “add vector force to vector momentum.”
He just makes crap up, like the rest of his cult.
There’s a new sheriff in town. Merrick Garland had a chance to play fair– he did not. The Democrats had a chance to go through a primary process 2 years ago when they realized Joe was unfit. They pushed Kamala onto the voters, and it was actually Democrats and Independents who elected Trump with a plurality.
Trump claims that Biden told him he was angry and he blamed Nancy and “Barack”. When all of the tell-all books are written, it will be clear they made a huge blunder.
Here is Garland making one of several bold attempts to influence the election with Trump fear. The attempt to link Trump to Putin did not work.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-garland-expected-to-address-disinformation-election-threats-at-doj-meeting
The Justice Departments message is clear: We will have no tolerance for attempts by authoritarian regimes to exploit our democratic systems of government, Attorney General Merrick Garland said.
So you are happy with Russia influencing US elections. Ok.
It’s not a partisan issue, Bill Barr confirmed Russia’s meddling, including hacking and covert social media campaigns.
And you are clearly deaf to Trump using the DoJ to go after his political enemies.
So my question to you is: do you have a principle about the DoJ doing the bidding of presidents, or are you ok with it when team red does this?
(It’s a long shot you’ll answer that last question straight)
Bwa ha ha!
Clint tries again to add vector force to vector momentum.
Extremely poor choice of authority.
Child Nate can’t even place his immature comments correctly.
I hope Trump’s not gonna make these red states turn on that big water faucet up north before he offers any aide. Or he could go the really fun route and start dumping out water reservoirs into the ocean and call it a job done, again.
The reality of the climate is going to kick Musk & Trump in the nadz this summer, no matter what they do or don’t do oin the name of “government efficiency,” it is going to be very small compared to what the planet’s mix of fire, hurricanes, drought, heat and floods has in store for them.
These disturbances may be triggered by the Gulf of America celebrating its new name.
It’ll settle down soon….
https://www.blitzortung.org/en/historical_maps.php
You missed out fire and brimstone Arkady. when do you think the climate will deteriorate back to historical times? no sign of that happening in the UK or Europe, in fact the climate is relatively benin, compared with past climate events, UK climate records show no increase in extreme weather events,they worry over a 1.2c temperature increase in 200 years,i wonder what panic a 4 to 5c temperature change in 50 years would bring.or storms that removed towns and villages from the face of the earth.
Neither the UK nor Europe is my concern.
If you’re interested in facts you could start with Table 12.12 of IPCC AR6, The Physical Science Basis. Page 1856.
We’re under new management and have a new motto now: “America alone.”
Good luck to you.
March 16, 2025: Violent tornadoes and high winds decimated homes, wiped out schools and toppled semi-trailers as a monster storm that killed at least 32 people ripped its way across the central and southern U.S.
https://dnyuz.com/2025/03/16/tornadoes-wildfires-and-blinding-dust-sweep-across-u-s-as-massive-storm-leaves-at-least-32-dead/
To Nate:
Subsidies for oil et al are designed so that small companies can compete with the big boys.
When you calculate the cost per energy unit produced fossil fuel subsidies are pennies on the dollar compared to solar and wind.
After repeated claims of taking over Greenland, the Trump administration is now asking Denmark for extra eggs amid shortage
The United States has reached out to Denmark and other European nations asking if they can export eggs as Americans face surging egg prices, the Nordic country’s egg association said on Friday.
https://fortune.com/2025/03/14/egg-supply-denmark-exports-usda-trump-adminstration-greenland-annex-threats/
Eggs-actly.
We’re the only military presence there. Might as well. Yes, ask Denmark to provide eggs. Do something Denmark besides tulips. What does Denmark do? They make great HiFi equipment. Not sure what else.
Assuming you are serious (a large assumption) then here is the Wiki page on Denmark. (Nowhere does HiFi or Tulips get a look in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
Oh, yeah. And brothels. They’re just behind Thailand.
That might be Denmark who does the HiFi.
I have a prediction that Trump has a plan for his Ukraine peace initiative. Putin had no intention to negotiate in good faith. The intelligence reports Trump was getting would have made that clear. All of the pundits went nuts when Trump sweet-talked Putin into agreeing to have his people meet in Saudi Arabia, but it worked.
Zelensky almost spoiled the plan, but the adults in the EU set him straight. Putin is now in a position to be blamed completely for a failed ceasefire and failed talks if they even happen at all.
What people do not realize is that Trump will then have political cover to do 2 things. This is my prediction. He will send civilian mining experts to Ukraine and make a very public pronouncement that Putin will be held responsible for any casualties. The USA now has a commercial interest in stopping the war. Then he will send more long range missiles to Ukraine with no restrictions on range and distance well into Russia. He can say that he gave Putin a chance to do it the nice way. I have no prediction what Putin will do.
Here’s my prediction.
But first, it would be months before US workers got into Ukraine even if an agreement was reached immediately. Russia would double down efforts to acquire as much territory as possible. And if workers got in and Russia attacked, there is NO WAY Trump would move against Russia militarily. He would evacuate the workers and blame Zelensky in some way.
What will actually happen.
Trump will not back Ukraine’s preferences, he will continue to back Russia’s. If a ceasefire occurs, it will be in name only, and Russia will use the breathing space to fortify its gains and dig in for another push.
In this circumstance Trump will say that Russia is there to stay, they have the cards, and Ukraine has to cave. Zelensky will be touted as a bad leader for not recognizing the ‘inevitable’ and for not wanting to end the war at all (blithely ignoring that there are clear terms on which Ukraine will happily end the war).
If Europe get their act together and increase aid and military spending in Ukraine Zelensky will come to rely on this and not the US. This would be a major power shift in Europe, and a dangerous one.
More broadly, Trump will be withdrawing from old alliances and allowing Russia’s sphere of influence to increase,leaving Europe to deal with it while the US focuses on its neighbours – Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Panama.
It’s less clear what Trump will do with China, being the other power that is trying to establish international dominance. Over the next four years it could be that the world will drift back to a tri-polar international order that was the case near the end of WWII, after being a unipolar world with the US leading the way at the end of the cold war.
Russia (politicians, state media) is currently talking about this possibility, a rebalancing of the world order to restore power to Russia. US withdrawal from long-held foreign policy goals opens the door to this eventuality, certainly with Russia. Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in his first term and ambiguity on relations with China (even with tariffs) sends mixed signals, and I think policy in that arena will be Trump’s, and directed by whim, his relationship with Xi Jinping and right-wing media. His comments about Taiwan strongly suggest a provisional, transactional attitude to its defense, where previous presidents, including the Bush presidents, have been more clearly committed to defending Taiwan, even if this was sometimes masked by a more ambiguous attitude. Trump’s transactional foreign policy and his admiration for Jinping (Trump likes strong, authoritarian leaders, and even defers to them) leaves open a strong possibility that China could expand its geopolitical sphere without being much hampered by Trump. If these ambitions are acute, they will likely be tested in the coming months. Should the US become involved militarily in another part of the world, that would be China’s best opportunity. But this distraction would not be necessary. It will be interesting to see what China does in the next 18 months.
Ukraine is a flashpoint for the future of the international order. I highly doubt the US will do much under Trump to maintain the status quo.
Gosh barry, your understanding of geopolitics is as perverse as is your understanding of science.
I’m not surprised….
You can spell geopolitics. Well done.
Unfortunately barry, spelling ain’t understanding. Like you can spell “prediction”, but you can’t make one. Want to see some REAL predictions?
1) There will be a ceasefire in Ukraine by July 2025.
2) Russia will NOT violate the ceasefire while Trump is in office.
See, REAL predictions are clear, concise, specific, and NOT rambling weasel-words.
“1) There will be a ceasefire in Ukraine by July 2025.
2) Russia will NOT violate the ceasefire while Trump is in office.”
There won’t be a ceasefire because with the stoppage of US support for Ukraine, Russia will take advantage and take as much territory as the can.
The sanctions threatened by Trump are too weak to matter.
Well now we know. Putin will not do cease fire.
So that’s that.
Trump, will not win the Peace Prize.
I think both you and Barry are misreading the situation because neither of you understand why Russia is in the Ukraine in the first place. You don’t understand because the Western media in its myopic reporting has supplied us with misinformation re Russia’s intention.
The Western media is owned largely by multi-millionaires like Rupert Murdoch, and it’s hardly in their interest to portray Russia with any kind of fairness. Even government owned news outlets like the BBC and CBC usually represent only the views of the right.
I am not supporting Russia in this matter, I am only reporting on what Putin has claimed over and over. If he has lied, then he will stay in the Ukraine. I am waiting to see how much he honours his word that he is there to support Russian-speaking Ukrainians who have been essentially trapped in the Ukraine due to border designations that were not well thought out.
Putin has claimed that he had two interests…
1)to wipe out the neo-Nazi Azov battalion who were sent in by Kyiv when their normal forces were getting nowhere. Azov were known for their brutal tactics and they have been eliminated. They have reformed in name and hopefully without the neo-Nazi impetus.
2)to offer the people of the Donbass region a chance to vote for their future. That could be a joke unless international observers are included to monitor the fairness of a vote. If they are offered a fair vote and decide to rejoin Russia, that is another issue.
Meantime, the Western media have completely misrepresented the issues that lead to the Russian invasion. In 2014, a pro-Russian Ukrainian president was run off in a coup in what has claimed to be a democratic country. Both the US and the EU played a part in enabling that anti-Democratic coup.
The ex-President was supported in a large part by Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the election, from the Donbass region, and when he was run off, they revolted. The Western media did not explain the reason for their discontent, only that they were Russian troublemakers.
Both Tim and Barry are treating this Russian invasion based on something Putin dreamt up while in the shower. The problem festered for 8 years before the Russians finally responded. Their initial response in 2014 was to retake Crimea in retaliation for the coup. That region was given to the Ukraine as part of the USSR by Khruschev, a Ukrainian. It’s debatable whether the Ukrainians had a right to take it when they left.
There is little doubt that Putin is miffed over the thoughtless giveaway of the former USSR by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Who can blame him when a drunk (Yeltsin) and a dreamer (Gorbachev) literally gave away your country. They gave the state lands to the oligarchs and Putin has been battling them since. I am sure the oligarchs would love to see the demise of Putin so they can run rampant with their criminal activities.
“I think both you and Barry are misreading the situation because neither of you understand why Russia is in the Ukraine in the first place.”
All I have to do is read Russia Today or get a translated Putin speech to get your view, Gordon. You are simply parroting Kremlin talking points.
And if you read a little bit more of Putin’s public speeches you would know that he has never thought Ukraine is a sovereign state and has designs on folding the whole country (and others) back into the Russia. That’s why Russia attacked Kyiv first rather than restricted itself to ‘peacekeeping’ in the Donbas. They want a pro-Russian government, period.
You are entirely too ignorant of the broader scope of Putin’s interest in the region. So you end up defending a brutal dictator with openly stated expansionist designs for Russia.
“I have a prediction that Trump has a plan for his Ukraine..
”
Where do you get the absurd notion that Trump is rational? Just look at his behavior om Tariffs. And his behavior on canceling Ukraine support..because their President had the nerve to speak truth to him.
Peace negotiations involve many actors coming to an understanding. It is not about one person having a plan. Especially not one like Trump who in everything seeks personal gain. It takes someone like Jimmy Carter.
The Trump administration is patently chaotic. You see fewer reversals and backflips at the olympics.
Oh yeah. The Biden Administration did so well with peace negotiations. Who was their chief negotiator? Oh, yeah. Kamala. She did a wonderful, rational job.
I knew that posting these comments would make Nate’s head spin, but I did not expect Jimmy Carter! Really?
Trump laid it out with Zelensky when he said “you don’t have the cards”. Zelensky replied that he is not playing cards.
The fact is that the US has a lot of cards to play, and Trump is not afraid to use them. He made it very clear that he wants the war to end. I firmly believe the nice guy position with Putin was a setup, just like he set up, Kim in North Korea. People say the talks with NK were a failure because nothing happened, but that is the point. Trump offered him a chance to join the civilized world, but after a train ride to Beijing to visit his daddy, Kim turned it down. That proved for certain that NK and China are joined at the hip.
