Home/BlogSUMMARY: A simple time-dependent CO2 budget model shows that yearly anthropogenic emissions compared to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements gives a declining CO2 sink rate, which if continued would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and presumably anthropogenic climate change. But accounting for ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) activity during 1959-2021 removes the decline. This is contrary to multiple previous studies that claimed to account for ENSO. A preprint of my paper (not yet peer reviewed) describing the details is at ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate | Earth and Space Science Open Archive (essoar.org).
UPDATE: The CO2 model, with inputs and outputs, is in an Excel spreadsheet here: CO2-budget-model-with-EIA-growth-cases.
I decided that the CO2 model I developed a few years ago, and recently reported on here, was worthy of publication, so I started going through the published literature on the subject. This is a necessary first step if you want to publish a paper and not be embarrassed by reinventing the wheel or claiming something others have already “disproved”.
The first thing I found was that my idea that Nature each year removes a set fraction of the difference between the observed CO2 concentration and some baseline value is not new. That idea was first published in 2013 (see my preprint link above for details), and it’s called the “CO2 sink rate”.
The second thing I found was that the sink rate has (reportedly) been declining, by as much as 0.54% (relative) per year, even after accounting for ENSO activity. But I only get -0.33% per year (1959-2021) before accounting for ENSO activity, and — importantly — 0.0% per year after accounting for ENSO.
This last finding will surely be controversial, because it could mean CO2 in the atmosphere will not rise as much as global carbon cycle modelers say it will. So, I am posting the model and the datasets used along with the paper preprint at ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate | Earth and Space Science Open Archive (essoar.org). The analysis is quite simple and I believe defensible. The 2019 paper that got -0.54% per year decline in the sink rate uses complex statistical gymnastics, with a professional statistician as a primary author. My analysis is much simpler, easier to understand, and (I believe) at least as defensible.
The paper will be submitted to Geophysical Research Letters for peer review in the next couple days. In the meantime, I will be inviting the researchers who live and breathe this stuff to poke holes in my analysis.
“will not rise as much as global carbon cycle modelers say it will. ”
Might it also mean that anthrogenic CO2 emission reduction and mitigation measures could have unknown/unpredictable effects? (military mechanics principle: if you don’t know what it is, or what it is doing, don’t [fool] with it!)
all it means is, for a given scenario of future emissions, the actual atmospheric rise in CO2 won’t be as large as they think.
I am creating 800$per hour on-line from my workstation. A month within the past I got take a look at of roughly 45k$, this on line paintings is straightforward and direct, dont wish to go office, Its domestic on line activity. (nh+66 By then this paintings chance is begin your paintings. Here->> http://openwork244.blogspot.com
I am able to create $88/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link http://Www.NetJob1.com
this is cool thing
I am able to create $998/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link http://Www.NetJob1.com
I am able to create $200/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link https://www.worksful.com
I am making 80 US dollars per-hr to complete some internet services from home.I have not ever thought like zxs it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details going this web-page.
10
>>
Great
Does this have anything to do with how cold your 3.5 C ocean is?
If so, what difference if Ocean is 4 C and 5 C?
I’d say that’s a different subject.
Ok.
Makes sense.
I was just wondering, if was some established metric to do
this.
What made me wonder, is it seems, some people involved with “global warming” thought our ocean would warm as much as our ocean has warmed in past peak warming periods of previous interglacials.
Or there was wild ideas rapid sea levels rises which was the case in these peak warming period which had ocean of 4 C or warmer.
Or if our ocean warmed faster, due a imagined huge effect from rising CO2 levels, then it seems reasonable with warmer ocean less CO2 would absorbed.
But then again, probably no one serious ever seriously thought this was possible. Just one no ever thought the Himalayas glaciers would be gone by 2030 or whatever date they claimed.
Or they just doing an Al Gore.
This same thought crossed my mind. As the oceans generally recover from the Little Ice Age event they are warming. As they warm they shed CO2 so there must be a bit of additional CO2 that simply comes from the ocean outgassing that CO2 as it warms each year.
I am able to create $998/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link https://www.worksful.com
I am able to create $558/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link https://www.worksful.com
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see the “model & datasets” posted at the essoar.org site. I presume this is an updated version of the Excel spreadsheet from the older blog post?
Yes. The datasets should be there, I’m adding the model in the morning. I’ll check it out then.
The datasets are under “Supplemental”, but all you really need is the model spreadsheet file, which I have now provided a link to in this post. I couldn’t add it to the Supplemental files section or it would have constituted a revision the entire paper.
Your temperature data is cited here: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/digital-id-and-the-climate-scam-with-maria-zeee/#comment-1701
From the paper:
I had trouble with this before, and have trouble with it now. You seem to be saying that the system is relaxing to higher values as the CO2 increases. If the system was relaxing toward 280 ppm before, and toward 290 now (when levels are higher), it seem reasonable that the system might relax toward 300 in a decade or two, and so on!
The effect of raising the ‘equilibrium value’ has the same basic effect as reducing the % removed. For instance, if CO2 = 410 and 2.02% is removed relative to a 293.6 baseline, that is (410-293.6)*0.0202 = 2.35 ppm removed. But the same amount would be removed using the original baseline but lowering k_s to 0.0181 = 1.81%.
In other words:
1) you can relax at a fixed rate toward a rising equilibrium value
2) you can relax at a dropping rate toward a fixed equilibrium value.
Either way, we conclude the CO2 is not relaxing at a fixed rate toward a fixed value. The two models are saying the same thing in the end, just changing different parameters in the equation.
I am creating 800$per hour on-line from my workstation. A month within the past I got take a look at of roughly 45k$, this on line paintings is straightforward and direct, dont wish to go office, Its domestic on line activity. (nh+69 By then this paintings chance is begin your paintings. Here->> http://openwork244.blogspot.com
>In other words:
1) you can relax at a fixed rate toward a rising equilibrium value
2) you can relax at a dropping rate toward a fixed equilibrium value.
But, the model doesn’t bother you? The equilibrium or balance level is based upon total emissions, natural plus anthropogenic.
The strong negative temperature anomaly of the western equatorial Pacific continues. Will the upcoming La Nia peak be the strongest?
https://i.ibb.co/KVS7jLY/nino4.png
Does the decrease in CO2 only affect the decrease in surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific?
https://i.ibb.co/c2RPbJs/gfs-world-ced2-sstanom-1-day.png
https://i.ibb.co/kcbty53/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
I actually looked at this, Tim. I tried time-varying the equilibrium value, but all the accurate CO2 data is only since 1959, and since then a constant equilibrium value worked best, and covers the whole 60+ year period. I can’t explain it beyond that. I agree it’s not totally satisfying.
Dr. Spencer, et al.
You guys are usually over my head with your discussions, but it is always nice to see people having discussions, about what has become a religious belief for so many, in a rational way.
Always a pleasure,
I agree 100%. Seeing rational discussions on climate are unfortunately rare events in today’s government-media political “climate.”
If CO2 doubling lies midway between RCP4.5 and RCP6 then those models use an effective ECS of 4.5 to 6.0. With a more realistic ECS less than 2.0 the outlook is much rosier. At 0.13 C per decade we would only be 0.9 to 1.0 C warmer than today.
ECS of 2.5 to 3.5.
Keeping things super simple, the diffusivity, lambda, transmittance, R-value, or whatever you want to call it is observationally 3.3 W m−2 K−1
for a minor perturbation of forcing by 4.5 to 6 watts m-2, yields 1.4K to 1.8K temperature change.
Mysterious “new” positive feedbacks are mere conjecture and do not appear to be supported by evidence. Nor is this conjecture supported by thermodynamic principles.
I am creating 800$per hour on-line from my workstation. A month within the past I got take a look at of roughly 45k$, this on line paintings is straightforward and direct, dont wish to go office, Its domestic on line activity. (nh+67 By then this paintings chance is begin your paintings. Here->> http://openwork244.blogspot.com
The baseline warming remains 5C:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
But not for El Nino.
A very important paper. I hope it creates much discussion. I look forward to watching it progress through publication and then following the reaction by the scientific community.
hallo
Between 2002 and 2012 CO2 con penetration rise by 2ppm/year. Between 2012 and 2022 the rise was 2.6mm/year.
Dr Spencer’s model suggests that the rate of rise for the next 80 years will be 1.65mm/year.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2002/to:2012/every/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2002/to:2012/every/plot/esrl-co2/from:2012/to:2022/every/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2012/to:2022/every
The rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has accelerated continuously since 1880. Since the fossil fuel companies are still winning the political battle to maintain emissions a reduction on the scale Dr Spencer suggests seems unlikely.
I don’t have the expertise to critique his paper in detail, but my intuition is that pre- or post-publication peer review will find it flawed.
I am able to create $88/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link http://Www.NetJob1.com
If you are going to mention the fossil fuel companies, then we might as well discuss the idea of replacing all gasoline powered motor vehicles with electric ones.
I happen to be a Tesla owner, and I can give you an idea of how much electricity is required to operate an electric vehicle. One of the computer screen functions in a Tesla is energy usage, so you can keep track on how much range you have left in your battery. The baseline energy use standard is 300 Watt-hours/mile. If you go above 300 Whr/mi. that means you are stomping on the accelerator a bit too much. If you go below 300 Whr/mi. then you are taking it easy and conserving energy.
So, what does 300 Whr/mi. actually mean? Well, the amount of energy required to push a Tesla 1 mile is equivalent to burning three 100-Watt light bulbs for one hour. That seems kind of reasonable at first glance. But then, that is only for one mile. Let’s to the math for 10 miles. That would be thirty 100-Watt light bulbs for one hour.
What is the average distance Americans drive their cars each day – 20 miles? Now we are talking sixty 100-Watt light bulbs burning for one hour. Or, we can call it 6 Kilowatt-hours. That is for one car in one day.
10 cars is 60 KWh
100 cars – 600 KWh
1000 cars – 6 Megawatt-hours
10,000 cars – 60 MWh
100,000 cars – 600 MWh
1,000,000 cars – 6 Gigawatt-hours.
See where this is going? Has any bureaucrat who is pushing electric vehicles ever thought about this? We certainly have more than a million motor vehicles in America. This extra energy that will be demanded from the electric grid will have to be produced somehow. Does anybody actually believe wind and solar will do it?
I enjoy my Tesla, and my wife and I have been driving the heck out of it recently due to obvious reasons. Our Chevy pickup just sits in the garage. But I am vehemently opposed to the idea of cramming these electric vehicles down the throats of all Americans. The growth of electric vehicles should occur by free market choice by the consumer. This will give our power station managers enough time to adjust for the increased demand these EVs will bring.
After my 40-year career in operational weather forecasting, I am disgusted to see how climate science is used as a tool to unnecessarily alarm the public about so-called climate change. And to save the planet, we must be at “zero-carbon” emissions by 2035,2050 or some other purely arbitrary date. And calling CO2 a pollutant is nothing more than government propaganda.
I am grateful to see the likes of Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy to bring some sanity to the climate change issue. It is a good thing these scientists have enough tenure and credentials built up to protect them from the forces that want to squelch them from Climate Research.
The problem is that you do not believe what the TV says.
But it is good to know that you at least do what the TV tells you to do.
It is good for now, of course.
Teslas are cool cars. I’ve been an owner since 2014. But TV isn’t the reason why I have one. It is nice not having to deal with oil changes. With 130K miles, no brake job either because regenerative braking does about 90+ percent of the braking.
I did not get a Tesla because of the environment. Dr. Spencer commented a few years ago electric vehicles are no better for the environment than gasoline powered vehicles.
I am creating 800$per hour on-line from my workstation. A month within the past I got take a look at of roughly 45k$, this on line paintings is straightforward and direct, dont wish to go office, Its domestic on line activity. (nh+68 By then this paintings chance is begin your paintings. Here->> http://openwork244.blogspot.com
So, a baseline for CO2 should about 294 ppm rather than 260 ppm {if I have a bad habit of using]. So 294 + 147 = 441 ppm.
Or not at half way point where most effect of doubling will occur and
294 + 204 = 588 ppm would be double.
Or roughly after 588 each 100 ppm add has less effect.
But we not going to get to 588 ppm in any point of time worth considering. Or it seems we could getting say 25% of all energy use
being from Ocean methane hydrates. Or whole host of other things can happen.
It seems that within 30 years, it possible Africans could greened the Sahara Desert by a significant amount. And probably even more extraordinary things are going on.
That IPCC has not done much in 30 years, and will not much in another
30 years says very little about the rest of world.
Both the leaders of Russia and China should be dead, and that’s good news. Their deaths could happen much sooner, of course. Likewise the Moon could explored in shorter time period than 30 years. And it possible there are towns on Mars within 30 years. Could have a cheap global internet within 10 years, and global educational learning by around then.
We might even have something one could call “real news” within 10 years. Or the corporate fake news seems currently in death throes.
Sure everyone was predicted it would dead by now, about 10 years ago, but things take longer than one can expect.
Or said differently, news has always never made a profit, never been profitable, and it could make a profit- people could willing pay for it. Now not saying the wild idea of longer having brainwashing ads, as soon as within 10 years, but having them slightly less abusive is possibility. Of course most people imagine it’s going to get a lot worse- and we are doomed.
But I think it’s reasonable that we living in best of times and it will get better. And even think there is hope for Cuba, Venezuela, and even North Korea.
North Korea is said to have offered 100,000 soldiers to Russia for war in Ukraine.
I like that idea. War is good cure for brainwashing as is traveling around the world. And I am a bit more optimistic, about Russia losing that war quicker than I thought.
I am going to predict before Christmas.
“That IPCC has not done much in 30 years, and will not much in another”
The basic IPCC message hasn’t changed in thirty years. Human fossil fuel emissions are the cause, global warming is the effect and climate change is the consequences.