Back to Russia. Trumps needs political cover before he takes strong action against Russia. He needs to be able to say he tried being nice. Putin is as smart as he is evil, but he does not “have the cards”. Trump has a lot of options that Biden and the EU countries were afraid to use. Trump is willing to do crazy things, and everyone says Putin respects strength. Time will tell.
I guess when stephen pivots to point at Biden it’s a tacit admission that he can’t disagree with what’s been said about Trump.
The usual unsupported condescension by Tim, who appears to have no knowledge of the various peace deals facilitated by Jimmy Carter.
“he said you dont have the cards.”
Then Trump promptly took away the aces from his hand.
Trump’s idea is to reward aggression and to weaken the victims of it.
Maybe because he aspires to do the same to weak nations.
He seems to want to take the world back to the 1800s when powerful industrialized countries simply took what they wanted from weak countries.
For those who are paying attention, Zelensky played and spilled onto the floor of the Oval Office whatever cards he had.
The media portrayed his meeting with the EU as “supportive”. The result is that has turned completely around. He now has a minerals joint venture with the US and an offer of ceasefire — both things he refused in the Oval Office while attempting to negotiate in front of the cameras. He now has a much weaker hand, but the one card he needs which is support from the US.
I may have missed the news reports were the EU disagrees with Trump on the mineral deal or ceasefire, but is seems to me that Trump has support for his plan with the key players. I have no prediction what Putin will do except that he is evil and will attempt to play the various factions against each other. That strategy seems to be failing despite Zelensky’s attempt to play into it.
“He now has a minerals joint venture with the US”
Not yet he doesn’t. Still not finalised. While European leaders have not specifically backed Zelensky’s call for security guarantees from the US in any minerals deal, they have emphasised the need for US commitment to security.
There are red lines on both sides that are mutually exclusive in the ceasefire talks. I can’t see Trump pressuring Russia to make any concessions. At best he will ask, and then shrug when rebuffed and tell Zelensky to cave. We know the rhetoric by now.
Europe now sees the US as having a purely transactional foreign policy in the region, with no real commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty or the geopolitical security status quo there. No longer able to trust the US on these matters (the suspension of intelligence sharing was a major red flag for Europe), Europe is making its own minerals deal and seeing if it can ally to fill the gap left by the US should it more permanently withdraw support for Ukraine.
Europe is sweet-talking Trump, but only because they have to deal with a personality rather than a mature policy. But they also know he is chaotic and can’t be relied on.
“See, REAL predictions are clear, concise, specific, and NOT rambling weasel-words.”
I made 8 predictions. You made 2.
I realize you run out of brain after a paragraph. Hypothesis is obviously way out of your league.
Sorry barry, but REAL predictions are clear, concise, specific, and NOT rambling weasel-words.
You spewed a number of generalities that could be construed as right even if they’re wrong. Ypu’re trying to play lawyer, but you’re not very good at it.
You managed to get a second paragraph out, but unfortunately none of it is true. The predictions I made are clear, but perhaps the larger words confused you.
I’ll keep it simple for you.
1. Trump will support Russia’s conditions for a ceasefire without wavering
2. Ukraine will not agree to all of Russia’s terms
3. Trump will blame Zelensky if a ceasefire doesn’t materialise, or is broken by Russia
4. Trump will not engage with Russia militarily if it invades after the US secures a deal with Ukraine. There is NO security guarantee under any circumstances from the US, implied or otherwise.
5. If a ceasefire is reached, Russia will fortify its positions in Ukraine and will ultimately invade Kyiv, installing a pro-Russian government
Hopefully the US government comes to its senses and returns to a hard line approach to Russia. Appeasing Putin is a mug’s game. It’s not canny.
You STILL don’t get it barry.
Take your first item. Both sides would “support” the other’s “conditions”. That’s what happens in an agreement. You write your “predictions” so you can always interpret them to be right, no matter what happens.
You’re only fooling yourself and the other cult kids.
Notice how clear my prediction is: 1) There will be a ceasefire in Ukraine by July 2025.
It will either be right or wrong. There’s no “wiggle-room”. You can’t do that because you don’t have a clue about any of this. You just regurgitate your cult nonsense and call people “lying dog”, like the child you are.
“Take your first item. Both sides would support the others conditions.”
My first item was about Trump’s support for Russia. The two sides are Ukraine and Russia.
You can’t even understand a simple sentence, let alone foreign policy.
Try this exercise Clint.
The British PM Chamberlin goes to Munich, meets with Hitler who has been threatening Czechoslovakia. He agrees to let Germany take a big chunk of Czechoslovakia, while ignoring the cries of the Czechs.
He is very proud of his accomplishment, and calls it ‘Peace in our Time’.
Now predict what happens next.
Nate, Trump can’t be both Chamberlin and Hitler.
You’re so confused, as usual.
I assumed you were smart enough to figure where Putin fits in.
Obviously I should not gave assumed.
Assumptions are typically useless, especially when you have no clue about the issues.
barry…”Trumps withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership….”
***
Canada signed on in 2016 and even after Trump withdrew, they remained in a re-negotiated agreement.
I have heard nothing from you, an Australian, in support of Canada. Supposedly, the British Commonwealth still exists, why is the UK and other Commonwealth countries not stepping up to back Canada? Have they been reduced to trembling over fear of offending Trump?
I just wrote to the UK PM, taking him to task for abandoning Canada essentially to save his own butt. When asked directly if he’d support Canada, he waffled and claimed he needed to be careful with his own negotiations with Trump. The King has shown far more support than any Commonwealth government.
How do you spell gutless? Had Canadians taken the same view in both WW I and WW II, the UK would likely have fallen.
So, tell me, Barry, are you Ozzies with us or not?
With you in terms of what?
Are the Trump tariffs on Canada unjust and ill-conceived. Absolutely. Is Trump complaining that the trade agreement is unfair,despite him renegotiating it and claiming it was the best ever? Yup.
Is the fentanyl issue a false pretext for this destructive bully-boy economic warfare? Yep. Is terrorism? Definitely.
Is the US poking its closest neighbour and ally in the eye for no good reason? Yup.
Is the 51st state rhetoric putrid and disrespectful? Absolutely.
I’ve always thought Canada an excellent country with friendly people.
What more do you want?
The action by Eby (Premier BC) via Bill 7 (which is needed for putting restrictions on Alaska bound traffic) is an egregious abuse of Authority.
All of the US produced alcohol has been taken off the shelf in BC liquor stores. Not even during South Africa boycott has alcohol been taken off the shelf. What is he going to do next; take peanut butter off the shelf because peanuts come from USA?
Eby must resign for his lack of respect for our democratic rights and freedoms.
(Expletive deleted) stupidity by our government (not that I expect much else) isn’t going to solve tariffs.
barry…I’d like to hear from Commonwealth countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and the other 56 member nations that Trump’s veiled threats of annexing Canada and interfering with our sovereignty is unacceptable.
The silence is deafening!!!
Ken, Canada didn’t start the trade war. Where is your anger towards Trump? Canada has every right to push back.
ken…”The action by Eby (Premier BC) via Bill 7 (which is needed for putting restrictions on Alaska bound traffic) is an egregious abuse of Authority”.
***
Eby is one of the only leaders with the guts to combat Trump’s bullying. In fact, he is not doing nearly enough. Any US citizens passing through Canada need to be made fully aware of the effect of their own President’s bullying tactics.
At first, Eby took only the alcohol from Red states off the shelves but recently he has come to his senses and taken all US alcohol off the shelves. If he would now scrap all climate-related propaganda, we might have something, but he must pay allegiance to the Green eco-weenies who hold sway in his party.
It should be noted that we in BC had government operated liquor stores. So, it is the government’s right to say what alcohol is sold in those stores. We also have private liquor stores and I don’t think they are affected.
Eby states his reasons for banning US liquor…
“One is to respond to the escalating threats that we’re seeing from the United States. The other is to recognize the feeling that many British Columbians have now when we look at American products. We don’t even want to see them on the shelf anymore.”
Also…
“Eby said an escalation was required with Trump’s threats to B.C.’s dairy and lumber industries and “musings” about Canada’s border, water resources and sovereignty”.
“Now the reaction of many British Columbians, myself included, is if the president so interested in Canadian water, then we’re gonna help him out by letting him keep his watery beer.”
Three cheers for Eby, a true Canadian.
Meantime, our new PM is already playing games with us. He removed the carbon tax for public consumers but kept it in place for industries. He is known as an eco-weenie and his true colours are showing already. After acting tough with Trump, claiming he would not deal with him till Trump acted more sensibly, he is now cow-towing, asking for a meeting.
Our new PM, Carney, has reportedly moved the private companies, he chaired till recently, out of Canada to New York and it seems he fears Trump learning of that and penalizing him. A former PM, Paul Martin Jr., did something similar. He owned a shipping company and he moved it to an international destination to avoid paying taxes in Canada.
Carney recently worked for a company that divested in coal yet he is an advocate of zero-emissions.
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/climate-blackface-carneys-former-employer-owns-large-stake-in-coal-terminal/62288
Gordon, Trump’s remarks re 51st state can easily be perceived as whimsical and non-serious, however grotesque and disrespectful they are. His comments don’t rise to the level of a threat, and have no doubt been given the serious attention they deserve by foreign leaders.
Equally, the Canadian government, to my knowledge, has said nothing about Trump’s comments on taking Greenland and the Panama Canal.
I think foreign leaders are wise not to jump at every outrage that comes out of that man’s mouth.
“After acting tough with Trump, claiming he would not deal with him till Trump acted more sensibly, he is now cow-towing, asking for a meeting.”
A few days ago he said he would meet with Trump provided Canada’s sovereignty was respected.
“I am ready to sit down with President Trump at the appropriate time under a position where there is respect for Canadian sovereignty and we are working for a common approach, a much more comprehensive approach for trade,”
Do you have some update where the leader has resiled from this position? I couldn’t find any.
“Meantime, our new PM is already playing games with us. He removed the carbon tax for public consumers but kept it in place for industries.”
Isn’t that exactly what he promised? This was his plan for the carbon tax that was in the public domain since January 31.
https://markcarney.ca/media/2025/01/mark-carney-presents-plan-for-change-on-consumer-carbon-tax
It’s even in the title.
Barry…I could agree had Trump mentioned once in passing then dropped it. However, it has become a current theme with him, so-much so, that he definitely wants something from Canada in the way of concessions, re-drawing the border or giving the US carte blanche access to our resources.
My concern is that he’ll find a reason to invade based on a misinterpretation of Putin’s advance into the Ukraine. I am hoping that such an event would be rejected by the majority of US citizens who still regard us as a friend and staunch ally.
He seems to actually think that Canadians would relish joining the US. As most of us see it, joining the US would be a major step backwards.
Well, if you believe this is a serious concern, then Greenland and the Panama Canal are even more firmly in the crosshairs.
No one is going to feed this tr0ll until it gets real.
I think Trump only wants Western Canada. If you live in Ontario or Quebec you have nothing to worry about.
We definitely need to reacquire the Panama Canal. We built it. It’s ours.
As Panama is not giving it up, how do you think the US should go about reacquiring the canal it signed over to Panamanian ownership?
France is on the line, Donald. They want the Statue of Liberty back. They built it.
The message from the White House around US oil is ‘drill, baby, drill,’ but a very different message came out of Houston’s CERAWeek conference March 10-14, which is the annual gathering of the US oil industry.
Three titans of the US oil and gas industry are warning that harder times are ahead as the low-hanging fruit in the US has been picked.
First was Continental Resources founder Harold Hamm, with the message that “US oil production is beginning to plateau.”
Next was Occidental Petroleum CEO Vicki Hollub who sees US oil output peaking between 2027 and 2030.
Finally, and most telling was Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield who sold his company to Exxon in 2023, highlighting a bit of a cliff that the US is headed towards.
Sheffield’s comments speak to the exaggerations of shale players regarding inventory. They’ve been used to pump fundraising and valuations. Now that he has cashed out, he tells the truth.
You leftists should love all this doom and gloom from the oil industry.
To a fascist like you everyone else is a leftist.
red krokodile
A while ago you complained about my use of a mean temperature based comparison of ‘well’ sited USHCN stations to ‘less good’ sited ones:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698052
{ I read that Souleyman Fall & al. paper as well as other ones many years ago. }
*
Here are the same comparisons as with TAVG but now with TMIN and TMAX:
1.1 TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oe83hoSiWiSC7j7gXN-6pailV5thlYhE/view
1.2 TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HC8G9ic2nYmDqsQhjpXSTIQtB_FtbKlm/view
*
As crosscheck: the TMIN vs. TMAX comparisons for the two station sets.