What do you expect the IPCC to do? The IPCC is thirteen full time support staff and a few hundred scientists volunteering their time. They advise policy makers on climate matters, and have no power.
Policy is up the politicians and the voters that elect them. Unfortunately in the political arena the fossil fuel companies are winning.
I don’t expect much from bureaucrats, especially from such unaccountable ones.
I didn’t even expect the crazy railroad engineer to be, eventually, fired.
I guess I should look up his name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
And according wiki there wasn’t any problems.
Which would be expected.
BBC says:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/14/rajendra-pachauri-former-ipcc-head-dies-aged-79
Don’t know who leading it now, but there has been no
improvement, which could count as praise, as not doing as
bad as the current idiots.
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/trivia/buck-stops-here-sign
There are no unaccountable bureaucrats. In a democratic society bureaucrats are appointed by and accountable to the politicians responsible for their departments. The politicians in turn are accountable to the electorate.
I know that in the US officials are elected down to the level of District Attorney and Sheriff but senior administrators like the Secretary of State are appointed by the President.
This a somewhat paradoxical approach, but how do you draw the line?
Should all senior US officials be elected Senators or Congressmen, as Ministers in the UK government must be elected Members of Parliament?
Should the man who collects your garbage be elected or appointed?
It seems a necessary property of both our systems. At some point in any chain of command you change over from the elected to the appointed, with the elected accountable for the actions of the appointed.
There are no unaccountable bureaucrats
This statement is beyond wrong, it is utterly ridiculous. Most elected leaders have no clue who is running whatyou are delusional.
Eman is the epitome of ridiculous statements. He’s good for a laugh.
John,Stephen.
As usual you have no valid counter arguments and instead resort to insult. I should complain to Roy about the poor quality of the denialists commenting here.
You’re a leftist propagandist. You repeat talking points. You lost all scientific objectivity a long time ago if you ever had any. Yes, you should complain to Dr. Spencer.
I was enjoying reading down the list thinking no one was flaming anyone and the comments were on point. Then I hit this thread. No surprises who kicked off the ad hom.
For the IPCC the bucks stops with the governments who put forward candidates and whose UN representatives elect the Panel.
For most of the 6th Assessment cycle the responsible US official was Donald Trump. Perhaps you should take it up with him.
As I have mentioned, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. All ice cores and other proxies indicate we in the coolest time of this 33.9 million year Age.
Before the Holocene began we had lowest CO2 levels and coldest global air temperature.
All during this Late Cenozoic Ice Age we had cold oceans and low CO2 levels.
No one claimed our ocean has been colder than 3.5 C, but during
warmest thousands of years in recent interglacial periods, with sea levels 4 to 9 meter higher, it’s claimed the oceans were 4 C or warmer.
It appears to me, that we have have an ocean average temperature of
around 3.5 C for thousands of years.
It seems to me that a snowball earth like conditions would have ocean of about 2 C.
Though someone might call Snowball Earth could begin with an Ocean average temperature of 3 C.
But I would say when it was coldest it’s been in million of years, I don’t think the ocean was as cold as 3 C and it’s not clear to me Earth ocean has ever been as cold as 3 C.
It seems to me our early Holocene was warmer ocean similar to other warm period which the ocean was 4 C or more.
Or I would say when Holocene had 1 meter higher sea level, the average ocean temperature was close to 4 C.
But there is a lot people who are a lot more interested in this topic than me, and I like to hear what they would say about it.
Has ocean in last 40 million years been as cold as 3 C.
And in hundreds of millions of years, has ocean had temperature as cold as 2 C or colder?
It’s well known that much of Earth history had ocean average has been warmer than 10 C.
And when was latest time the ocean was as warm as 5 C or warmer.
Of course I tend to be more interested other things, like what would Venus average temperature be, if Venus was at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
But what seem a more practice question is how warm would Earth need to be, to return to a green Sahara desert.
Or if Sahara were to be made into region of grassland and forests as it was more 5000 years ago, would it increase global air temperature and by how much?
Gbaikie
Could you please give a link to your ocean temperature data?
–Entropic man says:
August 12, 2022 at 4:08 PM
Gbaikie
Could you please give a link to your ocean temperature data?–
I don’t spend much time reading stuff from IPCC
Nor have read much literature of Mormon religion,
but probably read more Mormon stuff than IPCC stuff.
{I have read a fair amount of both- and both are tedious,
but Mormon is slightly more enlightening.}
The IPPC claims it has an interest in global climate,
and everyone knows more than 90% of all global warming
is warming the entire ocean.
{and that we in an Ice Age}
Some say IPPC is not corrupt, therefore, so it seems
you could find what looking for somewhere in the IPCC literature,
as it claims to be comprehensive source regarding global
warming.
So let me know about what IPCC says about our 33.9 million
year, ice house climate and also what it says nuclear power
being the only known way to reduce CO2 levels.
Btw:
Ridiculous’ length? How to make IPCC climate science reports an easier read
”
New climate science report 10 times longer than first in 1990
Computer analysis, Wikipedia-style format could help simplify
IPCC vital to guide governments but reforms may be needed
By Alister Doyle
“OSLO, April 6 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – British chemist Robert Watson had strict instructions when he sat down to write the opening chapter of the first U.N. scientific overview of climate change in 1990: “Keep it short.”
On Monday, the sixth set of reports by the same U.N. panel hit a record length of more than 10,000 pages, with the release of a third section of almost 3,000 pages on solutions to climate heating, showing it is “now or never” to head off the worst. ”
https://news.trust.org/item/20220406105046-2vq6z
Gbaikie
Your last post mentioned ocean temperature thirteen time. I’m interested to know where you got your data so that I can read them myself.
Take it up with Trump? More of your delusion? Didn’t Trump withdraw from the Paris BS?
I don’t know why you are saying the fossil fuel companies are winning. They are just like any other business that produces something that is demanded from them. When a government restricts the industry from producing what is demanded from them, this restricts supply. And when supply is reduced, prices go up. This has consequences because hundreds of millions of people are adversely affected by price increases. And yes, this will affect the political arena. Only elitist snobs find this repulsive.
The fossil fuel companies are ‘winning’ because they are pouring money and lobbying into getting governments to give them lots of benefits and they are succeeding. For decades my country has subsidised the coal industry, but baulked, for a while, at subsidising solar and wind.
It was interesting to read how much government help the fossil fuel industry gets.
Those studies are horsecrap. Implicit subsidies are subjective. They get tax breaks like every other corporation. The coal industry has been treated pretty harshly.
“So, a baseline for CO2 should about 294 ppm ”
No. 294 is one parameter from fitting one simple model. It is a HUGE stretch to say this model is BETTER than actual historical measurement.
The “historical measurement” began later in time.
But I am willing to pick another number other from this model, what is Tim Folkerts number?
Probably the most reliable figure for pre-industrial CO2 concentration comes from the Law Dome ice codes taken from Antarctica.
co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data#:
280ppm CO2.
560 ppm is commonly given as doubling.
From 280 plus half of 140 is 420 ppm and this 420 ppm would
have more than half effect of compared to 560 ppm level.
[[Though how long it was at 420 would be related to effects.]]
Hence the worry that we are already doomed- or end has come already.
But with 7 years of no warming, we are suppose to wait longer.
If use 294, it’s 441 ppm, which take another decade or more to reach.
And btw this could be more useful to imagine as we have had
better air temperature measurement in more recent times- as compare to, long before the American Civil War.
But global warming religion as a focus in some vague period prior the Industrial Revolution.
I guess some time period where England and France were the superpowers. Apparently a glorious time. Before London was black with coal burning, and there wasn’t proper sewage system.
GB,
I’m curious about the next non-systematic step-change in temperature. You’re right, almost 7 years ago.
Stephen
This was discussed in an earlier thread. Define a pause as the interval between two records.
For UAH the average interval is nine years. The last record was in 2016. If this pause is of average length we can expect the next record in 2025.
“Im curious about the next non-systematic step-change in temperature. ”
Hmm. Well I have recently guessed that we are done with Little Ice Age recovery. Or we are in a slightly warmer period.
But since we in an Ice Age we can’t get warm enough and can’t likely get warm enough any time soon, nor are we going to cool much in any time soon.
Also been interested in, can we actually predict solar activity.
I have been thinking that the Sun is more unpredictable than weather, but some people are claiming that Sun has cycles which can predictable and I am curious about that.
Other than exploring the Moon and then exploring Mars, it seems exploring our Sun is as important or maybe more important. And only value of star gazing is related to getting a better understanding of our star. And the other thing is not being impacted by a large space rock- which seems like a low possibility, but it does happen.
Anyhow, I wonder if we going to have Grand solar Minimum and wonder if some are correct that the Sun can be predicted [in a way that really precise- which is related to understanding climate over long periods of time].
My view {which I think most agree] is global climate is easy to predict, but predicting weather, could be harder than predicting the sun. And it’s weather which is important, or very valuable or useful for people.
So, are we done recovering from Little Ice Age [which related to global climate] and what the sun going to do, which could/should be related to global weather. And what sun does is important factor related crew exploration of Mars.
Anyhow, I am interested in what is surprising, if next month temperature goes up again, it will be surprising- will be interesting.
We got one 40% chance of tropical storm:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
I thought there was suppose be more- so, it’s interesting.
[And Cuba should have a good year.]
Another perspective on CO2 concentration projection.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-carbon-cycle-feedbacks-could-make-global-warming-worse/
I am able to create $88/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link http://Www.NetJob1.com
Yes, you and Greta, what a team.
“The first thing I found was that my idea that Nature each year removes a set fraction of the difference between the observed CO2 concentration and some baseline value is not new”
Of course not. Funny things however are to be found with “consensus science”. When I studied these issues I found two distinct narratives, both absurd on their on own right.
1. The baseline for CO2 sinks would be (annual) anthropogenic emissions. They would store away like 55% of our emissions. It follows then, that if we ever stopped emitting CO2, CO2 sinks would stop working too. In this way it is easier to argue emitted CO2 would stay around forever, rather than falling back to its preindustrial levels within decades/centuries. On top of that is the claim CO2 sinks would stop working soon, maybe because plants getting tired of it.. ?!
2. A couple of years ago I downloaded the RCP pathway data from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. I was curious on how they assessed CO2 sinks there. Not just were CO2 sinks, as above, a function of emissions rather CO2 concentrations for some time. But then what they did, was to simply assume a secondary reservoir twice(!) the size of the atmosphere. The CO2 sinks thus were just a temporary phenomenon, unless this secondary reservoir was just as full as the primary (atmosphere).
Next to the model being so simplistic, which is appalling already, it is factual nonsense. On the one side plants will obviously not stop absorbing more CO2 and never run “full”. On the other side the ocean (and other reservoirs) are dozens of times larger than the atmosphere.
It seems the accelerated CO2 emission of China which apparently is over, should have more effect than a slower acceleration CO2 emission would have had.
It seems to me, China next acceleration will with the use of natural gas, which will reduce CO2 emission like it did with US.
China’s governmental plan seemed to be on making nuclear energy- but it seems other parties will be doing that.
If you’re interested, here are the numbers.
https://projects.noc.ac.uk/greenhouse_gas_science/sites/greenhouse_gas_science/files/images/ccycle.jpg
Regarding short term changes, the fast carbon cycle three reservoirs are considered. These are the reservoirs between which carbon circulates freely and which normally stay in equilibrium. It is shorthand to refer to them as carbon sinks, but perhaps not useful. Carbon taken up from the Atmosphere by vegetation of ocean does not disappear. A better analogy is three linked water tanks. Add water to one tank and the water level rises in all three.
Atmosphere 829 PgC
Surface ocean 900
Vegetation ~500
Total circulating carbon 2229
The atmosphere is 37% of the total. If we stopped emitting tomorrow, the carbon we released would redistribute between the three reservoirs and about 37% would stay in the atmosphere.
At present we are adding 8.9 PgC/year to the atmosphere of which 4.9 PgC/year moves to the other two reservoirs.
How will this continue?
In the ocean there is the deep ocean reservoir which can take up some of the absorbed carbon and buffering. Henry’s Law shows that Increasing carbon uptake due to the increasing partial pressure will be larger than decreasing uptake due to increased temperature. The ocean sink will behave as Dr Spencer expects.
The vegetation reservoir may be less reliable. Most plant growth is not CO2 limited. It is limited by light, temperature, water or nutrients.
That puts limits on how much extra CO2 vegetation can be expected to absorb. I would expect it to become a less effective “carbon sink”. This makes Dr Spencer’s model optimistic.
“Most plant growth is not CO2 limited.”
That’s why many growers add CO2 to their greenhouses 🙂
Ever been in a CO2 enriched greenhouse?
They don’t just increase CO2 to 3%. They have intense lighting, heating and supply the roots with a nutrient rich solution.
There’s an old axiom in biology called the Law of Limiting Factors.
“Any biological process goes at the rate allowed by the scarecest factor.
Think of a car factory which produces one body, one engine and one wheel each day. The factory can produce one car every four days, with wheels the limiting factor.
Think of a wheat crop. The limiting factor is not CO2, light or temperature. It is usually nitrogen, which is why the crop needs so much fertilizer.
You are Mr. Speculation without evidence. Constant propaganda. You’re on a roll.
Em,
As you say, growers discover CO2 (plant food) is a limiting factor.
That’s why they increase the CO2.
Maybe you should think before you start hammering on your keyboard.
[laughing at self defeating dimwit]
Swenson
You’ve got that right idea. If you want the plants to make proper use of extra CO2 you have to give them extra light, warmer temperatures and extra nutrients. The aim is to avoid all the four main limiting factors.
The aim is to optimise the growth conditions, the optimum amount of CO2, light, warmth and nutrients. Ultimately under ideal greenhouse conditions growth is only limited by the ultimate limiting factor,the amount of chlorophyll.