2.1 ‘Well’ sited
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14MI1gBZ1FeOnyq4NkCZ44NKEFGJi7URR/view
2.2 ‘Less good’ sited
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SF1etrE7VypGY5nnYcu0sI0mTpqvPlRT/view
*
3. Linear estimate comparisons for the TMIN and TMAX series
Though these trends are not very committing, they are useful when looking at differences between time series.
In C / decade.
1. 1895 – 2024
TMIN:
Well: 0.07 +- 0.01
Less good: 0.07 +- 0.01
TMAX:
Well: 0.08 +- 0.01
Less good: 0.03 +- 0.01
*
2. 1979 – 2024
TMIN:
Well: 0.24 +- 0.03
Less good: 0.27 +- 0.03
TMAX:
Well: 0.29 +- 0.03
Less good: 0.17 +- 0.03
*
3. 2000 – 2024
TMIN:
Well: 0.54 +- 0.07
Less good: 0.46 +- 0.07
TMAX:
Well: 0.41 +- 0.08
Less good: 0.34 +- 0.07
*
{ Thanks in advance for not boring me a la Tillman/Gorman with ‘uncertainties’; we are laypersons here (as are most posters at WUWT, where we see the highest concentration of people requesting from others what they themselves never woild be able to offer. }
*
And as you seemingly don’t like anomalies cuz they hide the biases you want to see, here is a 3 year old graph showing a TAVG based comparison using absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_DzIyNeALILLGpEkp8pHX-3ugMMR5pZ/view
No problem to generate a TMIN/TMAX pair – except losing precious time.
**
{ By the way: you might have a closer look at the running means by zooming into the TMIN and TMAX graphs: it’s wonderful to see that though generated out of quite different data and looking quite different too, the plots nevertheless show numerous similar humps at the same places.
I’d enjoy a real statistician explaining us why this happens. }
Here are the problems with your analysis:
1) You don’t define your “well-sited” and less good categories. Fall et al. (2011) separated stations into five distinct classes (CRN 1-5), not just two broad categories. If you lumped class 3 stations with classes 4 and 5, you smoothed out the divergence in trends between well-sited and poorly sited stations.
2) Station classifications may have changed between 2011 and 2024. Some stations rated as CRN 1 or 2 in 2011 may have been degraded due to new heat sources. If your dataset doesn’t account for these changes, you aren’t comparing the same station groups as Fall et al.
“And as you seemingly dont like anomalies cuz they hide the biases you want to see, here is a 3 year old graph showing a TAVG based comparison using absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_DzIyNeALILLGpEkp8pHX-3ugMMR5pZ/view
No problem to generate a TMIN/TMAX pair except losing precious time.”
Don’t waste your precious time generating a pair.
From Hausfather et al. (2016):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
“While CONUS-averaged temperatures show little difference between USHCN adjusted, USHCN raw, and USCRN series, the same is not true when we look at individual pairs of proximate USCRN/USHCN stations within 100mi (161 km) of each other.”
The most likely reason for the close alignment in your dataset is the same as in Hausfather’s: the large amount of spatial averaging.
Also, I don’t dislike anomalies. Here’s a time series I generated that I can share with you:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tYfmFq4bXIBo5VlWVO_u_hP_8N2nh19XM6AN2rV0UAw/edit?usp=share_link
What I do dislike is when people claim that assigning a common reference to a thermometer reduces systematic error – when all it actually does is mask it (click on my name).
Even if I concede, for the sake of argument, that the historical record is precise enough to reveal trends over time, that alone is meaningless if the measured data fails to represent the physical reality of the time.
“What I do dislike is when people claim that assigning a common reference to a thermometer reduces systematic error”
Who does this? Can you provide an example?
This argument frequently appears on WUWT, with Nick Stokes being one of those who claim that assigning a common reference mean to each thermometer in a grid and spatially averaging the anomaly time series reduces systematic errors.
This is different to what I quoted you saying above. Should you see a post like this and happen to remember my query, drop a link and I’ll check it out. Better to get it from the horse’s mouth.
Again a 403 with TOR … This confirms my suspicion about the rejection of dynamic IP addresses that have been abused by hackers.
Luckily, one only needs to let TOR select a new transmission path.
*
I just come here along and see:
” … reduces systematic errors. ”
From Nick Stokes ????
I too want to see that, krokodile.
red krokodile
1. ” You don’t define your ‘well-sited’ and less good categories. ”
For the well-sited ones, this is not correct: see
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698036
For the ‘less good’ ones, you are right.
I didn’t think you would have interest in this dataset.
It consists of all stations included in the same respective one degree grid cell in which the 71 ‘well sited’ stations are located.
For both station sets, I used GHCN daily because
– I’m not interested is USHCN because it’s US local stuff;
– all USHCN stations are in GHCN daily, as this station set is the data origin of all other station sets in the family, USCRN of course excepted;
– GHCN daily is the rawest station set available (I compute myself monthly averages out of its daily data, and don’t homogenize when building anomalies out of absolute data).
*
Also, I was not interested in comparing the ‘well sited’ stations to those which were classified as less good by Fall & al.; my focus was to compare them to numerous, anonymous stations selected ransomly in their immediate near (located in the same 1 degree cell).
However, I guess that you might incriminate the presence of the ‘well sited’ ones in the station set used for comparison. That was my choice.
I can repeat the comparison with a station set not including them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11sJjcVifKIecrYRr08jB93bjlbujJPDX/view
This station set contains even 32 stations located at airports, including ‘worst sites’ like e.g.
USW00023234 37.6197 -122.3647 2.4 CA SAN FRANCISCO INTL AP
*
2. ” Station classifications may have changed between 2011 and 2024. ”
Well I apologize, but this is nonsense. You just need to end comparing the two plots in the graphs at the moment Fall & al. finished their classification! The graphs were generated in March 2024 but based on data very well collected at that time.
*
3. Your hint on Hausfather’s
” While CONUS-averaged temperatures show little difference between USHCN adjusted, USHCN raw, and USCRN series, the same is not true when we look at individual pairs of proximate USCRN/USHCN stations within 100mi (161 km) of each other. ”
I suppose you overlooked
” … respectively located in the same 1 degree grid cell as the 71 “.
The maximal distance between each of the 71 ‘well-sited’ and those selected in its near appears when the stations are located near diagonally opposed edges of the cells, and is, for an average CONUS latitude of say 37 degrees, about 140 km.
*
4. Here are two graphs showing TMIN and TMAX comparisons based on absolute data.
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ybHtvF-jxKBKmeqJiN73ouaKZ_1B0Ea8/view
TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1NLXKJdGoa0MVjnEEb9NQS2DzZjA9O2/view
(This time I preferred to use polynomials instead of running means.)
TMAX data for CONUS is from 1895 till present very flat, and thus the polynomials differ there less than for TMIN.
Your definition of “less good” stations remains vague, and this lack of clarity weakens your comparison. Even if you are not attempting to validate or disprove Fall, 2011, failing to account for varying degrees of siting quality within your “less good” category still smooths out disparities.
By randomly selecting nearby stations within a 1-degree grid cell, you are mixing stations with different levels of urban encroachmentsome may be moderately encroached, significantly encroached, or severely encroached. This blending smooths the contrast between well-sited and poorly sited stations, reducing the apparent impact of siting quality.
“Well I apologize, but this is nonsense. You just need to end comparing the two plots in the graphs at the moment Fall & al. finished their classification! The graphs were generated in March 2024 but based on data very well collected at that time.”
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
On one hand, you dismiss my point about station classification changes by insisting I should “end comparing the two plots in the graphs at the moment Fall & al. finished their classification.” Fall et al. finished their classification and published their findings in July 2011. Yet, you are including data up to March 2024 meaning you are assuming that station classifications have remained static since then.
On the other hand, you state that your analysis isn’t actually comparing well-sited stations to poorly sited ones as classified by Fall & al., but rather to a random selection of nearby stations. If that’s the case, then why even bring up Fall et al.s classification at all?
Either you are making a direct comparison to Fall et al., in which case your assumption about station classifications remaining unchanged is flawed, or you are analyzing something else entirely, in which case Fall et al.s classification is irrelevant to your argument. You can’t have it both ways.
Bindidon
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11sJjcVifKIecrYRr08jB93bjlbujJPDX/view
Your link is outdated. Surfacestations.org hasn’t been uploaded since July 2012:
http://surfacestations.org
EDIT: *Surfacestations.org hasnt been updated since July 2012*
barry…”All I have to do is read Russia Today or get a translated Putin speech to get your view, Gordon. You are simply parroting Kremlin talking points”.
***
Barry…I have never used the Russian media nor Putin’s propaganda to influence me. I don’t read Russian, or speak it, and I have zero confidence in anything that comes out of Tass, Pravda, or any Russian publication. I am fully aware of the propaganda they issue even though, at times, it is no more propaganda than what we receive from the Western media.
Russian propaganda seems extreme because we have become inured to our own propaganda. I am not trying to compare the extents or to justify Russian propaganda, I am merely pointing out that propaganda is being thrust upon us in the West and we fail to see it much of the time. I regard the climate propaganda as a good example.
When Stone produced his video, ‘Ukraine on Fire’, even though I felt shocked by what I read, I did not immediately accept it verbatim. I spent hours confirming the claims made in the movie, minute by minute. I confirmed it using official history accounts and from experts like Dr. John Mearsheimer, who specializes in US foreign policy as a professor.
So, I plugged ‘Maidan revolution 2014 Ukraine’, into Google and here’s a few of the first hits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
They call it a Revolution of Dignity but what dignity is there in a revolution in a democratic country wherein armed rabble run off a democratically elected president?
In the article you encounter ‘Right Sector’, who were leading the rabble rousing. In other words they took advantage of a peaceful protest to turn it violent. Red Sector is a paramilitary organization that is right of Attila the Hun.
They are seriously biased people, one of whom lumped the Allies together in WW II as essentially ‘scum lead by Jews’. In other words, they worship the Nazi mentality over the freedom fighters in the allies. The same rabble influenced the new President, in 2016, to pass into power legislation that honoured Nazi supporters like Bandera and the SS Galacia, who fought with the Nazis.
You can bet that influence was not done using statesmanship, rather it was more likely done through intimidation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector
forerunners of Right Sector, the UON…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
Read it and weep, Barry. These are neo-Nazis who ran off a democratically-elected president while the Kyiv police and the army stood by and watched. Not only that the US and the EU were in there too fanning the flames of revolution, and arguing over who should replace the president BEFORE he was run off.
I know nothing of this president, my only concern being the democratic process in which presidents are removed through democratic means, not run off by armed rabble.
———-
“And if you read a little bit more of Putins public speeches you would know that he has never thought Ukraine is a sovereign state and has designs on folding the whole country (and others) back into the Russia. Thats why Russia attacked Kyiv first rather than restricted itself to peacekeeping in the Donbas. They want a pro-Russian government, period”.
***
Again, I am no supporter of Putin, mainly because I know nothing about him. One thing I do know is that he came to power in 2000 and for over 20 years did nothing to interfere in the Ukraine or any other state of the former USSR. He had problems in Georgia, not of his making, but he did nothing aggressively to recover former Russian states.
It was not till 2014, when Ukrainian rabble ran off a pro-Russian president, that Putin reacted by taking over Crimea. I am not justifying that action in any way other than to acknowledge it happened. However, there was a good reason since he knew by then about the neo-Nazi elements like Right Sector and the Azov battalion.
This is not the story we are told in the West, We are fed the propaganda that Putin plotted a takeover of the Ukraine and if not stopped he would do the same with the countries. Where is the evidence of that?
What you don’t seem to get is that 17% of the Ukraine population asre native Russians, and they live primarily in the Donbass region. They helped vote in the President and when he was run off they revolted. Obviously, they complained to Putin and asked for help. So, what would you do Barry, if several million of your countrymen were trapped in a country where they were being ostracized and bullied?
Again, I have no interest in justifying war or aggression even though I can understand it at times. Millions of innocents were killed during WW II by friendly fire yet we justified it as a necessity of war. I don’t feel in the least good with the knowledge that innocent Ukrainians are dying but neither do I like the idea of right-wing zealots running off a duly elected president.