Just a comment about agriculture: Canada’s government has decided to reduce the usage of fertilizers by 30%, supposedly to stop global warming.
Fertilizer is an expensive input for agriculture and farmers don’t just waste it. Given the comparatively short timeline over which it affects plant growth, I assume it’s significantly more predictable than climate.
I find this website very informative on the doubtful basis of climate predictions. As Rob Mitchell discussion of electric vehicles above shows, they don’t know the effects their policy will have on emissions, particularly tax policy. They don’t know how policies will be adopted.
This chain of inference goes: We know what’s best for you -> We know what our policy will be -> We know what effects those policies will have on emissions -> we know the effects of any change in emissions.
The idea that the mediocrities in government can make such predictions is ludicrous. The ESG agenda is about regulatory capture and Public Private Partnership [Which is, as Hayek said, the core element of fascism.]
Entropic Man… you are an idiot.
Yes, I have been in a greenhouse.
No, “intense light” is not required.
But if you want to make your stupid claims, make them. CO2 is pumped in – and we don’t worry about “intense light” – just regular sunlight.
Take care.
I find the vegetation question the most interesting. Nearly all our fossil fuels are derived from living things in the form of vegetation or from sea creatures. This is the huge amount of carbon that we are, effectively, returning to the atmosphere after it has been sequestrated by living organisms over millions of years.
It implies that this form of sequestration must be continuing now but at a low rate because the lack of CO2 has restricted plant growth.
It would be reasonable to expect the rate of sequestration from the biosphere to increase as the concentration of CO2 does.
“The baseline for CO2 sinks would be (annual) anthropogenic emissions. They would store away like 55% of our emissions. It follows then, that if we ever stopped emitting CO2, CO2 sinks would stop working too. In this way it is easier to argue emitted CO2 would stay around forever, rather than falling back to its preindustrial levels within decades/centuries.”
Sinks don’t stop working, they’re just really slow. The ocean is taking up continuous CO2 at its fastest pace right now, as it strives for equilibrium with the atmospheric CO2. If emissions stopped and no other sinks operated the ocean would take up no more CO2, as it would be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. It takes about 1000 years for oceans waters to completely turn over (top to bottom), so much of the excess CO2 in the atmos would take that long to be sequestered through the whole ocean. Silicate weathering on land is another slow sink, but if that was the only way to remove excess CO2 it would take 10s to 100s of thousands of years. (Assuming pl0anetary biota doesn’t increase by several orders of magnitude)
If you’ve seen the saw-tooth graphs of CO2 and temperature over the ice ages, you see that it takes 5 to 10 thousand years for CO2 to rise to peak, and about 100,000 years for CO2 to return to ice age levels.
“On top of that is the claim CO2 sinks would stop working soon, maybe because plants getting tired of it.. ?!”
Not plants. This is about the ability of the upper ocean to keep absorbing about half the emitted CO2, as it has been doing. Last I read it was a valid proposition, but not definitively nailed down. The warmer sea water gets, the less soluble to CO2. Some research suggests that we can expect the same saw-tooth pattern in the future – the long, slow drawdown of CO2 – that we see in those Quaternary ice age charts.
In related to this article. Has anyone looked at the possibility that the huge volume of water sent into the stratosphere by the January Tonga volcano eruption is influencing the localized extreme rain events in many places around the world?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/#:~:
As the news media dutifully tries to remind us of the danger of climate change on a daily basis, at least one online new article stated that “experts” expect the eruption to make climate change significantly worse. Strange. Haven’t volcanic eruptions historically tended to cool the planet off?
I have wondered if some of the atmospheric warming has been actually exacerbated by below average vulcanism during the last 50 years, but I don’t know that.
Does vulcanism go through cycles? Are some time periods more active than others?
It would be nice to be able to see some statistics on that.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
No one can predict future volcanic activity and no one can predict future solar activity, yet.
Most volcanic activity occurs on the ocean floor- if there could huge volcanic explosion on floor, last week, we would not know it.
Or they say about 80% of all earth volcanic activity occurs in the ocean. And our ocean has not really been explored, much. But we did find the largest volcano in the solar system in our ocean, somewhat, recently. And the largest “waterfall” in the world is on the ocean between Greenland and Iceland. And there about 4 more which also bigger than any waterfall on land. I don’t where these are, one is somewhere near Brazil, I think. We scanned the ocean entire floor and we do know it is very young surface- not much of it, is older than 200 million years. Or 70% of earth surface is very young and continental land masses are billions of years old- though they been split apart and pushed together, a lot. over the billions of years.
Greta is Eman’s chief scientific researcher. She and Billie Eilish.
Fred M. Cain
” Does vulcanism go through cycles? Are some time periods more active than others? ”
I personally don’t know of studies having processed the eruption sequence since e.g. AD 0 and now in a global AND recent way.
You have lots of articles telling about Japan, Indonesia, Island etc etc. (most behind paywall).
And the few rather global approaches are all dated long before the major eruption since Ad 0 (Mt Samalas on Lombok Island, 1257, VEI 7, possibly even 8) was detected in 2012/13.
For many many studies, Tambora (1815, VEI 7) still is the absolute top event.
*
But looking at
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
puts the things into the right context:
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1307520110/asset/4124ff30-3cbb-426e-84d4-35874b24c454/assets/graphic/pnas.1307520110fig03.jpeg
*
Here is a (non exhaustive) list of major eruptions which occurred before the Maunder Minimum:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes, VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Island, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Açores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Island, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
and in between all these, about 35 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
No period following these 400 years is known to me which has shown such an incredible sequence.
Fred M. Cain (cntnd)
” Havent volcanic eruptions historically tended to cool the planet off?
I have wondered if some of the atmospheric warming has been actually exacerbated by below average vulcanism during the last 50 years, but I dont know that. ”
If you consider that the Medieval Warming Period lasted from 950 to 1150, and look at the eruption sequence which started 100 years later, you might think a bit different.
My layman guess after reading a few papers is rather that increases of eruptions are due to excessive warming, and that subsequent cooling might (!) be due rather to the long range consequences of aerosol cooling affecting the oceanic temperatures than to solar minima.
An interesting publication:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
*
In about 100 years the latest, Humanity will know more about it.
Fred,
“As the news media dutifully tries to remind us of the danger of climate change on a daily basis, at least one online new article stated that experts expect the eruption to make climate change significantly worse. Strange. Havent volcanic eruptions historically tended to cool the planet off?”
Because it was an underwater eruption, the volcano shot a huge amount of WV into the stratosphere. It’s the greenhouse effect of the stratospheric WV that makes (some) researchers think we’ll get a decade of slightly raised global temperatures. The WV in the stratosphere doesn’t precipitate out as fast as in the troposphere (no rain), and 10 million tons is actually a fairly significant increase.
(Stratospheric WV is 5 parts per million, compared to 20 thousand parts per million in the troposphere)
That’s the theory, anyway.
WSJ and Lomborg show just how useless the Inflation Reduction Act is at tackling climate
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/11/wsj-and-lomborg-show-just-how-useless-the-inflation-reduction-act-is-at-tackling-climate/
“So, as seen in the figure below provided by Lomborg, we get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.”
…
“At that rate, simple math (see Excel sheet below) suggests the amount of money required to achieve the much desired 1.5C (2.7F) reduction in temperature using the best case reduction of 0.028F would be $38,571,428,571,428 or approximately 39 Trillion dollars.”
Should anyone in the world spend +38 trillion dollars to “maybe” achieve the desired 1.5C reduction within the next decade.
I think think wasting 1/2 billion dollar on a lunar is better and has better chance of global temperature when it’s purpose is unrelated to this. Though I don’t want US government to focus on lunar base.
But 1/2 billion dollar for all mars bases, would something would favor, but spending for this won’t start happen within 10 years.
Within ten the money spend by NASA, could amount to say 5 billion per years, so 10 years about 50 billion. So after say 30 years if include all cost and inflation adjusted it could as much as 500 billion at the most. And if don’t explore Moon or Mars, still cost about 300 billion continuing to do basically nothing.
And all this 400 billion dollar going do, is cause more inflation and add to governmental corruption [which currently already rampant.
Oh also another article:
There is no climate emergency
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
“A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”
From:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
“A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals”
Dental researchers and mining CEOs?
Sounds impressive, but that doesn’t mean it is.
I am more impressed by 1100 scientists and professionals who could not be on governmental dole, and are dependent on their economic comfort, as compared to 10,000 which are definitely on governmental dole which effectively and solely being paid for their expressed public view- and could be fired for expressing a lack of faith in the in mindless groupthink.
Dr Spencer. You say “Significant model departures from observations occurred for three years after the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, when increased scattered sunlight enhanced photosynthesis.”
What is the reason for the idea that photosynthesis is enhanced post eruption? Is it to explain the reduction in CO2 growth following the eruption.
I would have thought the volcanic particles would cause shading and cooling resulting in less photosynthesis. The reason I ask is I am formulating an an alternative hypothesis.
Research shows that scattered diffuse light from volcanic particles increases. It comes from all angles, so in theory it is more effective at penetrating tropical rainforests to leaves normally shaded by the treetops.
Nate,
On the other hand, the absolute amount of available light energy is reduced by the volcanic particles in the air. Research shows that reducing the amount of light reduces the amount of photosynthesis, and growth of plants.
You really don’t think, do you?
Is it because you can’t, or because you don’t want to?
Swenson.
“Research shows that reducing the amount of light reduces the amount of photosynthesis, and growth of plants.”
Exactly. It also reduces the amount of energy that enters the top layer of the ocean, cooling the ocean. I think this is more likely to be the explanation for the change in atmospheric CO2 growth, rather that the enhanced photosynthesis explanation.
“cooling the ocean. I think this is more likely to be”
Yes but Henry’s Law gives a small effect.
I am able to create $88/h to complete few jobs on home computer. Ive never thought that its even achievable but my closest mate earning $25k only within five weeks simply working this leading project & she had convinced me to joinDiscover extra details by going following link http://Www.NetJob1.com
Earlier, Entropic man wrote –
“I should complain to Roy about the poor quality of the denialists commenting here.”
Or he could just threaten to hold his breath until he turns blue!
Who gives a black rodent’s rectum about what Entropic man thinks he should or should not do? Maybe his mother cares what he thinks – I certainly find his comment useful for a bit of light relief, as a demonstration of the desperation of cultists who have run out of facts, and not much more.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, much to the chagrin of delusional cultists like Entropic man, and his cohort of climate clowns!
Oh well, onwards and upwards, as they say.
” Who gives a black rodents rectum about what Entropic man thinks”
You do, or you wouldn’t be trying to discredit me with an ad hominem attack.
Note to any lurkers. I get a lot of this from various commenters. They can’t discredit my science, so they resort to insults.
Draw your own conclusions.
Your science? Is Greta your reference?
Lurkers, take note.
No falsification of the effect of increasing CO2 on global warming and climate change.
Just another insult.
Ed Berry has already falsified it. Then you went over to his site and insulted him.
Eman thinks we have to falsify his propaganda.
“Ed Berry”
Three papers of nonsense.
You were the person who proofread them and was deluded.
IIRC you were once a physical chemist, but you develop a bad case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome whenever you move beyond your own field.
Do you want to know what was nonsense? It was when you attempted to debate Berry. It was comical. You tried your little static bean counter approach. It was all Berry could do not to laugh at you. He was very nice to you but you decided to insult him. Typical.
Berry has falsified AGW in three different ways. He’s shown that carbon has short e-times or turnover times as IPCC likes to call them. He’s shown that IPCC’s carbon cycle model can’t be correct. Their numbers don’t make physical sense. And, he’s shown that humans could only have contributed from 16-30ppm of the 130ppm rise of CO2. He completely falsifies AGW.
Maybe you’d like to present Greta’s theory on warming? You and she must be pals.
He’s shown you can’t treat human and natural CO2 differently. You can only treat isotopes differently.
Berry fell into an old modeller’s trap. He created a model which behaved as he wanted it to. It bears very little resemblance to reality.
For example, it requires about 480PgC to move from the deep ocean to the atmosphere over the last sixty years against the partial pressure gradient at no energy cost.
This breaks all the laws of diffusion and is thermodynamically very suspect. When we pointed this out Berry threw Nate and I off his site, rather than provide a satisfactory explaination.
As his Grasshopper, perhaps you can explain how he resolved this problem.
“He’s shown you cant treat human and natural CO2 differently.”
Well, the biosphere makes no distinction WRT sinks. Anthro and natural CO2 is absorbed without preference.
“You can only treat isotopes differently.”
And this is one of the many ways we know that the rise of the last couple centuries atmos CO2 is almost entirely anthropogenic.
Precious little snowflake Ent whines: “Note to any lurkers. I get a lot of this from various commenters. They can’t discredit my science, so they resort to insults.”
Ent, you have NO science. All you’ve got are your cult beliefs. When you can’t use your cult beliefs, you just make stuff up, like your “passenger jets that fly backwards”.
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Lurkers,
Here’s an example of Entropic man’s objective science –
“I should complain to Roy about the poor quality of the denialists commenting here.”
How scientific is that?
[chortle]
> Who cares
I care for what EM thinks.
Just as a I care for you, Mike Flynn.
Tough love,
W
Willard,
And Mike Flynn is supposed to give a black rodent’s rectum about your “feelings” because . . . ?
[laughing]
Why should I care that you distance yourself from your master, silly sock puppet?
“The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, much to the chagrin of delusional cultists … ”
There is not one bit of chagrin over the fact that the average temperature of the ~6 e24 kg of the earth as a whole has dropped since 4.5 billion years ago. This is not disputed by any scientist I know.