The Ukraine is not the innocent child you seem to regard it as being. It’s a corrupt country that does not deserve to be called a democracy. And the Russians have not done any more than they claimed they would do.
Your alleged attack on Kyiv was a feint used by experienced field generals to distract from their real goal. They used old T33 tanks in the attack from the north showing little intention of taking Kyiv.
Another upper low with cold fronts will attack in the US in three days. I advise you to keep a close eye on forecasts and not to underestimate cold fronts at this time of year, as a large temperature difference in the front means the possibility of thunderstorms and tornadoes.
https://i.ibb.co/tPJqSvWf/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f072.png
stephen…”I think Trump only wants Western Canada”.
***
If that’s the case, Trump can shove it up his hoop, and so can any other Yank who thinks along those lines.
barry…”All I have to do is read Russia Today or get a translated Putin speech to get your view, Gordon. You are simply parroting Kremlin talking points”.
***
Barry…I have never used the Russian media nor Putin’s propaganda to influence me. I don’t read Russian, or speak it, and I have zero confidence in anything that comes out of Tass, Pravda, or any Russian publication. I am fully aware of the propaganda they issue even though, at times, it is no more propaganda than what we receive from the Western media.
Russian propaganda seems extreme because we have become inured to our own propaganda. I am not trying to compare the extents or to justify Russian propaganda, I am merely pointing out that propaganda is being thrust upon us in the West and we fail to see it much of the time. I regard the climate propaganda as a good example.
When Stone produced his video, ‘Ukraine on Fire’, even though I felt shocked by what I read, I did not immediately accept it verbatim. I spent hours confirming the claims made in the movie, minute by minute. I confirmed it using official history accounts and from experts like Dr. John Mearsheimer, who specializes in US foreign policy as a professor.
So, I plugged ‘Maidan revolution 2014 Ukraine’, into Google and here’s a few of the first hits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
No, I know you get your views on Russia/Ukraine from Western sources that parrot the Kremlin talking points. You’ve linked before.
What you don’t understand is that you are not getting an unbiased view that puts the ‘real issues’ front and centre, but takes facts and twists them.
Nazism in Ukraine is not much more pervasive than it is in the US. Russian propaganda exaggerates it to justify a militant attitude to Ukraine. The Donbas had a minority pro-Russia faction before the Russian invasion. Now Russia has issued Russian passports to all citizens and kidnapped thousands of children from Ukraine and are now indoctrinating them as part of the decades long effort to wrest control of the Ukraine from independent-leaning politicians. This began many years ago when Russia armed and encouraged pro-Russian factions in the region. Every move they make is about weakening Ukrainian independence.
Yes, Ukraine’s 2014 revolution was politics by force. But Russia has no right to meddle. Any more than the US has aright to invade Canada to support the minority of people who want Canada to be folded into the US.
Putin is a vile dictator and open Russian expansionist. He does not consider Ukraine to be a sovereign state. Do not be suckered into thinking his designs on Ukraine are in any way benign.
They call it a Revolution of Dignity but what dignity is there in a revolution in a democratic country wherein armed rabble run off a democratically elected president?
In the article you encounter ‘Right Sector’, who were leading the rabble rousing. In other words they took advantage of a peaceful protest to turn it violent. Red Sector is a paramilitary organization that is right of Attila the Hun.
They are seriously biased people, one of whom lumped the Allies together in WW II as essentially ‘scum lead by Jews’. In other words, they worship the Nazi mentality over the freedom fighters in the allies. The same rabble influenced the new President, in 2016, to pass into power legislation that honoured Nazi supporters like Bandera and the SS Galacia, who fought with the Nazis.
You can bet that influence was not done using statesmanship, rather it was more likely done through intimidation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector
forerunners of Right Sector, the UON…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
Read it and weep, Barry. These are neo-Nazis who ran off a democratically-elected president while the Kyiv police and the army stood by and watched. Not only that the US and the EU were in there too fanning the flames of revolution, and arguing over who should replace the president BEFORE he was run off.
I know nothing of this president, my only concern being the democratic process in which presidents are removed through democratic means, not run off by armed rabble.
Read it and weep? Gordon, read it all and balance your opinion.
“Right Sector became a dominant theme of Russian propaganda, which grossly exaggerated its strength and influence in the new Ukraine. It was portrayed as a mortal threat to Russian speakers and Jews that necessitated a Russian military intervention. By April, Right Sector was being mentioned on Russia television almost as frequently as Putin’s own United Russia party. In Crimea and the East, a “Right Sector” vandalism spree targeting synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, and Holocaust memorials was widely seen as a Russian false flag attack. In Simferopol, a synagogue was defaced with the wolfsangel symbol used by the Ukrainian far-right, but in the mirror-image of its normal orientation; in Odesa, vandals defaced a Jewish cemetery with graffiti reading “Right Sector” but misspelled the group’s name.”
Does it not strike you as interesting that the alleged Right Sector vandalism occurred where Russia has control and influence?
I am no fan of ultra-nationalist movements, but read the history with balance. Neo-Nazism was not and is not a driving force in Ukraine. This is where the propaganda has suckered you. Suckered you so bad you can’t read your own source neutrally.
As opposed to January 6th when an armed rabble tried to stop a President being removed by democratic means.
Since the start of February 2025, the Arctic sea ice extent has been at a record daily low.
Sea ice can be measured in two ways: extent and area. What is the difference? Extent refers to the total surface area where sea ice concentration is at least 15%. This measure includes regions with open water, cracks, and leads within the ice, as well as melt ponds that appear darker than the surrounding ice. In contrast, sea ice area represents the total surface area actually covered by ice, excluding open water within the ice pack.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
Sea ice extent has been gradually decreasing since 1400.
It doesn’t matter.
Eventually sea ice will extend to maximum again. Its all cyclical.
Ken,
“Long-term multisource records show that maximum and minimum pan-Arctic sea-ice extents were relatively stable over the past millennia until the 1960s, with a considerable decline starting in the late 1970s…”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2024.2392411#d1e2874
I don’t see why the greater variability – which is a result of geography, not instability – has much meaning here. The IPCC focuses on the yearly minimum extent (month of September) to get a read on reduction in sea ice over time because this is the clearest metric, least contaminated by non-climatic factors (ie, topography).
IPCC also examine sea ice thickness, as well as yearly extent and the maxima.
Previous reports have underestimated the future decline of Arctic sea ice. I will see if that is still the case….
August Arctic sea ice extent.
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/08_Aug/N_08_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png
I’m not seeing any change in variability.
You can check any of the months here:
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/
It’s the top link in each months index listing.
England et al (2019) caution against any future non-stationary variability arising, suggesting that this is not yet a factor for the comparison you’re indicating.
I’m still not seeing a problem. This would apply for annual Arctic extgent/area, if it were an issue. But as you quoted IPCC, they are are mainly focussing on minima.
England et al (2019)’s findings are echoed in AR6. I think you’re either giving it too little credit or exaggerating the issue you’ve brought up. These are nit-picks, not salient points that bring much that is clear enough into question. The decline of Arctic sea ice cover is confirmed by declines in sea ice volume, average age and thickness.
From the wiki article you cited:
“Although the Great Arctic Cyclone did not cause the record melting of sea ice which occurred in 2012, turbulence from the storm is believed to have contributed to melting of sea ice, due to mechanical ice breakup and the rise of warmer saltier water from below;[4] however the main oceanic heat source, associated with inflowing Atlantic water, remained isolated from the turbulence.[5]”
The cyclone may have influenced sea ice extent (at least 15% sea ice per grid) by compacting the ice field more than usual, but as the IPCC use sea ice area as the metric, this point is moot.
Follow the science…
I downloaded daily Arctic sea ice extent data from your link and calculated the annual standard deviation for each year from 1989 to 2024. My calculations show that variability has increased over time, with a sharp rise in 2007, followed by a plateau:
https://postimg.cc/SXrk7584
Feel free to verify my results:
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/
A more unstable system means that records (both highs and lows) are more likely to occur by chance. If you roll a die 10 times, getting a 6 three times in a row would be unusual. If you roll it 1,000 times, getting a 6 three times in a row would be expected at some point.
You are just displaying the IPCC’s one directional narrative. Rather than presenting Arctic sea ice loss as a smooth, one-way decline, the IPCC should acknowledge that sea ice dynamics have changed, and increased variability makes future projections less predictable than they suggest.
You’ve caught on to the increased variability since 2007. Tamino pointed this out 11 years ago.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/arctic-sea-ice-loss-part-1/
This is explained by the difference between seasonal sea ice and the geography around Arctic sea ice. When the sea ice freezes back there is an upper limit to regrowth where the ice reaches land, and there is still plenty of land well within the bounds of the refreeze area. There is no such limit when the ice melts (except if it melts completely away). Therefore the sea ice maximum extent has decreased much less than the minimum over time. On average the difference between the maxima and minima has increased.
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/03_Mar/N_03_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09_Sep/N_09_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png
This accounts for the greater variation in area/extent over the years since 2007, when there was a significant departure that year that has generally remained.
The variability is not from a more unstable system, but from the limits of geography in the cold season.
Taminos blog post is now 12 years old, and its time to update it. In 2013, he was correct in stating that there was no statistically significant evidence of a slowdown in Arctic sea ice loss. However, that is no longer the case.
Here is the minimum sea ice extent every year since 1989, with a 5-year rolling average applied. This complements my earlier graph of annual standard deviations, which shows a clear-step up in variability after 2007. As you and Tamino have pointed out, the decreasing minimum is directly responsible for amplified seasonal cycles, but the rolling average now shows that this trend has stabilized rather than continued accelerating:
https://postimg.cc/z3bTDLQn
On this basis, it is clear that the IPCC made a large statistical error in AR6. They are comparing sea ice values from the late 20th century to the early 21st century without accounting for the fact that the signal to noise ratio had changed in that time:
“The Arctic sea ice area for September has decreased from 6.23 to 3.76 million km^2 and for March from 14.52 to 13.42 million km^2 between 1979-1988 and 2010-2019 (section 2.3.2.1.1)”
According to the IPCC, AR6 provides the most comprehensive and up to date scientific assessment of climate change.
I don’t see why the greater variability which is a result of geography, not instability has much meaning here. The IPCC focuses on the yearly minimum extent (month of September) to get a read on reduction in sea ice over time because this is the clearest metric, least contaminated by non-climatic factors (ie, topography).
IPCC also examine sea ice thickness, as well as yearly extent and the maxima.
Previous reports (TAR, AR4) have underestimated the future decline of Arctic sea ice. I will see if that is still the case…
At first glance it appears AR5 has also underestimated Arctic sea ice decline.
https://images.ctfassets.net/i04syw39vv9p/kDAcriuAMI3JZAJY3Mj7G/68d57afb1f5dc70f93ce52c2c946a5d1/Bonan_Figure_2.png
“They are comparing sea ice values from the late 20th century to the early 21st century without accounting for the fact that the signal to noise ratio had changed in that time”
The IPCC statement was about two months of the year, minima and maxima. There is no discernible change of variability for each of those months over time. The change in variability between maxima and minima is physically explained.
September sea ice volume is a useful metric to compare against extent/area. See Tamino’s post.
Here is the latest graph of sea ice volume, which matches extent for a recent ‘plateau’ in reduction.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Here is an annual average for that metric.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BannualVolumeTsCurrent.png
The minimum annual Arctic sea ice volume occurred in 2017.
And here are the time series for April and September.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
“They are comparing sea ice values from the late 20th century to the early 21st century without accounting for the fact that the signal to noise ratio had changed in that time”
I went back and read AR6. The difference in trend between minima and maxima (the reason for the increased variability) was in fact noted.
With respect to seasonal changes in the sea ice cover, the winter sea ice loss causes adecrease in the average sea ice age and fraction of multi-year ice, as assessed by SROCC (very high confidence), and also of the ocean area covered intermittently by sea ice (Bliss etal., 2019). In contrast, the seasonal ice zone (covered by sea ice in winter but not in summer) has expanded regionally (Bliss etal., 2019) and over the whole Arctic (Steele and Ermold, 2015), because the loss of summer sea ice area is larger than the loss of winter sea ice area.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter09.pdf [p. 1248]
A lack of increase in September sea ice variability does not invalidate my argument.
August sea ice variability has increased:
https://postimg.cc/mc1X4Ltp
Meaning that September sea ice extent is also now more influenced by short-term atmospheric and oceanic events.
The cyclone in 2012 is a clear example – the storm caused extensive sea ice fragmentation, leading to a record-low September minimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Arctic_Cyclone_of_2012
So even if September sea ice variability has remained constant, the IPCC’s comparison of sea ice data from 1979-1988 to 2010-2019 still relies on the assumption of stationary variability.
Regardless of whether this increased variability is due to geographical constraints or shifting ice dynamics, the statistical consequence remains the same: greater uncertainty in long term projections.
Barry,
The IPCC also relies on a study that assumes stationary variability when estimating how much Arctic sea ice loss is due to anthropogenic CO2 forcing vs. internal variability.
England, 2019 is a key study for this attribution. AR6 states [p. 1249]:
“Internal variability has been estimated to have contributed 30 to 50% of the observed Arctic summer sea ice loss since 1979 (Kay et al., 2011; Stroeve et al., 2012; Ding et al., 2017, 2019; England et al., 2019).”
Yet, the authors of England, 2019 themselves acknowledge a fundamental limitation in their methodology:
“This technique is only suitable if the variability is stationary in time. We caution against using this technique for studying future sea ice loss because the variability is projected to substantially change [See Fig. S5 of Jahn (2018)].”
Despite this clear warning from the authors, the IPCC still relies on this study to estimate internal variability and separate it from external forcing.
And this is particularly significant because England, 2019 is the first comprehensive regional analysis of internal variability’s role in Arctic sea ice loss, meaning it likely has outsized influence on how the IPCC interprets variability:
“This is the first comprehensive regional analysis of internal variabilitys role in recent Arctic sea ice loss.”
Tsk, keep posting above, fooled by Arkady’s post using quoted insert.
August Arctic sea ice extent.
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/08_Aug/N_08_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png
Im not seeing any change in variability.
You can check any of the months here:
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/
Its the top link in each months index listing.
England et al (2019) caution against any future non-stationary variability arising, suggesting that this is not yet a factor for the comparison youre indicating.
Im still not seeing a problem. This would apply for annual Arctic extgent/area, if it were an issue. But as you quoted IPCC, they are are mainly focussing on minima.
England et al (2019)s findings are echoed in AR6. I think youre either giving it too little credit or exaggerating the issue youve brought up. These are nit-picks, not salient points that bring much that is clear enough into question. The decline of Arctic sea ice cover is confirmed by declines in sea ice volume, average age and thickness.
From the wiki article you cited:
Although the Great Arctic Cyclone did not cause the record melting of sea ice which occurred in 2012, turbulence from the storm is believed to have contributed to melting of sea ice, due to mechanical ice breakup and the rise of warmer saltier water from below;[4] however the main oceanic heat source, associated with inflowing Atlantic water, remained isolated from the turbulence.[5]
The cyclone may have influenced sea ice extent (at least 15% sea ice per grid) by compacting the ice field more than usual, but as the IPCC use sea ice area as the metric, this point is moot.
“England et al (2019) caution against any future non-stationary variability arising, suggesting that this is not yet a factor for the comparison you’re indicating.”
That assumption was already broken in their study. From the start, they smooth their data using decadal averages (1958-2017), which means 2007 – the transition year – is averaged with previous year. Their entire methodology assumes stationary variability when we already know it increased.
“England et al (2019)s findings are echoed in AR6.”
That makes sense. The IPCC’s reliance on the study is understandable given that it provides a clean numerical estimate for internal variability. Of course, whether that estimate is meaningful when variability itself has changed is another question.
“The cyclone may have influenced sea ice extent (at least 15% sea ice per grid) by compacting the ice field more than usual, but as the IPCC uses sea ice area as the metric, this point is moot.”
Can you help me understand, then why the IPCC explicitly mentioned increased sea ice area variability?:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700894
Hopefully, I’ll take away something new from this, and we can have a more constructive conversation.
“These results are important for stakeholders to interpret spatial sea ice predictions and projections, as regions and times of the year that show high internal variability in the sea ice cover are less predictable than regions with small internal variability.”
England et al points out that regional variability is non-uniform. They don’t offer much on pan-Arctic projections, which have historically underestimated actual sea ice decline.
I’m not sure how to interpret you positively citing the study to make a point and then saying it’s assumptions are flawed to make another.
barry: “The cyclone may have influenced sea ice extent (at least 15% sea ice per grid) by compacting the ice field more than usual, but as the IPCC uses sea ice area as the metric, this point is moot.”
red: “Can you help me understand, then why the IPCC explicitly mentioned increased sea ice area variability?”
I don’t see the connection between the 2012 cyclone impact on sea ice extent for that one year, and the expanding seasonal ice zone which became apparent from 2007.
I’m also somewhat at a loss to understand your issue. You are saying that because pan-Arctic variability has changed, then this makes projections assuming stationary variability …. uncertain?Overestimated? Underestimated?
Or are you saying that the uncertain contribution of natural, regional variability to sea ice loss is too uncertain to make confident projections based on anthropogenic drivers?
“England et al points out that regional variability is non-uniform. They dont offer much on pan-Arctic projections, which have historically underestimated actual sea ice decline.”
That is not really the point. Their calculations about regional and seasonal variability come after the core methodology is already in place, and that methodology involves smoothing over the entire 1958-2017 period. This means 2007 (a known transition year) is averaged together with 1998-2006.
So even though they break things down regionally and seasonally, their methodology still relies on the assumption that variability is stationary across the full 1958-2017 record. Since they did not adjust for the 2007 shift, this limits the validity of the long period attribution.
“Im not sure how to interpret you positively citing the study to make a point and then saying its assumptions are flawed to make another.”
Where did I contract myself? Referencing a study to show how it’s used by the IPCC, and then pointing out its methodological weaknesses, is not inconsistent.
“I dont see the connection between the 2102 cyclone impact on sea ice extent for that one year, and the expanding seasonal ice zone which became apparent from 2007.”
The point was not that the 2012 cyclone caused a permanent shift. It’s that September sea ice is sensitive to August variability. So even if September standard deviations haven’t shown a meaningful trend, the fact that August variability has increased means September sea ice is more exposed to short-term perturbations.
That undermines the assumption of a stable baseline for comparing periods like 1979-1988 vs. 2010-2019.
And if your counter is that the IPCC uses sea ice area, not extent, then Ill just refer back to own your quote, where the IPCC explicitly states that sea ice area variability has also increased:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700894
“Im also somewhat at a loss to understand your issue. You are saying that because pan-Arctic variability has changed, then this makes projections assuming stationary variability . Uncertain?”
Yes. Your own quote from England & al reinforces that:
“These results are important for stakeholders to interpret spatial sea ice predictions and projections, as regions and times of the year that show high internal variability in the sea ice cover are less predictable than regions with small internal variability.”
That is just statistics: a lower signal to noise ratio = greater projection uncertainty.
Your criticism is that the IPCC underestimates uncertainty in projections. Uncertainty is well-discussed, and the IPCC does not ignore nonstationary variability, though it is not well-represented in models. Their analysis is that this is likelier to cause underestimation of projections than the opposite.
“Internal variability has been estimated to have contributed 30to 50% of the observed Arctic summer sea ice loss since 1979 (Kay etal., 2011; Stroeve etal., 2012; Ding etal., 2017, 2019; England etal., 2019). However, this estimate from models might be biased towards internal over forced variability because of the models high internal variability and because the CMIP5 simulated September sea ice sensitivity to forcing is lower than observed, even if internal variability is taken into account (Notz and Stroeve, 2016; Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017). Most CMIP6 models fail to simulate the observed sensitivity of sea ice loss to CO2 emissions (as aproxy for time) and to temperature simultaneously. However, they better capture the observed sensitivity of sea ice loss to CO2 emissions than CMIP5 models (Section3.4.1; Figure9.14h; Notz and SIMIP Community, 2020).”
For example.
The uncertainty envelope for AR6 projections doesn’t fall below observed minimum sea ice area for the last 20 years until we hit 2081 under the second highest emissions scenario.
That is, the lowest minimum sea ice area for the last 20 years was in 2005, at 4.23 million sq km (I don’t have the uncertainty to hand). The projection under SSP3-7.0 is 0.5 [0.0-3.3] million sq kms for the period 2081 to 2100. That is the earliest projection that falls below the last 20 years of observations, and the upper end of that window is still higher than minimum sea ice area for the last 10 years.
Are you sure that the uncertainty is too narrow?
And if it is, so what? What is your point if the projection uncertainty is greater than the IPCC recommends?
Amending:
‘That is, the greatest minimum sea ice area for the last 20 years was in 2005, at 4.23 million sq km’
“Their analysis is that this is likelier to cause underestimation of projections than the opposite.”
If the IPCC’s analysis draws from studies like England, 2019, which rely on assumptions that are explicitly contradicted by the behavior of the system, then the confidence in that analysis should be reconsidered.
“The uncertainty envelope for AR6 projections doesnt fall below observed minimum sea ice area for the last 20 years until we hit 2081 under the second highest emissions scenario.
That is, the greatest minimum sea ice area for the last 20 years was in 2005, at 4.23 million sq km (I dont have the uncertainty to hand). The projection under SSP3-7.0 is 0.5 [0.0-3.3] million sq kms for the period 2081 to 2100. That is the earliest projection that falls below the last 20 years of observations, and the upper end of that window is still higher than minimum sea ice area for the last 10 years.
Are you sure that the uncertainty is too narrow?”
That projection reflects a numerical threshold, not an evaluation of trend behavior or structural changes. A threshold tells you what might eventually happen but not how or why, which are very relevant for making sound projections. Changes in rate and variability matter more than simply crossing a line in the future.
“And if it is, so what? What is your point if the projection uncertainty is greater than the IPCC recommends?”
You actually answered that yourself – by citing a quote that acknowledges greater internal variability reduces predictability:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701043
If predictability is degraded, then greater uncertainty is the point.
“Changes in rate and variability matter more than simply crossing a line in the future.”
It depends on the question being asked. If you’re looking to exploit natural resources in the Arctic, or thinking of investing in Arctic cruises, then having a better fix on the trajectory of sea ice decline may help you plan. If you’re weighing up policy on global warming, then trajectory pattern matters much less than where the line is crossed.
As we’re drawing from the IPCC, it is the latter question being asked. Internal patterns of sea ice melt are not crucial for policy-making.
“greater uncertainty is the point”
So ice-free Septembers could happen later or could happen earlier than projected.
Is that it? Because I don’t see a material difference for policy purposes.
“It depends on the question being asked. If youre looking to exploit natural resources in the Arctic, or thinking of investing in Arctic cruises, then having a better fix on the trajectory of sea ice decline may help you plan. If youre weighing up policy on global warming, then trajectory pattern matters much less than where the line is crossed.
As were drawing from the IPCC, it is the latter question being asked. Internal patterns of sea ice melt are not crucial for policy-making.”
That really undersells the role of variability in climate science.
Variability has deep implications for the behavior of feedback mechanisms, which are central to global warming projections.
“Variability has deep implications for the behavior of feedback mechanisms, which are central to global warming projections.”
This paraphrases what’s already been said here. A wider uncertainty window, meaning ice-free Arctic could come sooner or later than projected, makes little difference to global warming mitigation policy.
Are you sure you’ve fully enunciated your point?
“A wider uncertainty window, meaning ice-free Arctic could come sooner or later than projected, makes little difference to global warming mitigation policy.”
Wouldn’t it matter a lot if that “later” means the return interval for ice free Septembers isn’t 2095, but 2550 or even 33,978?
I used return intervals incorrectly.
EDIT: Wouldnt it matter a lot if that later means the first occurrence of an ice free September isnt year 2095, but 2550 or even 33,978?
“Wouldn’t it matter a lot if that later means the first occurrence of an ice free September isn’t year 2095, but 2550 or even 33,978?”
A wider uncertainty window also means it could happen sooner.
Uncertainty is not our friend, nor is a wider uncertainty a bigger safety net. It’s the opposite. A wider uncertainty window can actually mean more risk.
I had been under the impression you were treating greater uncertainty as less risk. Correctly, it seems.
Greater uncertainty just means less predictability, which in climate modeling is a risk. That is my only point.