But that fact is pretty much independent of temperature swings of the ~0.000005 e24 kg of atmosphere or ~0.000001 e24 kg in the top meter of land and ocean where ‘climate’ is important. That 1 ppm of the earth can and does swing up and down significantly, even while the other 999,999 ppm is cooling.
Folkerts, that’s more 0.000000492197 ppm funny from you.
Thanks.
Tim,
You wrote –
“That 1 ppm of the earth can and does swing up and down significantly, even while the other 999,999 ppm is cooling.”
Nonsensical, unless you want to invent new physical laws.
The surface of the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, even faster than the interior – basic physical laws at work.
Of course, there are localised and ephemeral heating effects due to human efforts – energy creation and use. The observed UHI effects are but one example.
As to the supposed GHE, this is just the delusional musings of nutters who refuse to accept reality. The surface of a cooling body does not magically “swing up and down”.
Your imagination is not reality. About as silly as other climate clowns claiming that measured temperatures should be something else, rather than what they are!
“The surface of the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so … ”
ONLY if you mean as a general trend! 4.5 billion years ago the surface was molten rock. Now is is solid rock and/or water. As a general trend, the surface has cooled over the past 4.5 billion years.
But 50,000 years the surface was colder and large swaths were covered with ice! As a general trend, the surface has WARMED over the past 50,000 years.
“The surface of a cooling body does not magically swing up and down.”
Whatever ‘basic laws of physics’ you think you understand about surface temperatures, they are clearly inadequate. The surface DOES swing up and down. You can see monthly, annual, and decadal swings in the very data at the of this page! This is not ‘magic’. It is the interplay of a complex set of factors (clouds, earth’s orbit, ocean currents, solar output, etc) that can and does cause swing. It is delusional to ignore these swings and delusional to image that only ‘magic’ can cause swings!
Tim,
You are confused. You claim that the surface was “colder” 50,000 years ago – based on speculation?
Given that nobody can accurately measure the temperature of the surface now (however you choose to define it), claiming that you know somehow that it was “warmer” before, is just a statement of your absolute cultist faith, rather than a statement of fact.
However, at least you appear to acknowledge that the surface has cooled since its creation, so thats a start. You also accept that this occurred in spite of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere for the last four and a half billion years or so.
But moving on. You insist that for some inexplicable reason, 50,000 years ago, the surface started to “warm”. Nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2, emissions, or any of the other claptrap so dear to climate cultists, obviously.
Maybe you can explain the source of the additional energy required to reverse four and a half billion years of cooling, and start raising the planet’s surface temperature, but I doubt it.
You dont even need to accept the operation of chaos theory to explain natural changes in surface heat distribution, even though overall cooling of the planet takes place – at a rate of about 48 TW. Richard Feynman simply used quantum electrodynamics (which involves use of the uncertainty principle) to arrive at precisely the same conclusion that chaos theory predicts – temperature fields, whether in the core, mantle, lithosphere aquasphere or atmosphere, cannot be predicted with any certainty.
Even the IPCC has reluctantly accepted the chaotic nature of the atmosphere, and then proceeded to continue to ignore reality.
No GHE. Even you reluctantly (I assume) admit that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, GHE or no. Nobody has managed to make anything hotter using CO2 to amplify or multiply heat from a heat source. All dreams and cultist fanaticism.
Swenson: “Given that nobody can accurately measure the temperature of the surface now (however you choose to define it), claiming that you know somehow that it was ‘warmer’ before, is just a statement of your absolute cultist faith, rather than a statement of fact.”
Also Swenson: “The surface of the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so”
entropic…”The basic IPCC message hasnt changed in thirty years. Human fossil fuel emissions are the cause, global warming is the effect and climate change is the consequences”.
***
I have look through IPCC review propaganda for evidence of that and I have found none. The main evidence given by the IPCC is…
1)Scientists in the 19th century said warming is related to CO2 emissions.
2)Since the pre-Industrial Era, CO2 has increased, and the world has warmed therefore it must be the CO2 causing the warming.
The IPCC has deliberately dismissed global cooling from the Little Ice Age. The pre-Industrial Era was in the middle of phase 2 of the LIA where global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. The LIA ended circa 1850 and the IPCC have said nothing about re-warming from it. Geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has claimed the IPCC erred by omitting such evidence.
There are written record of how cold it was during the LIA. Ice skating was invented in the Netherlands during the LIA. The Thames River froze over. The Northwest Passage was blocked by ice in summer. Proxy studies have revealed this was a global phenomenon.
It is not possible that Europe alone cooled so much that a glacier would expand incredibly while the rest of the Earth was unaffected. In the 1st IPCC review in 1990, they admitted to the LIA and the Medieval Warming Period, and since, both have disappeared from the IPCC record.
Sorry for all the parts, I was getting an Internal Server Error and could not identify what was causing it. I localized it to these sentences…
There is concrete scientific evidence that glaciers expanded enormously during the LIA.
next sentence…
The Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix, France, expanded in length and girth so much it wiped out farms and towns in it path.
last sentence…
N.o.w i.t i.s m.e.l.t.i.n.g a.n.d t.h.e I.P.C.C a.r.e b.l.a.m.i.n.g i.t o.n w.a.r.m.i.n.g f.r.o.m a trace gas.
don’t get it…when I rewrote the last sentence I could not add spaces between ‘a’ and ‘trace’, so I deleted the phrase and rewrote it with many spaces between words. Then the system posted it but with all the spaces gone.
These are the sentences I thought it might object to….
It is not possible that Europe alone cooled so much that a glacier would expand incredibly while the rest of the Earth was unaffected. In the 1st IPCC review in 1990, they admitted to the LIA and the Medieval Warming Period, and since, both have disappeared from the IPCC record.
The IPCC are either blatantly stupid or blatantly dishonest. I claim they are both.
The third option is that you are wrong. And this has some merit, you have just completely made up that the MWP and LIA disappeared from the IPCC after 1990.
The cooling primarily affected continents in the northern hemisphere, and it is clear that it was caused by a long-term circulation pattern in the North Pacific and Atlantic.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
“1)Scientists in the 19th century said warming is related to CO2 emissions.”
Why are you stuck in the 19th century? Scientific understanding has continued to improve (whether that is climate or greenhouse effect or thermodynamics or E&M).
Scientists in the 20th and 21st centuries have added vastly to the understanding of GHGs and there effects. Pretending there have been no scientific advances since 1899 just suggests you are WAY out of touch with science.
tim…”Why are you stuck in the 19th century?”
***
It’s not me stuck in the 19th century, it’s the IPCC and all climate alarmists.
How have scientists in the 20th and 21st century added to the understanding of GHGs? There is no new understanding of GHGs other than what Tyndall proved circa 1850. Modern climate alarmists have added a whole lot of innuendo and propaganda, not scientific fact.
It’s the other way around, modern scientists are proving the AGW/GHG theories are wrong.
Wrong Tim.
Most modern “climate science” has been a perversion of science. Consequently, you’ve even got cult idiots claiming that ice cubes can boil water.
That’s just one example. Want more?
Tim,
Let’s see, your side usually references Tyndall or Arrhenius. And, also Darwin, all 19th century.
‘
Don’t forget Plass (although he’s 2th century).
Often enough the reason for citing earlier work on AGW is in response to people claiming it’s a hoax started by the UN.
Gordon Robertson
“I have look through IPCC review propaganda for evidence of that and I have found none. ”
“There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. ”
John Heywood
I wonder if Heywood told that to Henry VIII or if you adhere to that guidance? Nah!
Henry VIII used to do to his political opponents what Democrats (leftists) do today. John Heywood was one of his court philosophers. Very appropriate.
Kill them all?
Wasn’t it the Republicans who wanted to lynch Mike Pence?
I guess McCarthy was the last Republican to try to use the power of government against his political opponents. Of course, he was fighting Marxism. Before McCarthy, it was Abraham Lincoln. He was also fighting Marxism. It wasn’t called Marxism back then though. They were called Confederates.
In other words, Entropic, you can’t explain how a trace gas causes catastrophic warming/climate change either. You can’t find any scientific evidence in IPCC reviews either.
I can explain it, but not to you.
You reject any evidence which disagrees with your delusions.
Research Morton’s Demon and confirmation bias.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton's_demon
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias
Why is La Nina making a comeback?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=08
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Because it is April NEXT YEAR before it is gone?
Likely because of phase changes in the AMO, PDO, etc. Could be a longer term situation.
Because Bindiclown predicted it wouldn’t
Carbon dioxide “has moved” to the southern hemisphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/08/12/1800Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular/loc=17.520,-17.120
https://i.ibb.co/G2CggFR/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
–Entropic man says:
August 13, 2022 at 3:36 AM
Gbaikie
Your last post mentioned ocean temperature thirteen time. Im interested to know where you got your data so that I can read them myself.–
Quoting myself:
“No one claimed our ocean has been colder than 3.5 C,”
Actually I have imagined and said at various times posting here a range Earth ocean could been within our current Ice Age [Late Cenozoic Ice Age]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
So, other than myself, no one I have read have said colder than “about” 3.5 C.
Though I have read a paper in which it discussed a slight lower of sea level and ocean temperature during little ice age- several years ago. And I probably bookmarked that paper, but that was couple hard drive ago, and don’t have it bookmarked, now.
That would probably still be somewhere on the internet.
So, when said mo one claimed our ocean has colder, I meant no one other than me, discusses it {that I aware of unaware unless it’s somewhere in some technical paper “somewhere”.
Next I said:
“,,,sea levels 4 to 9 meter higher, its claimed the oceans were 4 C or warmer.”
This said all over the place. Wiki:
“Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,[17][18] with Greenland contributing 0.6 to 3.5 m (2.0 to 11.5 ft),[19] thermal expansion and mountain glaciers contributing up to 1 m (3.3 ft),”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
The thermal expansion refers to ocean getting warmer.
But wiki is constantly being edited, and this edit it no longer mentions 4 C or warmer.
Again lot is discussed regarding what .5 C increase in ocean temperature causes in terms ocean expansion.
I quote Wiki, because it is easy. If IPCC were actually doing it’s job, it might also be easily quotable {as someone mention above who I quoted.
So, we will summarize. I am complaining “no one” talks about ocean temperature. And I am saying ocean temperature is the global climate.
And you want me, to point someone who mentioned it.
So gone over 2 of the 13 times I mentioned it my above post.
In terms of back story of this, I don’t think there has ever been a snowball Earth.
But I would say if there was a snowball earth the ocean temperature would “have to” be colder,
So I think Earth being in a Snowball global climate is a Myth, and one of reason it is a myth is “No one claimed our ocean has been colder than 3.5 C” unless I am included as “someone” or you think .1 to .2 colder in Little Ice Age counts as colder than about 3.5 C.
And wiki talks about snowball global climate, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth#Snowball_Earth
There is endless discussion regarding glaciers, and older stuff of runway effects of ice sheets.
And I think if Mars were covered completely in 100 meters of snow, Mars would be warmer.
And I have said, ocean warms and land cools.
And something new I will say, land with snow on it, cools less.
Though I agree that a large glacier with tend to grow that glacier- so I agree there is a runaway effect in that regard. But it’s not a runaway global cooling effect. Though in terms of amount of polar sea ice, it’s sort of like glacial on land. And sea ice is far more important than land glaciers, in terms global climate.
I just listened to Scott Adams which was fairly boring, but
I thought make a list of things, as not much is going on.
1] Mars covered with H2O snow would be a warmer Mars.
Despite Mars appearing very, very bright
2} Venus at Earth distance would be quite cold. And for
human beings worse than living in Russia, colder.
Russia average yearly average temperature is about -3 C
and quite possible for Russia to have air temperature above
30 C. And it’s perhaps possible that somewhere on Venus surface
there might have air temperature of 30 C. And it’s also possible
no where on Venus surface, it wouldn’t get as cold as anyplace in
Russia is gotten as cold. Or Venus air temperature might never get
-50 C or colder. But 15 C is cold air on Earth, and 15 C air on Venus would be colder air than 15 C air on Earth.
3] Mars is not very cold. In terms what is cold for humans who make houses and would have to wear spacesuits due to Mars low air pressure. Or the lack of pressure, would freeze dry anything would can be freeze dried which include a human with a spacesuit. Same goes
with Moon or Mercury due to their lack of pressure.
4] Earth average ocean temperature is Earth’s average temperature.
5] There is not any valid evidence that Earth has ever been in Snowball global climate, or ever become a Snowball global climate.
A Snowball climate is utter fantasy. Also Earth never been in Slushball global climate.
6] Must be something important I am forgetting. And I have not had enough coffee, yet.
Oh, without more coffee: 6] could be question, when has Earth every been, significantly colder than it is right now?
With significantly more coffee, I now think #6 is best
of the six points.
But it’s not very exact question.
For instance 1/2 the people might not think that the Little Ice
Age was probably the coldest period in last 5000 years. Or was not
significant cold, whereas others might say it was quite cold.
So, I need to be more exact.
When was Earth average ocean temperature was 3 C or cooler or when global air temperature was 4 C or colder.
Or it seems more 75% of the people would agree than if global air temperature was 4 C colder or 11 C or colder, Earth would count as being significantly colder.
Not only that, but it seems 75% of world population might vote for making Earth warmer, and if thought was possible they might have government pay as much as 30 trillion dollar to warm the planet, if they thought there was a good chance Earth could be warmed by at least 2 C within couple decades by governmental actions.
So, I think an ocean with average temperature of 3 C is significantly
colder. And other might think an global air temperature 4 C or colder was significantly colder. And they seem about the same to me.
Now a small amount people might think a 3 C ocean could cause a snowball global climate.
And I think that could be debatable point, or they might might a case for it.
And a lot people might claim global air temperature was much colder 4 C, and Earth was anywhere close to snowball global climate.