“Greater uncertainty just means less predictability, which in climate modeling is a risk. That is my only point.”
Less predictability is a risk in climate modeling?
You’re not making much sense here. What does this mean?
Yes, less predictability increases the risk that the projections are off.
You are now drifting away from what your references suggest and are now arguing that greater uncertainty means the models are unreliable. Furthermore, you are implying that greater uncertainty means it’s more likely Arctic sea ice will melt away more slowly.
This doesn’t follow logically. You have a meta-position that is leading you astray interpreting the science you referenced.
TAR, AR4 and AR5 all underestimated Arctic sea ice loss. Current projections to 2080 largely include the possibility of Arctic sea ice changing little.
For some reason you discount this in your discussion here. When I couple this conversation with our earlier one on ERA5, which is very well-validated by the surface and satellite records, and note that any systematic uncertainty in ERA5 has the same property of uncertainty as under this topic – uncertainty cuts both ways – then it becomes clear to me that you have a general position on AGW that you seek to promote by pointing to uncertainty estimates.
It’s commendable that you reference reputable sources. But your interpretation of them is one-sided, and hence more “off” than sea ice projections or systematic uncertainty in ERA5.
You were the one who framed this into binary terms when you asserted that the IPCC projections were to conservative:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701107
Who’s actually operating from a “meta-position”:
I never contested the Arctic sea ice decline. My entire point was that increased variability means reduced confidence in both projections and comparisons to earlier parts of the time series.
Now consider this: maybe the reason we’re outside the projection envelope today isn’t because the models underestimated the speed of melting – maybe it’s because variability increased and the envelope itself became unreliable.
Lets be honest: when you say Im implying sea ice will “melt away more slowly,” how would you or I know what that even means without assuming the very confidence were debating?
“systematic uncertainty in ERA5 has the same property of uncertainty as under this topic – uncertainty – uncertainty cuts both ways.”
No, it doesn’t. Systematic error introduces directional bias. You said so yourself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695645
“But your interpretation of them is one-sided, and hence more off than sea ice projections or ERA uncertainty”
How do you know the size of systematic uncertainty in ERA5? Or how skewed my values are for the first occurrence of an ice-free September? You don’t. None of us do.
“You were the one who framed this into binary terms when you asserted that the IPCC projections were to conservative”
I quoted your own reference on that. It is not my assertion, but what the IPCC says. This you have also dismissed, and now try to blame me for initiating some ‘binary’ frame.
Your comment here suggests you are explaining why YOU are engaging in a binary frame. Should I take this as an admission, then?
“Lets be honest: when you say I’m implying sea ice will ‘melt away more slowly’…”
Let me quote you on this:
“Wouldn’t it matter a lot if that ‘later’ means the return interval for ice free Septembers isn’t 2095, but 2550 or even 33,978?”
I don’t make that comment apropos of nothing. The inference you chose to draw was in one direction only. That was in response to me saying it could be both ways. You have a bias.
“Systematic error introduces directional bias. You said so yourself”
But the direction of that bias is not automatically one way or another. Fixing systematic of systematic bias in ERA5 could result in a warmer OR colder overall trend.
“How do you know the size of systematic uncertainty in ERA5? Or how skewed my values are for the first occurrence of an ice-free September? You don’t. None of us do.”
I ask again – so what?
I think I can answer that for you now – the models are unreliable, therefore we should not make use of them for policy purposes.
If that is not your ultimate point, please let me know.
EDIT: maybe the reason were outside the projection envelope today isnt because the models underestimated the speed of melting – maybe its because variability isn’t well represented, and that makes the projection envelope itself unreliable.
“I quoted your own reference on that. It is not my assertion, but what the IPCC says. This you have also dismissed, and now try to blame me for initiating some binary frame.”
You were quoting the IPCC when describing the projections as “likely underestimates.” You used that quote to assert that concerns about internal variability and projection uncertainty are irrelevant, because the direction of the error supposedly favors underestimation.
Your own words make that clear:
“And if it is [greater uncertainty], so what? What is your point if the projection uncertainty is greater than the IPCC recommends?”
That question only makes sense if you’ve decided the uncertainty doesn’t matter – unless it implies the projections are too conservative.
“I dont make that comment apropos of nothing. The inference you chose to draw was in one direction only. That was in response to me saying it could be both ways. You have a bias.”
That was a rhetorical question. I used absurdly long dates to illustrate that we don’t have a strong grasp on the time confidence bounds when internal variability becomes nonstationary. That wasn’t a prediction. That wasn’t confrontational. It was a challenge to the confidence with which we assign timelines.
“But the direction of that bias is not automatically one way or another. Fixing systematic of systematic bias in ERA5 could result in a warmer OR colder overall trend.”
ERA5 anomalies and their trends are heavily smoothed and normalized, especially at the global scale. Normalization doesnt reduce or eliminate error. It hides it.
“I think I can answer that for you now – the models are unreliable, therefore we should not make use of them for policy purposes.”
Maybe models are useful for some policy questions. Maybe not for others. It depends on the issue, the time frame, and how much confidence we can reasonably assign to the projection.
“You were quoting the IPCC when describing the projections as “likely underestimates.” ”
Which is why it is false to present this as my “assertion,” or that I initiated a binary framing. I will quote myself:
“Your criticism is that the IPCC underestimates uncertainty in projections. Uncertainty is well-discussed, and the IPCC does not ignore nonstationary variability, though it is not well-represented in models. Their analysis is that this is likelier to cause underestimation of projections than the opposite.”
And then I quote them on this.
There is nothing biased about that. It’s your topic, your source, and I quote them on the topic and the likely effect of underestimating uncertainty.
“You used that quote to assert that concerns about internal variability and projection uncertainty are irrelevant”
Nope, that’s not accurate. I asked you to explain what your point was, and when you clarified it was about the projections being uncertain, I said that because uncertainty cuts both ways this doesn’t make any difference on GW policy, or if it did, a wider uncertainty window brings the threshold closer, as well as further away, so potentially a more critical risk.
“That was a rhetorical question.”
Ok, then let us be just as absurd and say we could have ice-free Septembers by next year, too. That’s what a wider uncertainty window means. The timing of the threshold cross is expanded both ways.
The point is not how long you speculated, but that you
only speculated in one direction. Even now after I’ve said it many times, you haven’t acknowledged that uncertainty cuts both ways. Hence, I think you have a bias.
But by all means you can put that idea in my head to bed by agreeing that a wider uncertainty cuts both ways, and that this means we could have September sea ice gone both sooner or later than current projections.
“ERA5 anomalies and their trends are heavily smoothed and normalized, especially at the global scale. Normalization doesn’t reduce or eliminate error. It hides it.”
This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Which was:
“But the direction of that bias is not automatically one way or another. Fixing systematic of systematic bias in ERA5 could result in a warmer OR colder overall trend”
This is why I think you have a bias. You are not only completely unresponsive to this point, you talk about something else when quoting it.
“Maybe models are useful for some policy questions. Maybe not for others. It depends on the issue, the time frame, and how much confidence we can reasonably assign to the projection.”
I’m sure neither you nor I are able to judge this for the models we have been discussing. I think you might agree…
“How do you know the size of systematic uncertainty in ERA5? Or how skewed my values are for the first occurrence of an ice-free September? You don’t. None of us do.”
YOU: “Which is why it is false to present this as my assertion, or that I initiated a binary framing. I will quote myself:
Your criticism is that the IPCC underestimates uncertainty in projections. Uncertainty is well-discussed, and the IPCC does not ignore nonstationary variability, though it is not well-represented in models. Their analysis is that this is likelier to cause underestimation of projections than the opposite.
And then I quote them on this.
There is nothing biased about that. Its your topic, your source, and I quote them on the topic and the likely effect of underestimating uncertainty.
———-
One of the references embedded in that quote (Notz & Stroeve) rely on the same flawed assumption as England, 2019: that internal variability is stationary and can be safely smoothed away.
From the very beginning, they apply a 30 year running mean to the data and compare it to equally smoothed model output. That approach filters out the post 2007 shift in signal to noise ratio (the very feature I was calling attention to).
So your reply did not refute or even engage with my central point. My argument was that this shift in variability invalidates statistical analyses that assume it hasn’t changed.
YOU: “Nope, thats not accurate. I asked you to explain what your point was, and when you clarified it was about the projections being uncertain”
When exactly did I “clarify” that? Here is my first comment, where I raised this issue explicitly, before you even replied:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700861
You are trying to rewrite history.
You are also conflating my argument about model projection reliability, which stems from changes in internal variability, with a generic, policy related version of uncertainty so you can fabricate slimy insinuations about my motives.
barry: “Nope, that’s not accurate. I asked you to explain what your point was, and when you clarified it was about the projections being uncertain”
red: “When exactly did I ‘clarify’ that?”
Here: “That is just statistics: a lower signal to noise ratio = greater projection uncertainty.”
And here: “If predictability is degraded, then greater uncertainty is the point.”
And you here: “Greater uncertainty just means less predictability, which in climate modeling is a risk. That is my only point.”
And when I asked you to clarify that, you said: “Yes, less predictability increases the risk that the projections are off.”
How am I to conclude other than your point is about less certainty in projections? It is like you are having a different conversation in your mind than the one we are having here!
“slimy insinuations”
I have been asking for clarification of your point. Am I to assume you are talking about changes in internal variability suggesting more uncertainty in projections for no other purpose than to talk about changes in internal variability suggesting more uncertainty in projections? Is that it?
Also, I invited you to correct my understanding more than once, including my last post:
Even now after I’ve said it many times, you haven’t acknowledged that uncertainty cuts both ways. Hence, I think you have a bias.
But by all means you can put that idea in my head to bed by agreeing that a wider uncertainty cuts both ways, and that this means we could have September sea ice gone both sooner or later than current projections.
Please, correct my ‘slimy insinuations’ by acknowledging this cuts both ways point. Is it so hard to do? Do you not realize that every time you do not respond to this it just confirms my opinion? Still I am open to your correction.
England et al didn’t deal with pan-Arctic variability, which is of a different character to internal variability. You extrapolate their work into a larger contention. As I said, the physical basis for greater variability is known. I don’t believe that should much interfere with projections, and it looks to me, as I suggested above, that the uncertainty already in projections well covers this issue.
“slimy insinuations about my motives”
So tell me why you are discussing this in the first place. That shouldn’t be too difficult. ‘My point is simply about uncertainty’ is not a credible reply. I’m in the weeds with you on this, but I don’t see much point carrying on if all we’re going to do is nit-pick over uncertainty, so give me a reason to make this discussion interesting.
YOU: “Here: “That is just statistics: a lower signal to noise ratio = greater projection uncertainty.”
And here: “If predictability is degraded, then greater uncertainty is the point.”
And you here: “Greater uncertainty just means less predictability, which in climate modeling is a risk. That is my only point.”
And when I asked you to clarify that, you said: “Yes, less predictability increases the risk that the projections are off.””
———
Some of the comments youre quoting came after the comment where you claim I clarified my point. Thats not clarification – that is you rewriting the timeline. I led with that position from the start.
“Please, correct my slimy insinuations by acknowledging this cuts both ways point. Is it so hard to do? Do you not realize that every time you do not respond to this it just confirms my opinion? Still I am open to your correction.”
From a statistical perspective, unless you can show that the uncertainty is normally distributed, your cuts both ways claim is speculative. You are assuming symmetry without proving it, and in the presence of nonstationary variability, thats not justified.
RE: England et al didnt deal with pan-Arctic variability, which is of a different character to internal variability. You extrapolate their work into a larger contention. As I said, the physical basis for greater variability is known. I dont believe that shouldnt much interfere with projections, and it looks to me, as I suggested above, that the uncertainty already in projections well covers this issue.
Even if the physical basis for increased variability is known, that doesnt change the fact that the studies you cited rely on smoothing and stationary assumptions. So the question is: do those assumptions still hold? If not, the confidence intervals based on them are unreliable, and your response is just to assert that this shouldnt interfere with projections.
“From a statistical perspective, unless you can show that the uncertainty is normally distributed, your cuts both ways claim is speculative. You are assuming symmetry without proving it, and in the presence of nonstationary variability, thats not justified.”
Hang on. The default position is that uncertainty cuts both ways – unless YOU can show otherwise. It is YOU, not me, that has apropos of nothing offered to consider only one side of the ledger. I have said what is basic – that a wider uncertainty window cuts both ways – even though YOUR source, the IPCC, contends with changes in internal variability and considers it more likely that the models overestimate the impact of natural variability over external forcing. I mention this in passing but do not argue for it.
Essentially, you are shifting the burden of proof to me that uncertainty is normally distributed, when you have not done anything of the short yourself, while implying that the distribution favours a later ice-free September in your ‘rhetorical’.
And even if the wider uncertainty window were skewed in one direction, it would STILL BE a wider uncertainty window permitting both earlier and later ice-free Septembers.
You STILL can’t admit that. Will you now argue that it is possible that a wider uncertainty could be skewed to allow for no earlier ice-free September? Because that would only cement your bias once and for all.
Why is it so impossible for you to admit a wider uncertainty window cuts both ways?
“Even if the physical basis for increased variability is known, that doesnt change the fact that the studies you cited..”
Pardon me?? These are studies YOU cited. I quoted the IPCC, which you’d already referenced, a graph, and datasets. The studies we’ve looked at are all YOUR references. What is going on in your mind?
Your bias is clear. You won’t admit what is basic. It would cost you nothing if you had a neutral interest. But you can’t do it. Now that you’ve finally acknowledged the point you’re asking “what if” its skewed? Well, is it?
And you either don’t know what motivates your interest in this topic or you won’t say. Either way, the nit-picking on uncertainty is too uninteresting to continue when there is nothing at stake.
You will have the last word. I wonder what you will do with it.
No. In statistical modeling, you do not assume symmetry without justification. Your mantra belongs to a more generic, policy focused framing, not the argument I made from the beginning. My argument is about the consequences of increased noise in statistical analysis.
“Pardon me?? These are studies YOU cited. I quoted the IPCC, which youd already referenced, a graph, and datasets. The studies weve looked at are all YOUR references. What is going on in your mind?”
Let’s go to the record:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701107
You wrote:
“Uncertainty is well-discussed, and the IPCC does not ignore nonstationary variability, though it is not well-represented in models. Their analysis is that this is likely to cause underestimation of projections than the opposite.”
You invoked this to argue that internal variability is overestimated in models, and the true signal of anthropogenic forcing has been underestimated, leading to sea ice projections that are “likely underestimates.”
But two of the studies in the following quote (Notz & Stroeve, England) rely on 30 year or decadal smoothing, which assumes stationary variability.
So that claim, that projections are “likely underestimates”, is built on a contradiction. The IPCC cannot both account for nonstationarity and simultaneously rely on methods that erase it.
You never responded to that point. You still haven’t.
That entire comment of yours was a premeditated binary setup, designed to reroute the conversation away from my critique and into a rhetorical loop:
“More/less risk”
“Global warming policy”
“You seem biased”
That is why you selectively linked only the comments where you claimed I was “clarifying”, when in reality, I was just reiterating the same point.
If you posted the full sequence of my comments about projection uncertainty in chronological order, we’d both see that your original framing wasn’t this neat little binary you are clinging onto so tightly.
So what was it back then? Something less convenient? Less rehearsed? I wonder.
You stopped engaging with my core argument long ago. Now, you are just trying to discredit me and the only way you can do that is by reframing the debate under your terms.
I think the following sea ice extent and area graphs show the situation since 1979 in a simple and clear way:
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rRqY7uYkHEHYISJgMTt7lue-C8-JI2RI/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16oGgICAU3ZomcbJJO8t986CQrWaEvTET/view
*
Anyone can draw his own conclusions.
Source
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south
While updating the time series for the two charts above, I suddenly saw two long-forgotten charts I created from the Met Office’s 1-degree sea ice data.
1. Superposition of periods and years for Arctic sea ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qA6klNnFn_bo1DNOQZrPPa0fzWSvRYG/view
2. Comparison of HadISST1 ICE with NSIDC
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
Interesting. I’ll update the timeseries here too…
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north
Testing
ent…out of curiosity, are you getting the Forbidden error as well? I am beginning to think there is a deliberate denial of service aimed at Roy’s site.
Nine attempts out of ten, I get “403 forbidden.” It is why I only come here occasionally nowadays.
If someone is doing denial of access it is affecting both the warmista and the coolista.
ent…download the free Tor browser and follow the instructions re being blocked. I have had to tweak it on occasion to get past the Forbidden error but all of my posts are made via Tor.
I am convinced the problem is Amazon’s Cloudfront. It is supposed to protect sites against hackers but inadvertently blocks out innocent users. It would not surprise me if Amazon is using information gleaned from the traffic in and out of a site and selling it to third party vendors.
Watched the successful splashdown/recovery of the ISS crew. Kudos to SpaceX.
Had to laugh when the reporter said the splashdown was occurring south of Tallahassee in the Gulf of America!!!
The reporter went on to explain that “egress” meant “exit”, in case any cult children were watching….
Since America is a continent, named after the explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, long before the US was a country, the name obviously means the Gulf belongs to the continent of America, North, Central, and South. The entire continent was known collectively as ‘The Americas’, long before Yanks became seriously geographically challenged and insisted they are America.
Once again, Trump has trumped himself.
There is no country anywhere named America. Even the US Constitution gives the country’s name which is the United States, and that the country is ‘of’ America, clearly meaning the US is located in the continent of America.
When the continent was being populated, two countries in the Northern end of the continent came into being, the United States with 13 states and Canada with two sections, namely Upper and Lower Canada, now known as Ontario and Quebec.
Both countries fought over the borders in the War of 1812 and the US lost. That did not settle the borders, however, they were settled later in peaceful negotiations between the countries. It appears that Trump wants to go back over a century to renegotiate the terms of the deal. Good luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_border
Borders between Canada and the US were settled long ago through legal treaties, but Trump insists the borders can be re-drawn, since in his view, the borders were created on a whim rather than law. Hitler thought along the same lines.
People of the US should be concerned since anyone who has such a contempt for legal treaties will surely not give a hoot about the rights of the average Yank.
The Name Canada, also in America the continent, means settlement, a fairly obscure name for a country. However, the name is immensely more imaginative than the United States. Surely you Yanks could have come up with a better name, then you wouldn’t have to look incompetent by calling yourself America, the name of the continent that is the home to Mexico, Guatamala, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Argentine, Chile, etc., besides Canada and the US.
Gordo,
So the War of 1812 was between Canada and the US and the US lost?
stephen…I don’t take any of it seriously, I threw it in for effect. No one can actually refer to Canada and the US in those days since Canada was essentially British forces aided by Iroquois Indians. The US was represented by disgruntled US citizens along the border who were PO’d over certain lands that the so-called Canadians had to which they wanted access.
Not much different than Trump’s thoughts on the matter today.
Ironically, the mainstream US centred around New York thought it a nuisance and wanted nothing to do with it. I kind of thinks most US citizens feel the same way about Trump’s expansionist ideas.
Even more ironically, we have been barging water to California from here in BC as well as feeding them Hydro power to get them through emergencies. Quebec sent fire fighting water bombers to California to combat the recent fires and some ijit hit one of them with a drone. Both nations have gotten along well till now through friendly talks and negotiations and everything Trump has claimed about us ripping off the US is bs.
Trump’s vision, if you can call it that, benefits only a minority of US citizens, like those who need rare Earth materials and water. I am sure, that a more diplomatic leader could have worked something out without the hostility and sabre rattling related to threats of annexing Canada, Greenland and parts of Panama.
He’s coming across like a spoiled child, along with his VP and others of the same ilk.
Gordon,
Canada was not a country during the war of 1812, which ended in a draw.
America is not a continent, the continents are North America and South America.
The proper name is the United States of America.
“Had to laugh when the reporter said the splashdown was occurring south of Tallahassee in the Gulf of America!!!”
Must’ve been Newsmax or Fox..
No, it was ABC.
“In the Gulf of Mexico, each bordering country, including the United States, Mexico, and Cuba, controls their own territorial waters which extend roughly 12 nautical miles from their respective coastlines”
So some in the US can claim that the 12 mile portion of it near our beaches is the ‘Gulf of America’.
But the rest of the world won’t bother.
As predicted, Russia’s has agreed to a ceasefire with almost no concessions. The one concession they have agreed to – cessation from attacking energy infrastructure – favours Russia.
Trump is being played by Putin. So much for the great negotiator.
Wow Barry, you’re a mountain of intellect.
No great intelligence needed, stephen, just a lack of Trump worship to see what is pretty obvious.
Ukraine has agreed in principle to this partial ceasefire. It will soon be undone by Russian intransigence on meaningful concessions.
“Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
Albert Einstein
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
An image of a narrow street in a highly urbanized area.
No wonder the incident solar light doesn’t get reflected from the street – the light’s energy goes deep down and is entirely absorbed.
Link to image:
https://www.bing.com/images/blob?bcid=qE60dSHLTzsIrA
Sorry, doesnt open.
Link to image:
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1maPpo.img?w=534&h=267&m=6
We often assume that making good decisions requires absolute certainty, but in reality, we rarely have all the information we need. This is where a little cognitive variability can be an advantage.
In uncertain situations, randomness in thought processes helps us adapt, explore different possibilities, and come up with better solutions.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Don’t steal the thought of others…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2025/03/11/why-a-productively-distracted-brain-is-a-superpower-by-a-psychologist/
Since you are wrong and are known to be wrong, lets instead concentrate on the morality.
Basically, you are a scientific cheat, and all the things you say about me and my “steal the thought of others” are ad hominem attacks on me because you are not able to defend your scientific proof, which doesnt exist. So sad.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And, for God’s sake, Bindidon!
Moon doesn’t rotate about the local axis, because the axis rotates too!!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
2 months into Trump’s second term and DOGE slashing and burning the federal government and still Musk refuses to appear before congress or any oversight committee to explain what he is doing.
A restructuring of the federal government is taking place by presidential fiat. No respect for congress, the rule of law or the constitution.
barry, your TDS is showing, again.
Which one do you hate more, Trump or Musk? And don’t deny that you hate. Leftists are full of hate.
Burned any Teslas today?
There was always the option to respond to what was said instead of trying to distract from it by getting personal. But I guess it’s hard to climb up to the the high road from the deep groove in your regular track.
I was responding to what you said barry. You just don’t want to face reality, as usual.
A
restructuring of the federal governmentcoup is taking placeby presidential fiat. No respect for congress, the rule of law or the constitution.Tds is strong on this board
TDS=Trump Derangement Syndrome = When you sell your soul, your heart, your mind, your freedom, your democracy, and your country to a convicted felon who raised prices, crashed the economy, but renamed a gulf, and as you lay in bed starving from the high food prices, you mumble, thank you Sir may I have another, and pass out.
You oughta know.
Following the tactics of his cult, Ark tries to change the definition of TDS.
But I like Musk’s example:
That’s fairly accurate, as we see here….
Until he (musk) became obsessed with becoming an oligarch.
If Trump is by an objective analysis – as in a God’s eye view – a significantly destructive force in the US political landscape, then those with TDS are those that support him. Likewise, if he is doing well under an objective analysis then those who say nothing good about him have the ‘disease’.
Whoever is capable of an objective analysis does not suffer TDS.
I have yet to see any of his supporters here offer any kind of analysis on his performance, much less a balanced one. Their responses to Trump commentary are almost entirely ad hom.
NASA Analysis Shows Unexpected Amount of Sea Level Rise in 2024.
Researchers from the agency linked last year’s increase to an unusual degree of ocean warming, as well as melting glaciers and other ice found on land. However, the increased tempo of rising seas did not start in 2024: the rate of sea level rise has doubled in the past thirty years.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/282/nasa-analysis-shows-unexpected-amount-of-sea-level-rise-in-2024/
NASA needs to be focused on “Aeronautics” and “Space”, as per the name of the agency. They’re too focused on politics and political correctness. That’s why SpaceX had to rescue the ISS astronauts.
And, that’s why NASA needs to be defunded, starting with GISS.
Clint is clueless that NASA has always been involved in remote observation of the Earth, ya know, from space.
“And, thats why NASA needs to be defunded, starting with GISS.”
Yes generally speaking Trump appears to see the relatively tiny portion of spending going to science as expendable.
He wants to end US dominance in science, the basis of so much tech development.