They might say average global surface air temperature was 8 C colder.
And if they do, when exactly was it, 8 C colder.
Or do they mean Antarctica was 8 C colder. And that is not global air temperature. In fact, I don’t know what Antarctica average temperature is right now. It seemed to me back in 20th century they saying it’s average temperature was a lot colder, more than 8 C colder than what I am hearing it is today. Also back in 20th century they say average global temperature was 15 C, now say it was 14 C.
So not saying Antarctica has warmed, saying it was not measured and still not measured.
BUT not having ice free polar sea ice in summer in Antarctica, would make Antarctica much colder than it is now. But it wouldn’t make much difference to anything, other than maybe to penguins.
Or nobody care enough to actually make an effort to measure it’s average temperature.
So, one has to first tell me what is Antarctica average temperature now, before even beginning your argument.
gb,
Nobody can measure the “temperature” of Antarctica.
Here’s a short quote from the European Space Agency which sums things up fairly well.
“However, although the surface of the ice sheet is cold, the temperature increases with depth primarily because of the basal geothermal heating from beneath Earths crust. In places, it is warm enough to melt the ice, which accounts for the presence of lakes and a vast hydrological network at the bedrock.”
Climate fools just deny scientific fact, discarding truth in favour of their bizarre imaginings.
Fossil evidence from below the ice sheet indicates abundant flora and fauna existed before Antarctica froze. Maybe the fiery breath of the CO2 powered Sky Dragon will melt the Antarctic ice sheet, but we will have ample warning in the form of great flocks of flying pigs, no doubt!
Politicians, journalists, and others of with a limited capacity for rational thought obviously believe in the mythical heating power of CO2, but experiment has yet to demonstrate this miracle. Fact will no doubt triumph over faith, but many will die or suffer abject misery due to the actions of those acolytes of the climate cult.
Good luck with getting any sensible answer about the temperature of anything at all from a climate clown
swenson…”Climate fools just deny scientific fact, discarding truth in favour of their bizarre imaginings”.
***
That corruption goes to straight to the top, to the IPCC and the parent organization, the UN. The IPCC began via political corruption, when UK PM Margaret Thatcher manipulated the dummies at the UN into believing coal emissions could produce global warming. She was trying unsuccessfully to deal with UK coal miners and wanted an excuse to shut them down.
The UN had its own agenda. By forming the IPCC, they saw their life-long agenda to create a world taxation forum through carbon taxes. The first co-chair of the IPCC was a Thatcher protege, John Houghton, and he was a climate modeler. Say no more, since their inception, the IPCC has been focused on climate modeling and that has led to much of the bs about catastrophic warming/climate change.
The IPCC has been corrupt since its inception and it’s parent, the UN, have been bungling nincompoops since they were formed. Unfortunately, the politicians who support them are just as bad. They send corrupt reviewers to IPCC reviews and the IPCC ensures they hear what they want to hear.
gb,
What’s your favorite coffee?
Well, I won’t drink decaffeinated coffee.
Lots. And strong enough coffee in the morning.
Not a fan various flavored coffee, but I like freshly
ground coffee. I add milk or 1/2 and 1/2 and sugar.
Bindidon is obviously under the influence of mind altering substances.
He wrote –
“My layman guess after reading a few papers is rather that increases of eruptions are due to excessive warming, . . . ”
Ah, the magical Sky Dragons! CO2 powered – provide so much heat, that volcanoes are forced to erupt here, there, and everywhere!
This begs the obvious question – how do CO2 powered Sky Dragons form hundreds of Antarctic volcanoes – some overlaid by thousands of meters of ice? Or undersea volcanoes, for that matter. Are Sky Dragons perhaps amphibian in nature?
Maybe Binny needs to think about his guess a wee bit more.
Binny is averse to thinking. It makes him uncomfortable and he lashes out with insults and ad homs. You can tell he has lost it when he uses the last name of posters.
Says this blog’s greatest insulting poster, who dares to name Newton’s translator Andrew Motte a ‘cheating SOB’ just because he was not able to correctly read (let alone understand) Newton’s original Latin text.
Robertson denies everything: viruses, Clausius’ work in 1887, Einstein, and even Moon’s pin about its polar axis.
And he is also the woeful defender of Fascist Putin…
Me, averse to thinking?
Robertson is so utterly dominated by his ego that he lacks the time to think.
binny…”Says this blogs greatest insulting poster, who dares to name Newtons translator Andrew Motte a cheating SOB just because he was not able to correctly read (let alone understand) Newtons original Latin text”.
***
Not my fault if Motte couldn’t read Latin. In his original Olde Latin, Isaac claimed the Moon has a linear momentum and its motion is curvilinear. That description makes it impossible for the Moon to rotate while keeping the same side pointed at the Earth. Had Isaac claimed what Motte claimed he said, he would have contradicted himself. Hence, I called Motte a cheating SOB.
Flynnson is so busy with denying what others write that he even doesn’t look at the comments he ‘read’s (quotation marks needed).
Where did I mention CO2?
Maybe Flynnson needs to learn how to read before writing.
In the hierarchy of this blog’s major dumbasses, Flynnson is at position… 3.
Binny,
So now you want people to believe that CO2 has nothing at all to do with “warming”?
That’s fine. You are starting to see the light.
I suppose you could lurch off into another paroxysm of denial, but it might not sound terribly convincing.
So please clarify – does CO2 have any connection with the “warming” supposedly causing eruptions, or are you just being stupid for no particular reason?
Carry on.
In the hierarchy of this blogs major dumbasses, Flynnson is slowly moving to position… 2.
With regard to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the modern 400 ppmv is being measured accurately, hopefully. However, the 270 ppmv claimed for the pre-Industrial levels were not measured accurately, rather they were estimated based on proxy studies pf CO2 allegedly trapped in ice cores.
Other proxy studies estimate that CO2 levels dropped as low as 180 ppvm during ice ages. It is known that colder oceans and other water sources absorb CO2 when they are colder. The pre-Industrial Era was during the Little Ice Age. If global CO2 levels can drop to 180 ppmv during a larger ice age then the Little Ice Age must have affected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by lowering them significantly.
Even at that, Jaworowski, with expertise in the field of ice cores, estimated that the 270 ppmv figure could have been 30% to 50% higher due to errors in the ice core proxy estimations. That would mean pre-Industrial levels between 351 ppmv and 405 ppmv.
The IPCC has been bent on ramming it down our throats that the pre-Industrial CO2 level was 270 ppmv. The truth is, they cherry-picked that number from a range of reading in Antarctica that ranged as high as 2000 ppmv. That’s how inaccurate the proxies are in ice cores re CO2 levels.
The main problem is that gas bubbles trapped in ice is under intense pressure as the ice build up. The pressure is so great, CO2 gas bubbles covert to solids called clathrates. When the cores are drilled out, the pressure reduces and the clathrates convert back to gas. Not only that, the drilling introduces water into the ice cores.
How do we know the conversion from gas to clathrate back to gas is accurate?
I’m partial to the 180 years of atmospheric CO2 by chemical methods.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/180CO2_summary.pdf
The Mauna Loa data is of better quality.
Ken
You are one of the intelligent skeptics. I would like you to logically think about the document you linked to “friendsofscience”…not so sure they are. Science does need evidence and uses logical and rational thought processes to find explanations for phenomena.
In you graph they show this tremendous increase in atmospheric CO2 in a few short years. The rise is from around 325 PPM to 425 (or more) and then a rapid decrease.
Consider this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Every PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to around 2 gigatons of CO2. A 100 PPM change would require an addition of 200 gigatons and then the quick removal. What would cause this? Friendsofscience should find this graph puzzling and in need of some real explanation rather than peddle it as valid.
You can also look at over 60 years of continuous monitoring and you never see anything resembling the spike in your link. I would highly suspect such information without some really good explanation as to why you have this massive increase and decrease in CO2.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth103/files/co2_data_mlo.png
I agree the data shown in the 180 years document has issues, probably because of the sites where measurements were taken are not subject to the same mixing as occurs with Mauna Loa data. It does, however, show the Keeling Curve prior to Mauna Loa is not exactly solid either.
Those peaks are evident if you look at the data presented real time at Earth NullSchool. I’m not sure what causes the localized peaks, if its forest fires or local industry, but the takeaway is they are site specific.
ken…the information at your link is based partly on the information collated by Beck. In one of the diagrams you can see a reference to Kreutz, who measured CO2 levels above 400 ppmv in the 1940s.
I am not arguing that good measurements were not made in the distant past, I am arguing only against the IPCC dogma that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were at 270 ppmv in the pre-Industrial Era.
From the same site, a link I stored many years ago. It seems to be the same basic document but it’s author is credited as Ernst Beck. Is it possible FoS have gone political on us due to the amount of flack aimed at Beck?
Beck is derided by alarmists as a school teacher. He never claimed to be anything else, what he did was collate hundreds of studies from legitimate scientists. That’s how pathetic alarmists can be, shooting the messenger.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
Some of the older sites have gone the way of dodo birds like Willard.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150315081627/http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
This is Ernst Beck’s former site. I have not looked but you might find interesting stuff under ‘Papers’.
Beck’s name is mentioned in the FoS doc just above. I predicted it would and checked.
Never mind his credentials. He incorporated measurements CO2 measurements taken in cities and at industrial sites.
It’s a simple task to recognize that his CO2 curve is flawed. It jumps around a bit right up until 1958, then the curve is smooth, with no annual jumps any more.
What happened in 1958? The Mauna Loa CO2 record began. When other sites (eg Antarctica) starting taking direct samples of atmospheric CO2, they also showed no annual jumps of 10 – 20ppm.
So we are left with two choices.
Either the Beck CO2 curve is severely contaminated
or
Something about the carbon cycle suddenly changed in 1958.
This is the CO2 clathrate phase diagram.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2HydrPhaseDiagram.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
Perhaps you could use it to explain your concern in more detail. Or were you Just Asking Questions?
entropic…re clathrates…something by Jaworowski…
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
“One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process.
After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of 15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars.
Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now”.
ps. Jaworowski’s claim is valid re water being introduced into the ice cores. It is common practice when drilling ice cores to inject water/steam into the drill head or to heat it using electrical means.
Jarowoski didn’t ever drill for CO2, nor use the kind of equipment or methods that they do. He assumed his own experience of drilling was what they did.
“The drill fluid used is normally a petroleum-derived liquid like kerosene.”
From https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
or
“Additionally, to lubricate the drilling process and fill the void left by our coring, we use an ester-based drilling fluid that makes our ice cuttings look a lot like shave-ice, or a pia colada (the drill fluid does not taste so good, but does smell of coconut).”
from https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-drilling/
You can learn a lot from your google
Just don’t assume you know what you are talking about.
The South Pole ice core reached 1751 metres.
https://spicecore.org//
How much of the core was affected by clathrates, to what extent and how big were the errors in measured CO2 concentration as a result?
Personally I don’t see a problem. We’re talking about 0.03% CO2.This will form a thin film of CO2 clathrate on the inside of the bubbles as the pressure increases and then returns to gas as the pressure decreases. There is no effect on the measured composition of the gas released from the bubbles during analysis of the ice core
Salby says the same thing. Gas mixing makes the ice core proxies inaccurate.
stephen…Jaworowski claimed there was a diverse range of CO2 concentrations in the ice cores drilled in Antarctica, some ranging as high as 2000 ppmv. It seems the IPCC chose a value that suited their AGW theory.
Gas mixing in the firn explains the CO2 kink Jankowski complained about in your link, and to which Selby presumably refers (link, please). It is a known effect and taken into account.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/01/14/the-co2-kink-firn-to-ice-transition/?amp=1
Ice cores aren’t the only CO2 proxy, and while there is considerable uncertainty due to the sparseness of coverage, multiproxy correlation is pretty good (coral, sediment, leaf stomata, ice cores etc).
Antarctica isnt even worth talking about, because range changes depend on currents in the Pacific, and the polar vortex is strong. The upcoming La Nia peak could be strong.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat6_t2anom_1-day.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC
Sorry.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202208.gif
Solar wind
speed: 480.1 km/sec
density: 6.84 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 116
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.59×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The estimated international sunspot number (EISN) is a daily value obtained by a simple average over available sunspot counts from prompt stations in the SILSO network.
Time range: current month.
Data description: Daily estimation of the Sunspot Number
https://i.ibb.co/pJw7rsg/EISNcurrent-1.png
Solar flux at 10.7 cm fits perfectly what gbaikie writes:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
SSN and Mg II of course do as well.
gb…”density: 6.84 protons/cm3″
***
The site at your link says 1.89 protons/cm^3 which is an obvious mistake. The solar wind is made up equally of electrons and positively charged particles, the latter being your protons.
More accurately, the solar wind density should be specified in particles/cm^3 since it not only is composed of electrons and protons, the nucleus of hydrogen, but particles of other elements.
Binny muttered something about 10.7 cms. Have no idea what he is talking about since once again, he has included no units on his homebrew graph.
The cms surely don’t refer to solar wavelengths since cms are far too long.
Sorry…omitted a link…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Ah…figured out Binny’s mutterings. the 10.7 cm reference is to a radio frequency buzz at 2.8 Ghz. That’s closer to the microwave range, not the solar spectrum of EM.
Ironically. the emissions were first detected by early radar systems which operated neat the 1 cm band. They are essentially microwave radiations, which according to an earlier alarmist post came from cold regions. Must be some cool spots in the Sun. [/sarc off].
> They are essentially microwave radiations, which according to an earlier alarmist post came from cold regions.
Yes Gordo, the cosmic *microwave* background has an effective temperature of 2.7 K, which is quite cold. But even very hot objects like the Sun still emit microwaves according to the Planck distribution, just at very low intensity compared to higher energy frequencies.
The surprising thing about the Sun at the time was that it emits more intensely in the microwave bands than its blackbody temperature would predict. But rather than throw Plank’s theory under the bus as you are doing, scientists attempted to understand what other mechanisms could be causing those unexpectedly strong emissions.
What they found is really quite fascinating. You should look into it instead of just scoffing at others in your ignorance.
— Gordon Robertson says:
August 15, 2022 at 10:38 PM
gbdensity: 6.84 protons/cm3″
***
The site at your link says 1.89 protons/cm^3 which is an obvious mistake. —
It changes {and changes within a daily update and when I happen to look at it]. The proton are whole numbers but they are probably averaging them.
Why do they go second decimal point? {god knows- maybe they got too precise of instruments which are costing too much, which could result in stupid.] 6.84 means to me, 7 per cubic cm
Maybe counting per cubic meter, and it’s 6.84 million per m^3.
Maybe, it’s 6,839,102 which was rounded up.
But 7 is good enough for me.
There’s another problem GB. The Sun is mainly hydrogen and when stripped of it’s sole electron it leaves one proton. Some scientists incorrectly refer to that proton as an atom. However, a hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron.
I think the site is making an error by referring only to proton density.
There are considered to be four states of matter.
Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
Anything really hot is plasma [unless under a lot pressure].
Plasma can also be cold.
Anyhow, sun surface is very hot, and any iron [or tungsten or whatever] that is there is plasma at that temperature.
One could say anything not involving theory or what you can see regarding the sun is in a Plasma state.
And solar wind is plasma. There is atomic oxygen in upper atmosphere- plasma.
–Ionosphere – The ionosphere is a layer of plasma formed by the ionization of atomic oxygen and nitrogen by highly energetic ultraviolet and x-ray solar radiation. The Ionosphere extends from the middle of the mesosphere up to the magnetosphere–
And fluorescent tubes- plasma
Solar wind
speed: 483.7 km/sec
density: 10.85 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 119
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.36×10^10 W Neutral
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.9% Elevated
It seems to me a given Neutron Counts
have to go down.
We will see
More spots, and spots leaving.
Maybe new one which appeared will grow.
Solar wind
speed: 587.4 km/sec
density: 9.16 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 83
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.46×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
That new spot didn’t grow.
Solar wind
speed: 564.6 km/sec
density: 8.53 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 56
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.52×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.7% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.8%
Solar wind
speed: 477.7 km/sec
density: 6.16 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 44
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.49×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.0% Below Average
https://www.spaceweather.com/
–FAST-GROWING SUNSPOT: Two days ago sunspot AR3085 barely existed. Since then it has grown more than 10-fold, turning itself into a double sunspot group with cores nearly as wide as Earth.–
That was one I thought would grow but it took awhile to do it.
There other small ones on edge whichturning towards us [which might grow bigger- or not]. No spotless likely soon.
Index Nino 3.4 down sharply.
https://i.ibb.co/FnxvTBz/nino34.png
To be defensible, does that imply causal mechanism? Like what is meant by ENSO specifically. Are we talking about enhanced algae sequestration during La Nina, or less fire. Or how does it work?
Aaron…you’ll get better answers from others but here’s my two-bits worth.
ENSO is yet another ocean oscillation, meaning there are flows of water and subsequent flow of air in the atmosphere related to unknown sources. The ENSO effect takes place between the western side of South America and the eastern side of Australia, roughly. One side has colder water than the other, depending on whether it is a La Nina or an El Nino, and that sets up ocean currents that affect the atmosphere right up to the jet stream.
Upsetting the jet stream produces circulation issues that lead to unstable weather patterns globally.
https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/ENSO/ENSO_Info.html
Apparently, ENSO does not act on its own, it works in conjunction with other ocean oscillations like the PDO and AMO, Some claim at least one of the ENSO oscillations is controlled by the PDO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which was not discovered till the 1990s. It’s effect was noted in 1977 when global temps rose by 0.2C for no apparent reason. That has given rise to the theory that all current warming is related to these ocean oscillations.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
One must consider what is primary. It seems that in winter in the southern hemisphere, the stratospheric polar vortex affects the increase in jetstream velocity. In winter, the circulation in the polar vortex moves to 500 hPa, i.e., to about 5.5 km above the surface. The strength of the solar wind affects the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex.
The easterly circulation in the equatorial Pacific intensifies during the rising period of the solar cycle, and decreases after solar maximum, when the strength of the polar vortex decreases.
The Central Pacific is also seeing a sharp drop in surface temperatures. The solar wind has intensified in recent times.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
Ireneusz, as you study oceans temps, do you have any theory as to why the North Pacific is always anomalously warm?
The area Is approximately between the Bering Strait and Hawaii. I’ve been watching it for years, and it never changes. It’s always “anomalously warm”. Indian Ocean, ENSO waters, and Atlantic all go through cycles, but the “warm blob” always remains. Why?
And as it’s anomalies, doesn’t the base period change over time?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Note that solar cycles are weak. Now look at the circulation during the Maunder Minimum. At that time, a patch of positive anomaly persisted in the North Pacific, but this anomaly is causing the jetstream to descend over North America. Positive anomalies in the North Pacific and Atlantic represent a drop in winter temperatures over North America and Europe.
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7122/maunder_minimum_temperature.gif
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
That’s interesting.
I’ve noticed the ongoing positive anomaly for many years, and the link you provided shows approximately the same anomaly for many decades, even in a cool period.
Is there any explanation for this, or do we just chalk it up to more inconsistencies in the climate nonsense?
In my opinion, the solar magnetic field affects the circulation in the north. When the solar wind weakens, the distribution of the Earth’s magnetic field has a greater effect on the circulation in the north. The magnetic field in the north has two centers between which the north pole moves.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Note the heat spot above Svalbard in the graphic from the time of the Maunder Minimum. Does that tell you something?
A weakening of the magnetic field over North America may herald cold winters in the US.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Yeah, I see what you mean. The magnetic “hot spot” over Svalbard is nowhere close to the area mentioned between Bering Strait and Hawaii. And, if they’re trying to imply “heating” by a magnetic field, they’re off by several magnitudes. They need to be talking “Teslas”, not “Gauss”.
An area that is always warmer than some fixed value means that “always warmer” is “normal” for that area. So I guess we’ll have to leave the North Pacific “warm blob” as just another climate inconsistency.
“And as it’s anomalies, doesn’t the base period change over time?”
No, you might be thinking of the changing baseline for ENSO anomalies, done to isolate ENSO variability from any other influence.
UAH and a couple of other time series data sometimes/periodically change their baseline, but most don’t. Tropicaltidbits doesn’t.
Yeah, it’s just another climate inconsistency.
Move along.
entropic…” You reject any evidence which disagrees with your delusions.
Research Mortons Demon and confirmation bias”.
***
Now you are offering me links on confirmation bias while refusing to supply scientific evidence that a trace gas like CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
I even gave you hints from your authority figure, the IPCC.
1)Scientists in the 19th century claimed CO2 COULD warm the atmosphere.
2)Since the pre-Industrial Era, CO2 has increased and it has warmed, ergo, CO2 is causing the warming.
That’s it…all the evidence from the IPCC that CO2 is causing warming. Of course, the IPCC failed to see that the pre-Industrial Era was during the Little Ice Age, when global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. They get around that by claiming the LIA did not happen, even though they acknowledged it in the 1990 review.
Either the IPCC are blatantly stupid or they are blatantly corrupt. And you support them without any scientific evidence of your own that CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
What has the IPCC got to do with it?
The modern study of AGW began with Guy Callender’s essays in 1939 and Keeling’s measurements of CO2 during the International Geophysical Year 1957-1959. The IGY showed how little we really knew about how the planetary climate worked and kick-started serious studies.
The 1970s speculation about an impending glacial period and nuclear winter got governments interested and research funding for climate increased.
In 1988 James Hansen’s testimony to Congress publicised the cause and effect link between human emissions and global warming.
That triggered the formation of the IPCC the same year to brief policy makers on the current state of climate research.
AGW was sound science before the IPCC existed.
Ent, AGW was NEVER “sound science”. It is based on unscientific beliefs that have now grown into a cult. Like you, cult members remain ignorant of radiative physics and thermodynamics. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
You only fool your other cult idiots.
Neither Callendar nor Keeling proved a scientific correlation between rising CO2 levels and global warming. No one has proved such a correlation.
That’s mainly my argument against the theory, it has never been proved. Meantime, alarmists proposing this theory completely ignore the obvious. The world was much cooler for over 400 years till 1850 due to the Little Ice Age. It is perfectly natural to expect a re-warming following such a mini ice age.
Bullshit Gordon
You have a time series for temperature, and you have a time series for CO2.
Therefore you have a correlation, a proven fact.
It could be negative, but it’s not.
” Beck is derided by alarmists as a school teacher. He never claimed to be anything else, what he did was collate hundreds of studies from legitimate scientists. Thats how pathetic alarmists can be, shooting the messenger. ”
I keep being derided by denialists as a school teacher. Why is it so often assumed that science teachers lack scientific credibility?
And why do denialists keep shooting messengers such as Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callender, Keeling, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Mann, Trenberth Shepherd, Edwards and the IPCC?
Incidentally, do you have any direct experience of measuring CO2?
The Pettenkofer method was a lab practical in my university course. Worked for large (1%+) CO2 concentrations, but for atmospheric samples the accuracy was too low to give meaningful data.
Tried measuring CO2 with classes at school by titration and volumetric methods. The tests worked for exhaled air (4% CO2) but atmospheric CO2 was below the detection threshold of the apparatus available.
Do not underestimate the problem of measuring atmospheric CO2 using basic chemical techniques. It is bloody difficult and I’m not surprised that Beck found so much variability.
If Dr. Spencer’s work on CO2 holds, it will be more failure for the cult nonsense. The cult has been obsessed with increasing CO2 levels, but Spencer’s work leans more to “it’s all natural” — as temperatures go up, CO2 increases, as temperatures go down, CO2 decreases.
The cult interprets increasing CO2 as “proof” of AGW. That’s like measuring spoons and claiming bigger spoons cause more obesity.
That ain’t science.
” as temperatures go up, CO2 increases, as temperatures go down, CO2 decreases. ”
Yes. The prime examples are glacial/interglacial cycles.
You can equally say
” as CO2 goes up, temperature increases; as CO2 goes down, temperature decreases. ”
Examples include the Permian extinction, the PETM, snowball Earths and AGW.
The key point is that CO2 and temperatures a feedback loop. Change one and you change the other.
For some reason the consensus accept both, but the sceptics only accept the first. Can’t think why.
It’s called “science”, Ent.
As oceans warm, outgassing increases. As oceans cool, in-gassing increases.
Higher ocean temperatures mean more CO2 added to the atmosphere. But, more CO2 in the atmosphere cannot raise ocean temperatures. The process is NOT a feedback loop.
Nice try to pervert physics, though. What will you try next?
Eman doesn’t seem to see the flaw in the latter. If the latter were true, we wouldn’t be here.
The current energy imbalance is ~1.1W/m^2 net uptake of energy by the atmosphere, surface and ocean. That is 5.4 zettajoules/year.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/figure_1_v2.gif
Of that, 5.0 zettajoules/year enters the ocean and increases ocean heat content.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-heat/
If you KNOW that the cause is not CO2 please explain the two physical mechanisms which
1) cause the imbalance.
2) causes 93% of the incoming energy due to the imbalance to be absorbed by the oceans.
Ent, there is NO imbalance. You can’t understand that because you don’t understand physics. Flux does NOT balance. Any ENERGY imbalances are quickly resolved.
Don’t feel bad, you’re not the only one being duped. Just try to quit doing your own duping. That doesn’t help.
Why don’t you show us your evidence that 0.04% of the atmosphere causes an energy “imbalance?”
Stephen,
It’s the change with time that causes the imbalance, not the actual concentration.
EM,
I assume you are not going to say that the reason the Earth’s surface cooled from the molten state to its present temperature is due to decreasing CO2?
That would be stupid, even for you!
Next you will be insisting that the heat generated by burning fossil fuels is really due to the CO2 and H2O that the burning produces!
The Earth has cooled, you nitwit!
The hottest surface temperatures on Earth occur in arid deserts – characterised by a severe lack of that supposedly most influential greenhouse gas H2O! So much for the mythical greenhouse effect!
You can’t even provide a useful definition of the greenhouse effect, can you? You might be better off wandering the streets wearing a sandwich board proclaiming “DOOM! DOOM! The end is nigh! Repent! Repent!”
Give it a try.
“If Dr. Spencers work on CO2 holds”
Dr Spencer holds that AGW is real, and that more CO2 will cause warming.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
I think it’s generally accepted that the principle issue with Ernst Beck’s historic CO2 measurements was contamination from local effects rather than the sensitivity of his test procedure.
Ferdinand Engelbeen has a nice essay on Beck’s measurements here.
Exactly, Mark B.
Engelbeen is probably the person with the highest amount of knowledge about CO2.
I recall Engelbeen’s and Eschenbach’s plaidoyers about GHE on WUWT around 2011.
Once again, Beck made no ‘historic’ CO2 measurements. He simply collated studies from qualified scientists who made the measurements.
One of the scientists was Kreutz and he was a chemist who took over 25,000 measurements of CO2 using modern methods for the time. His instruments would have been good enough to be effective today. He measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Germany of over 400 ppmv in the 1940s.
As Mark B says, the problem with Beck’s data is that it is heavily influenced by local CO2 emissions.
Look at Figure 10 of Beck’s paper.
It shows the effect of wind direction and exposure to local emissions in Lodge in the 1880s.
The minimum is 305ppm and the maximum 360ppm.
From that you can infer that the uncontaminated figure was below 305 ppm.