The ROI at NASA greatly exceeds its funding. At the absolute minimum it generates $3 return for every dollar spent. Most reports find an average return between $7 and $14 for every dollar, depending on whether the returns are direct or indirect. Why would Clint want to defund an agency that makes more money for the US than it receives?
The cult kids are at it again.
Nate is hurling false accusations and barry has found some data he can’t understand. barry believes NASA is a “business”, producing more income than its funding.
If that were true, it’s just more reason to defund NASA!
What will they try next?
(This is a “keeper”.)
“producing more income than its funding.”
Income for the economy stoopid..
Nate just slings more crap.
The cult believes GOV spending creates wealth. That’s been tried. That’s why we’re TRILLIONS in debt!
What will the children try next?
Yes, NASA is a net return on investment. That’s why defunding it is nuts, or at least not without a scalpel approach (which the Trump gov doesn’t do).
At less than 1% of the US budget and a X 3 ROI, NASA is one of the most economically efficient government programs.
If the Trump administration is winding back international security agreements, reducing military expenditure, currently 13% of total government expenditure, would reduce the debt much more effectively.
Yep Trump is doing his best to put up a whole bunch of impediments to science, particularly at NIH, where all travel to conferences was cancelled, total communication bans, employees given layers of new bureaucratic hoops to hop through (efficiency!). Not to mention mass firings and spending freezes.
“It really is quite chilling, one of the NIH scientist said. They are controlling information, causing chaos, disrupting everyone, keeping us off-balance.
Whatever people are reading in newspapers, its 10 times worse, the scientist added.
Lest we forget:
“The N.I.H. towers over the worlds medical research.
It is where the human genetic code was deciphered, where hepatitis C was discovered, where the AIDS virus was isolated, where the first drug to treat AIDS was discovered and where basic research that helped lead to the Covid vaccines was done. It funded the work decades ago that led to the creation of Ozempic and other new drugs that cause weight loss.”
“It is very hard to cite seminal discoveries that were not in some way underwritten by the N.I.H., said Dr. Rudolph Leibel, a professor of medicine at Columbia University who, like most medical researchers in the United States, has received N.I.H. funding.
Dr. Francis Collins, a former director of the N.I.H., said, If you are taking an F.D.A.-approved drug that is improving the quality or length of your life, there is a 99 percent chance N.I.H. was involved in the pathway to its discovery.
NY Times 3-24-25
Nate and barry display their ignorance of the issues, again.
It doesn’t matter if the issue is physics, medicine, or economics, the kids are ignorant of all of it.
The usual vacuous ad-hominem attacks from Clint when he encounters inconvenient facts that he has no answer for.
No ad homs, Nate. You’re just bothered by reality.
You’re ignorant of the facts and you can’t learn. Want an example?
I’ve explained several times the reasons, from basic physics, why 15μ photons can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface. But, you haven’t learned any of it.
Prove me wrong — explain why 15μ photons can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Been there done that 47 times. You dont listen or learn.
In any case, as usual distraction from the topic being discussed–because you have nothing of value to say.
Thanks for proving me right again, Nate.
I never get tired of being right….
Water is, because of its unique qualities earths primary coolant, moving enormous amounts of heat from the surface and out to space..
We can clearly see who’s mentally ill here. Disgusting!
Minnesota GOP Senator behind ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ bill accused of soliciting teen. March 20, 2025.
Minnesota state Sen. Justin Eichorn, a Republican, was arrested this week on felony charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution, police said, after he allegedly tried to meet up with an officer who posed as a 17-year-old girl.
Eichorn, 40, of Grand Rapids, traveled to Bloomington for the meeting and was arrested without incident, according to police. “As a 40-year-old man, if you come to the Orange Jumpsuit District looking to have sex with someone’s child, you can expect that we are going to lock you up,” Bloomington Police Chief Booker Hodges said in a news release.
Eichorn, whose Senate biography notes that he is married with four children, had made headlines Monday, just hours before his arrest, for a provocative bill he co-sponsored with three fellow Republican senators. The legislation would classify “Trump derangement syndrome” as a mental illness in the state statute, ostensibly meant as a dig at President Donald Trump’s critics.
Updated: 10:24 PM CDT March 24, 2025.
GRAND RAPIDS, Minn. – The wife of former Minnesota State Senator Justin Eichorn filed for divorce on Monday, one week after her husband was arrested for soliciting underage prostitution. Brittany Eichorn filed the motion in Itasca County and requested that the documents be sealed.
On Monday, a judge ruled that Eichorn remain jailed instead of being released to a halfway house. In the motion to keep Eichorn in jail, federal prosecutors said Eichorn lied about possessing guns and attempted to have an associate retrieve a laptop from his residence.
red krokodile
Slowly but surely, this here becomes boring. Either can’t or you don’t want understand what I do.
*
You wrote upthread (March 18, 2025 at 11:27 AM):
1a. ” Your definition of less good stations remains vague… ”
It is not vague at all; you are and keep fixated on me comparing the ‘well sited’ and the ‘less good’ stations by giving the latter a siting quality degree, though this makes no sense here.
*
1b. ” … and this lack of clarity weakens your comparison. ”
Not at all, as the anonymity within the ‘less good’s was a precondition.
*
2. ” Your definition of less good stations remains vague, and this lack of clarity weakens your comparison. Even if you are not attempting to validate or disprove Fall, 2011, failing to account for varying degrees of siting quality within your less good category still smooths out disparities. ”
Apparently, you keep fixated on Fall & al. and consequently on single station quality that you still did not manage to understand what I’m doing and why.
*
3. ” By randomly selecting nearby stations within a 1-degree grid cell, you are mixing stations with different levels of urban encroachment some may be moderately encroached, significantly encroached, or severely encroached. This blending smooths the contrast between well-sited and poorly sited stations, reducing the apparent impact of siting quality. ”
How is it possible not to understand that this random selection delivering stations of random quality is exactly what I want to compare to a set of stations carefully chosen as well-sited?
*
4. ” You seem to be contradicting yourself.
On one hand, you dismiss my point about station classification changes by insisting I should end comparing the two plots in the graphs at the moment Fall & al. finished their classification. Fall et al. finished their classification and published their findings in July 2011. Yet, you are including data up to March 2024 meaning you are assuming that station classifications have remained static since then.
On the other hand, you state that your analysis isnt actually comparing well-sited stations to poorly sited ones as classified by Fall & al., but rather to a random selection of nearby stations. If thats the case, then why even bring up Fall et al.s classification at all? ”
How is it possible not to understand that if a chart shows two time series ranging from 1895 till 2024 but you are interested in the 1895-2011 period only, you just have to discard the period 2012-2024? This is incredible.
*
5a. ” Either you are making a direct comparison to Fall et al., in which case your assumption about station classifications remaining unchanged is flawed… ”
Where did I assume that?
*
5b. ” … or you are analyzing something else entirely, in which case Fall et al.s classification is irrelevant to your argument. You can’t have it both ways. ”
???
*
6. ” Surfacestations.org hasnt been uploaded since July 2012:
http://surfacestations.org ”
Same reply as above…
**
In this post, you again demonstrate that you haven’t understood my point and stubbornly insist that I’m supposedly trying to refute Fall & Co.’s classification.
Their classification is 100% correct, red crocodile. I have no reason to refute it.
I repeathopefully for the last time:
My goal was simply to compare these 71 USHCN stations classified as “well-sited” with all (currently 258) stations located within their 1 degree vicinity.
*
Of course, these stations were – explicitly – avoided being classified according to Fall & al.’s criteria! The only selection mechanism was that the stations should all have been operating for at least 30 years and should be able to provide anomalies according to their absolute data.
And finally: the reason for this story is therefore solely the comparison of the time series obtained from both groups of stations, from which everyone can draw her/his own conclusions – and nothing else.
*
The result of the whole stuff is that when trying to obtain a full time series for CONUS, e.g. to show a comparison between surface and satellite data for this region:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/102DJkpkSSIaaC3O9O2BjFr0JshHeEN3m/view
we all can see that the difference between ‘well sited’ and randomly selected stations is far smaller than you try to claim.
***
So, once again some charts (with anomalies only).
Since the climate data specialist red krokodile apparently refuses to ignore the end from 2012 to 2024 in charts made from data up to 2024, I have created – once – new charts made from data up to 2011.
*
TMIN
– 1895-2011
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L5sdB8bqsUWRgjKGfbkOR6-mKuSdfoXv/view
– 1895-2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnU1q62eH0tlJE9F_D6UOpbTOVfgWYwB/view
TMAX
– 1895-2011
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15sob5T20wU95Nouixchid_8Wl3o1JzCE/view
– 1895-2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rsqukZFTYt9l2HnnTMJaPXZ4GNcHZWBm/view
*
His success, however, is that the side-by-side graphs make the warming since 2011 clearer, even in CONUS…
I hope he doesn’t brazenly tell us that the temperature increase observed at the well-sited stations since 2011 is due to many sites becoming worse, and not to global temperature increase.
Bindidon, siting classification also affects your “well-sited” group of stations. You are using the original 71 stations classified by Fall in 2011, but that classification is now 14 years old.
In that time, it is entirely plausible that some of those stations have experienced changes that would quietly degrade their siting quality. If even a portion has been affected, then your “well-sited” reference group is no longer as clean as assumed.
I appreciate you provided a time series for both TMAX and TMIN, with pre-2011 and post-2011 versions. When I look at the 1895 – 2011 window, I do see a pattern consistent with Fall: systematically warmer TMIN and cooler TMAX in poorly sited stations.
But post 2011, things become less clear. TMIN in the well sited group appears to rise more steeply and starts converging toward the less good group (which would make sense if some well-sited stations have been degraded over time).
TMAX, though, is more ambiguous. The well sited group doesn’t show cooling or flattening after 2011 (it actually rises slightly faster). That doesn’t quite fit what you would expect if siting degradation were the only explanation. Maybe something else is at play, but it is difficult to say for sure because, again, there is no transparency on how your “well sited” and “less good” categories are defined today, or whether any site conditions have changed since the 2011 classification.
I realize this was not the original goal of your comparison, but without clearer category definitions, it becomes hard to confidently interpret the divergence (or the lack of one) after 2011.
Worth noting: Anthony Watts released an updated surface station report in 2022, and he found the U.S. temperature network in worse shape than in 2009:
https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf
I’m busy with lots of things currently and will come back to this point when I get thru all that.
Can’t remember if this Hunga Tonga paper was posted here, but seeing as it’s been a recurring topic,
Abstract
We calculate the climate forcing for the 2 ys after the 15 January 2022, Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (Hunga) eruption. We use satellite observations of stratospheric aerosols, trace gases and temperatures to compute the tropopause radiative flux changes relative to climatology. Overall, the net downward radiative flux decreased compared to climatology. The Hunga stratospheric water vapor anomaly initially increases the downward infrared radiative flux, but this forcing diminishes as the anomaly disperses. The Hunga aerosols cause a solar flux reduction that dominates the net flux change over most of the 2 yrs period. Hunga induced temperature changes produce a decrease in downward long-wave flux. Hunga induced ozone reduction increases the short-wave downward flux creating small sub-tropical increase in total flux from mid-2022 to 2023. By the end of 2023, most of the Hunga induced radiative forcing changes have disappeared. There is some disagreement in the satellite measured stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD) observations which we view as a measure of the uncertainty; however, the SAOD uncertainty does not alter our conclusion that, overall, aerosols dominate the radiative flux changes.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
barry
I posted a while ago a comment about this article which of course was immediately discredited and denigrated by the clueless polemicist Robertson – just because Dessler was mentioned as a coauthor.
*
A few further articles discussing the relevance of SO2 injections resp. the resulting aerosols while most others solely focus on the 150 Mt water upload:
1. Growth and Global Persistence of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols From the 2022 Hunga TongaHunga Ha’apai Volcanic Eruption
Boichu & al.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JD039010
2. Tracking the 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Aerosol Cloud in the Upper and Middle Stratosphere Using Space-Based Observations
Taha & al. 2022
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL100091
Fact Check: NO Evidence King Charles III Revoked US Independence And Plans To Place ‘Nincompoop’ Trump In ‘Gaol’
Trump lives rent free in Ark’s head.
Ark
Trumplives rent free in red krokodile’sArk’shead.Calling Dolon Trusk a ‘nincompoop’ is actually quite flattering.
Bindi, your childishness does not make you look smart.