Also, satellite data on soil drying only looks at first 2in of topsoil, does not tell us whats really going on below and in plants.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL092856
entropic…”And why do denialists keep shooting messengers such as Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callender, Keeling, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Mann, Trenberth Shepherd, Edwards and the IPCC?”
***
I am not a denialist, I have never denied the globe has warmed since 1850. If you are claiming I am denying CO2 caused the warming, that is hardly denial since the premise has never been proved.
I have never shot Tyndall as the messenger, in fact, I applauded him for his experiment that proved gases like CO2 can absorb infrared energy. Tyndall also ran a good experiment that lead to the Stefan-Boltzmann work. I think his views on heat can be wild and I prefer the work of Clausius in that area.
I have never taken shots at Arrhenius as a scientist, I have simply questioned his desire to link atmospheric warming to carbonic acid. When he claimed that, it was only a hypothesis and it has not moved beyond that stage.
I don’t know much about Callendar and Keeling other than they have never proved that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
I have taken shots at Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Jones and Trenberth, and for good reason. Let’s start with Hansen. He is a blatant alarmist who has participated in political causes related to climate alarm. Although he has a degree in physics, he worked in the field of astronomy, where he became enamoured with the theory of Carl Sagan, that the atmosphere of Venus was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. Hansen tried to establish that theory in relation to the trace gas CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
It has since been discovered that is not the case. The surface temperature of Venus was measured at about 450C by a space probe and astronomer Andrew Ingersoll conceded that condition would contradict the 2nd law if a runaway greenhouse was the cause. In other words, a cooler atmosphere would be transferring heat to a much hotter surface.
The cause of such a hotter surface is likely more related to this blog’s Swenson’s Law, that severe geothermal activity has warmed the planet. That, coupled with the fact that Venus is much closer to the Sun is the likely cause of such a hot surface.
Hansen has allowed his pseudo-science to affect his objectivity, and as former leader of NASA GISS, he has mislead the US public regarding global warming/climate change. He was arrested with film star, Daryl Hannah, protesting a pipeline.
His protege, Gavin Schmidt is no better. He’s an arrogant buffoon, who spreads alarmist pseudo-science at his site, co-owned by Michael Mann. Birds of a feather….
Schmidt has participated in fudging the GISS temperature record, with Hansen, and following the latter’s tenure. His partner, Mann, participated in fudging a proxy study that mislead people into thinking the 1990s were unprecedented for warming. Mann was caught in the Climategate email scandal interfering with peer review and admitting to ‘the trick’, that hid declining temperatures in his proxy data as real temperatures increased.
Trenberth is marginally better in certain ways but he can be a scumbag too. He berated a journal editor to the point the editor resigned. It was over the publishing of a paper by a skeptic and Trenberth did not think it should have been published.
Trenberth, with his partner Kiehle, is responsible for the nonsense in the Earth’s energy budget. His work shows more EM (IR) being returned, as energy, from the atmosphere, as what is radiated by the surface. Sheer nonsense. Obviously, Trenebrth/Kiehle do not understand the 2nd law.
Trenberth and his partner at IPCC reviews, Phil Jones, were both Coordinating Lead Authors. Jones bragged in Climategate that he and Kevin would use their powers (presumably as CLAs) to ensure a skeptic’s paper did not reach the review stage.
That is downright cheating and I don’t think it’s out of line to call out cheaters.
What I don’t get is why you and other alarmist support these scumbags.
I have never herd of Shepherd or Edwards, but the IPCC and it’s chicanery speaks for itself. They are the Mother of All Scumbags. I have said enough about them in the past.
Gordon Robertson
Can you attempt to get the correct understanding of the GHE?
In your post: “Andrew Ingersoll conceded that condition would contradict the 2nd law if a runaway greenhouse was the cause. In other words, a cooler atmosphere would be transferring heat to a much hotter surface.”
That is not the claim of the GHE. The correct claim is GHG present in the atmosphere reduce the amount of heat that goes from the surface to space (it is totally verified with actual measured values that you choose not to accept). This allows the solar input to drive the surface to a temperature where the surface heat loss matches the solar input then you have a steady state conditon.
Here again. Try to understand the reality of science rather than just mindlessly rejecting it.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62fcd7afdb44b.png
The green trend is the amount of radiant heat lost by the surface in a 24 hour period. This is science proof of GHE. People like Joe Postma and Clint R are far too stupid or stuck in some cult mind loop to ever be able to understand what is before them. You might be of the same mental type, denying facts to cling to your beliefs. I hope you are not but you seem to be there. At least try try to grasp this factual information.
Hi Norman.
Your definition of the GHE is the “insulation” one. That’s actually science, as long as you don’t twist/spin/distort it into something it’s not. CO2 is NOT an insulator, as it emits energy to space. 99% of the atmosphere does act as an insulator. Or else we wouldn’t be here….
Norman,
In a typical cultist attempt at misdirection and obfuscation, you wrote –
“The correct claim is GHG present in the atmosphere reduce the amount of heat that goes from the surface to space.”
First, the atmosphere does not reduce the amount of heat that goes to space. Even a retarded wombat is aware that temperatures fall at night, as all (every bit) of the heat received from the sun during the day is radiated away. Baron Fourier correctly stated this a couple of hundred years ago.
Oh, and of course the entire Earth has cooled substantially over the past four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding the enormous amounts of radiogenic heat generated internally!
You really mean that an insulator reduces the rate at which heat escapes to space, which is true. Nothing new there.
Second, insulators work in both directions, equally. A vacuum flask (an exceptionally good insulator) does not know or care whether its contents are hot or cold. It acts to reduce the rate of which heat moves from hot to cold, regardless of direction.
Just like the atmosphere, as clever people like Professor John Tyndall pointed out, also a couple of hundred years ago.
You need to take advice from your nearest retarded wombat. He is more attuned to reality than you!
Carry on,
norman…”That is not the claim of the GHE. The correct claim is GHG present in the atmosphere reduce the amount of heat that goes from the surface to space (it is totally verified with actual measured values that you choose not to accept). This allows the solar input to drive the surface to a temperature where the surface heat loss matches the solar input then you have a steady state conditon”.
***
Norman, if you understood the nature of heat you’d discard that propaganda immediately. Heat is the energy of atoms referred to as kinetic energy. The energy is referred to as kinetic because it is moving but the name of the energy is heat.
That means heat needs atoms/mass to exist. Air can conduct heat but the molecules are so far apart the conduction is totally insignificant.
Air can move heat via convection but that represents a mass of air molecules moving and taking their heat with them. There is not the slightest chance that CO2 at 0.04% can trap that heat, although glass in a real greenhouse can trap it.
You are talking about radiation, an entirely different mechanism. Radiation cannot transfer heat from point A to point B nor can it affect the rate at which heat is dissipated. The rate of cooling is represented by Newton’s Law of Cooling and that means the entire atmosphere’s temperature at the surface affects the rate of surface cooling. CO2 at 0.04% would have negligible effect while N2/)2 at 99% would control the rate of dissipation.
I know that explanation is not intuitive but if you understand heat it makes perfect sense.
You have claimed that CO2 can affect the amount of heat from the surface to space but that is scientifically impossible since heat from the surface does not move from the surface to space.
Wrt the surface, heat is a property of the atoms/molecules of the surface. There are only two ways that heat can be dissipated: one is by conducting it to air molecules touching the surface, the other is to emit IR and cooling in the conversion.
CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with that process. When electrons in surface atoms emit IR, they lose energy as IR and that loss of energy is a loss of thermal energy, aka heat. The emitted IR contains no heat, although it can be converted back to heat locally by electrons in a cooler mass.
Therefore, if CO2 absorbs that IR, it is after the surface has already lost the heat. Ergo, absorbing the IR has no effect on surface dissipation since it has already cooled. Something else affects the rate of cooling at the surface.
Once that IR leaves atoms on the surface it no longer represents heat. IR contains no heat, it is an entirely different form of energy made up of an electric and magnetic field.
You mentioned Joe Postma. He has it right, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. There is no greenhouse effect related to GHGs.
Any such effect that produces warming was described better by R. W. Wood. He was a world renowned expert on gases like CO2 and he did not think CO2 could produce the warming claimed for it in the atmosphere. Wood thought a better explanation for the warming is that air gathers heat from the surface via conduction and because the majority gases in air, N2/O2, at 99%, cannot dissipate the heat via radiation, they hold the heat in the air as it rises.
That’s a far better explanation than a trace gas being credited with catastrophic warming/climate change. It makes far more sense that gases making up 99% of the atmosphere cause the heating.
Gordon Robertson
First, you complain about appeal to authority but you use it all the time. You reject data and blindly accept the opinion of authority…that would be woods in this case. The point is the surface loses energy with emission but gains some back from the atmospheric emission. The surface cools much slower do to the atmospheric emission. Roy did a post on this you should read it. You do not understand GHE and never will.
Norman,
Reduction in the rate of cooling is NOT heating, no how many illusory semantic tricks you try.
You seem to forget that the atmosphere also reduces the rate and amount of heating, otherwise we would all die from the resulting 127 C or so maximum temperature due to direct sunlight – as occurs on the Moon.
Still no GHE. Pretending that insulation is really due to the GHE is just stupid, isn’t it?
Time for you to try again. This time, remember that insulation is inert, provides no heat, and merely impedes the transfer of heat – from hot to cold, of course. Maybe you should invent one-way insulation, and call it a GHE!
Good luck with that.
Now you’re switching definitions of the GHE, Norman.
The point is the surface loses energy with emission but gains some back from the atmospheric emission.
Upthread, you claimed the atmosphere acted as insulation. That’s correct. But it does NOT add energy to Earth’s surface!
Think of a simple blanket. The blanket is NOT a heater. It does NOT supply new energy to your body. The heat transfer is from your body to the blanket to the room. It’s the same with Earth. The heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere to space.
Why any one should listen to you is beyond comprehension.
“But it does NOT add energy to Earths surface!”
But it holds energy in, what happens next, genius?
The excess energy is emitted to space by radiative gases.
Swenson and Clint R
I am not disagreeing with either of you on the role of insulation.
It is quite correct that it does not add heat to the hotter surface.
Yet both of you can do easy experiments yourself (not very expensive). Get a digital thermometer (high range). Turn on an incandescent light bulb and measure the glass surface in ambient air conditions. Now only make one change. Wrap insulation around the light bulb and see if the temperature goes up. The insulation is not adding heat to the bulb surface but it is impeding the rate of energy loss and the glass will increase in temperature.
If you lower heat loss from a heated surface it will increase in temperture.
Sorry Norman, but you’re exploiting the simple analogy of a blanket. A blanket is useful for demonstrating both the heat transfer from Earth to space, as well as the lapse rate being the temperature gradient through the atmosphere.
But, the simple blanket analogy fails to demonstrate the dramatic ability of Earth’s systems to cool. In your analogy of insulation around a light bulb, you would need windows in the insulation that would open as the bulb got too hot. That’s what Earth’s systems do.
And, guess what one of those cooling systems is — radiative gases!
Clint R
It seems you ignore that the Earth surface would radiate more energy to space. As it stands the Earth surface only radiates a small percent of its total directly to space, the rest is absorbed. Some of this is radiated to space and yet some back to the surface. The atmosphere considerably lowers the amount of energy the surface directly radiates to space. The atmosphere does act as a low level insulator. The GHE works because the atmosphere lets most visible light through to reach the surface but it limits the amount of energy the surface will emit directly to space.
Think, use logic. It will come to you if you put an effort into it.
A suggestion: Save your writing overnight and read it again in the morning before posting. If it doesn’t make any sense or seems overly verbose then you will start to get the sentiments of we the readers who are skipping over your basically incoherent and vacuous maunderings.
Not interested in your suggestions, Ken, or in your bloated opinion that you represent the readers on this blog. Even if you hold that lofty position, I’m still not interested.
Suggestion: Try being your own man. Be a real Canadian and not one of those wannabee Canadians who go along to get along. Also, a real Canadian who has the ability to read more than a few sentences before becoming bored and frustrated, due to a lack of comprehension.
entropic…” In 1988 James Hansens testimony to Congress publicised the cause and effect link between human emissions and global warming.
That triggered the formation of the IPCC the same year to brief policy makers on the current state of climate research.
AGW was sound science before the IPCC existed”.
***
The origin of the IPCC is seriously murky. It is acknowledged by many sources that it began in 1988 but no one can say why or by whom. Certainly, John Houghton was involved and he became the first co-chair. Thatcher supported him financially and encouraged him.
I am beginning to smell a rat. I would not doubt behind-the-scenes chicanery at an international level involving eco-alarmists and their stooges in government.
Hansen made his speech to the US Congress in June 1988 but there is evidence that Thatcher and her advisor Crispin Tickell had an influence related to the IPCC before that date. Tickell had been advising her for some time before 1998. I had read that he talked her into giving a speech at the UN that led to the formation of the IPCC.
I have the evidence somewhere but I am having trouble locating it. Till I do, will shut up about Thatcher and the IPCC.
The point is that Hansen’s prediction in that era proved terribly wrong within 10 years and Hanzen retracted his predictions. Ironically, he blamed his computer for an error that mislead him. That illustrates the stupidity of alarmists, they think computers plot against them.
None of the sources you mention have scientifically proved a correlation between CO2 and global warming. I am still awaiting your scientific proof that CO2 can cause that kind of warming. You call it sound science and I claim it is nothing more than consensus based on flimsy speculation.
Since 1998, the trend has been mainly flat, and if CO2 is increasing linearly, and causing warming, there would have been no flat trends of that length.
“Since 1998, the trend has been mainly flat, ”
That turns out not to be the case.
The OLS trend for UAHV.6 shows an increase of slightly under 0.3C in 24 years or 0.125C/decade.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:1998/to:2023/every/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2023/every/trend
Not much different from the 0.13C/decade Dr Spencer quotes from 1979 to the present.
” … or 0.125C/decade ”
Sorry, but you should click on the ‘Raw data’ field before writing.
There you see
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0108584 per year
Of course, 0.11 C / decade are a lot more than Robertson’s nonsense, but.
Thanks, I didn’t know about that function.
0.11 C/decade is 1.1 C per century, which is 11 C per millennium.
Oh no! The seas will be boiled away in a few thousand years!
Panic! Run for the hills!
Oh wait, too late! We’ve all been boiled, fried, roasted and toasted already!
Good thing that only idiots believe that the future can be divined from examination of the past.
Not interested in you amateurish wood-for-trees manipulations. My sources are the IPCC and UAH.
There was a step-change in 1993-94 then it remained flat for about 9 years. Then there was another step-change in 2012-2013 and has remained flat since. Those step-changes do not correlate with CO2. Logic would suggest they are nonsystematic.
Sorry, after 1993-1994 it remained flat for 19 years.
stephen…take a look at this contradiction between IPCC reports from AR5.
See page 4 of 96, P.162 overall.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to +0.15] C per decade”.
If you go back to the Final Draft in 2013, on Page 6 0f 165, in the same section under temperature, it states….
“Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including ****the warming hiatus**** [0.05 to +0.15] per decade)….”
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
I added the *** around ****warming hiatus*** to emphasize what a load of cheating SOBs run the IPCC. Somewhere between 2013 and now, the IPCC has secretly amended the AR5 review report to exclude the reference to hiatus.
One definition of hiatus is ‘a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process’. It is even called ‘the pause’ by diehard alarmists.
Note in the first link there is a reference to an upload in 2017. Someone has amended the report and uploaded it.
The point to note is that even the IPCC admitted insignificant warming between 1998 and 2012 even though they are busily trying to hide their admission.
A quick visual scan of the UAH graph above from 1998 – 2015 shows a flat trend. That’s 18 years with no warming. After the 2016 EN, another visual scan shows a flat trend.
Use the red running average curve as an averaging aid.
“A quick visual scan of the UAH graph ”
And you call me amateurish!
If there is no trend you should be able to show it mathematically.
“Somewhere between 2013 and now, the IPCC has secretly amended the AR5 review report to exclude the reference to hiatus.”
The word was not in that Chapter (2 – Observations) in the October 2012 draft, nor the final, published document. The word hiatus appeared in the penultimate draft. It was possibly removed to make the language match the Summary for Policymakers. In the doc Gordon supplied it appeared in and out of quotes, so they were probably quibbling over its usage and elected to cut it to be more technical (hiatus was a popular term, not a scientific one).
You can still find the word ‘hiatus’ in the Technical Summary.
“And because they are rising simultaneously, that is scientific proof that one causes the other?
Dont know where you studied science but where I studied it correlation is not causation. ”
Where I studied science correlation is a useful clue.
Correlation is not in itself proof of causation. However where you find correlation and look for a linking mechanism you often find causation.
As with the two way feedback relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.
Compare the UAH data to Mauna Loa data. Its not exactly ‘correlation’. Never mind ‘causation’.
It isn’t correlation either.
Jordan Peterson discusses climate change policy.
Article: Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–QS_UyW2SY
I have been watching a fair amount of Peterson lately. For those not familiar with him, he’s a Canadian psychologist who has interesting takes on the propaganda behind climate change.
He has predictably libertarian views. Intelligent guy, but I think he’s a bit in love with his world view.
I like what he has to say about recent gender issues.
bob d…”You have a time series for temperature, and you have a time series for CO2″.
***
And because they are rising simultaneously, that is scientific proof that one causes the other????
Don’t know where you studied science but where I studied it correlation is not causation.
Had there been no Little Ice Age, at its coldest point during the pre-Industrial Era, I might have been more inclined to consider your correlation. Anyone with half a brain knows that things warm up after an ice age and that obvious fact has been completely disregarded by the IPCC and climate alarmists.
Glaciers grow during ice ages and they recede in warmer periods. We know why they grew, an ice age, however, alarmists cannot see the logic that they are receding because the ice age ended.
Gordon,
bobdroege is an immature cultist fool.
He is stupid enough to believe that the heat from a fire is due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the vicinity of the fire. After all, the correlation is perfect – one hundred percent! CO2 concentration rises, accompanied by increased heat!
Brain dead donkeys would claim that CO2 causes increased temperatures, I suppose.
bobdroege cerainly seems to believe so.
Bob’s a bit of a wingnut, that’s for sure. I am convinced he’s a janitor at a nuclear plant and he gets his physics from eavesdropping on real physicists.
I already posted where I learned my physics, at the University of Illinois and the US Navy.
Braindead bob is always claiming he’s knowledgeable about physics, but he never gets things right. He couldn’t answer ANY of the physics problems I presented. He couldn’t even understand the solution to the simple vectors problem.
He’s all bluster but no substance. That’s why when he gets exposed, he has to resort to his juvenile profanities.
Says the guy who never took any formal physics courses.
I know that because Clint R has demonstrated that he doesn’t know the first thing about adding vectors.
Clint R doesn’t understand why his problem are incorrectly presented and why his solutions are wrong.
And you still have all the green plate blue plate problems solved incorrectly.
I can’t help you but maybe your local community college can.
That’s the “bluster but no substance” I’m talking about, bob. Thanks.
But, you left out your usual juvenile profanities.
Clint R,
I have to concede that you are the expert in “all bluster and no substance.”
Here is a quiz for you: What are the first two things you have to check before you add vectors?
It’s a simple question.
bob, until you correctly answer the vectors problem, or admit you can’t, you have no credibility on the subject of vectors.
And your false accusations make you even less credible.
That’s reality. Learn to accept it.
Clint R,
So you admit you don’t know the first two things about adding vectors.
No bob.
What I admit is that you’re a braindead cult idiot with no understanding of the relevant physics. So you have to make up for your deficiencies with false accusations and juvenile profanities.
Clint R,
Can you prove you took college level physics, like I did on this blog.
I gave the correct answer to your stupid vector problem, you are took uneducated to realize you posed an incorrect problem.
Take you vector problem to a physics professor and see what he says.
We have already had a physics PhD tell you what you got wrong, not me, but then where do you get off asking bullshit questions of your more educated blog residents?
You can’t even answer a simple question on the requirements to be met before adding vectors.
You are too dumb to answer.
Wrong again, bob.
What you have “proved” is that you don’t have an understanding of physics.
The last time you provided your “solution”, it was wrong. If you’ve since got a new solution, I’ll be glad to check your work. I’ve already given you the correct solution, so the fact that you still can’t get it should tell you how braindead you are.
Clint R,
The problem with your problem is that you have two vectors acting on an orbiting body, one has to be acceleration and the other one has to be velocity, and you can’t add them, moron.
No bob. The vectors are just vectors. The problem demonstrates you don’t know how to add vectors. The fact that such a simple problem confuses you so much just shows how little you understand the basics.
You couldn’t even understand the solution, when I supplied it.
Clint R,
You specifically stated the vectors are acting on the body, so no, they are not jest vectors.
Remember, vectors have direction and magnitude, and the magnitude has to have units.
If they don’t have units, they can’t act on a body.
Shows you don’t know what you are talking about, as usual.
That’s okay bob. I understand this is all over your head. I studied vectors in high school physics, then went on to vector calculus in college.
Don’t feel bad. At least you’re a perfect example of “braindead”.
Clint R,
If you studied vectors in high school and college, you would be able to specify what I said that was wrong.
Just saying I don’t understand it, doesn’t cut it.
If you did study vectors, you would be able to tell me the requirements for adding vectors.
Since you haven’t, I’ll assume you can’t.
So fuck off, until you can specify the requirements for adding vectors.
Oh good. Braindead bob resorts to his usual juvenile profanity.
That means he concedes, again.
Yeah, I respond to insults with profanity, deal with fuckwit.
Remind me, who started with the juvenile insults?
Two days later, trying to sneak a last word in after Clint R’s moved on downthread? bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Go ahead guys, defend the guy who said the Moon’s phases are caused by the Earth’s shadow.
Not once, but twice.
Gordon needs to correct his mistake.
How about you correcting some of your mistakes, bob?
Start with your mistake about a bicycle pedal not rotating on an axle.
We can continue from there….
Clint R,
First you admit the Moon rotates on its axis, and so does the ball on the string.
Until then, you have no credibility.
By the way, a bicycle pedal can both rotate on its axis and not rotate on its axis.
You can figure that out genius.
bob still can’t accept that the movement of a ball whirling around on a string can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, regardless of reference frame. He will spend the rest of his life being wrong about that. Oh well.
DREMPTY,
I’m right and you’re snot.
It can be described as one single motion, bob. You are wrong.
Except, dear DREMPTY,
The axis of rotation and the axis of the orbit are not parallel.
So sweetie, no, the orbit of the Moon is not one simple motion.
Wrong again.
So sorry you flunked physics, or never took it, nor Astronomy either.
“It can be described as one single motion”
Sure. Just a simple circle. Except that it is not.
Just talking about a ball on a string, bob. Forget the moon, for now. The movement of a ball whirling around on a string can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, regardless of reference frame. That’s a fact.
braindead bob, Moon does NOT have an axis of rotation. It only has ONE motion — orbiting.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
DREMPTY,
NOPE
“The movement of a ball whirling around on a string can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, regardless of reference frame. Thats a fact.”
Does the ball keep its orientation fixed on a distant object?
Does the ball point to the same spot once per revolution?
Since the answers are no and yes, that means the ball is rotating about an internal axis, so your description is wrong.
It’s two motions, rotation about an external axis and rotation about an internal axis.
Clint R,
“braindead bob, Moon does NOT have an axis of rotation. It only has ONE motion orbiting.
Its the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
I thought you said the motion of the Moon wasn’t the same as the ball on a string.
whut you lying now?
Changing your story?
Making shit up?
Not passing eighth grade science.
Mensa is calling
bob, don’t feel bad if you can’t understand simple concepts.
That comes with being “braindead”.
“It’s two motions, rotation about an external axis and rotation about an internal axis.”
Absolutely not, bob. If the ball on a string were rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, the ball would have to be wrapping itself up in the string. You are definitely wrong. You will live the rest of your entire life being wrong.
I need some new crap from you two clowns, not the same old shit that I have refuted already.
The ball doesn’t wrap up on the string because the string is rotating clown.
You both are definitely a couple of morons.
bob, when you can’t understand wrapping a string around a ball, or how a bicycle pedal works, you’re not able to understand any of this.
But, thanks for being such a great example of “braindead”.
bob, you are wrong. The ball on a string is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, as even those on your own side of the argument would agree. Most (if not all) “Spinners” apart from you would describe the ball on a string as translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis, they would not say it is rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis.
You don’t even understand your own side’s position. You don’t even know that there is a difference between translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis. To you it’s the same motion.
Sorry guys, I don’t speak “idiot”
The only way to determine if something is rotating or not is to use the inertial reference frame and see if the object points to the same distant object all the time or not.
If not, it’s rotating, like the ball on a string and the Moon.
If it is, it’s rotating.
Reference frames do matter, it’s the only way to answer the question.
Take a course in Astronomy and get back to me, until then fuck off.
Sorry, bob, from an inertial reference frame, the ball can be said to be rotating about an external axis, and not on its own internal axis. Reference frames won’t rescue you from your error.
DREMPTY,
Have you taken a course in Astronomy?
Then fuck off.
You will forever be wrong, then, bob. That’s fine with me. Keep responding with your obscenities, it won’t change the fact that a ball on a string can be described as making one single motion, as having only one axis of rotation (external to the ball), and that this is true regardless of reference frame. Even most “Spinners” know you are wrong.
DREMPTY,
You need two vectors to describe the motion of a ball on a string.
So two motions.
So you are wrong, eternally damned forever.
And all but a couple of crackpot Astronomers agree with me.
This is one motion, bob:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_illus.svg
DREMPTY,
There are sill two vectors acting on the body in your diagram, so two motions.
Velocity and acceleration.
No, bob. It is literally drawn onto the diagram…one single arrow. It is one single motion.
DREMPTY,
Two more things that blow up in your face.
One, that’s two dimensional, have I reminded you that the Moon orbits in three dimensions?
Second, it take two equations to produce that animation, so two motions, with four variables.
We’re talking about the ball on a string, not the moon, and it’s a diagram, not an animation. One single motion, bob. Everyone here but you agrees that the ball on a string can be described as moving in one single motion. You are definitely wrong.
braindead bob doesn’t understand ANY of this. He just continues to throw crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. He’s so ignorant he doesn’t understand how a bicycle pedal functions. He doesn’t understand basic physics. And, he can’t learn.
That’s because he’s braindead.
Clint R,
How come you are all personal attacks and insults and no physics?
Two days later, trying to sneak a last word in after Clint R’s moved on downthread? bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Doesn’t stop you from throwing some crap.
What is the time limit for responding to insults and personal attacks?
I’ll take all the time I want, thank you very much.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“And because they are rising simultaneously, that is scientific proof that one causes the other????
Dont know where you studied science but where I studied it correlation is not causation. ”
Where I studied science correlation is a useful clue.
Correlation is not in itself proof of causation. However where you find correlation and look for a linking mechanism you often find causation.
As with the two way feedback relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.
EM,
Swenson –
“Brain dead donkeys would claim that CO2 causes increased temperatures, I suppose.”
Might as well appeal to an authoritative authority, wot?
Gordon,
Your claim was that it was not correlated, you did not mention causation, that’s above you scientific ability.
Here was your claim.
“Neither Callendar nor Keeling proved a scientific correlation between rising CO2 levels and global warming. No one has proved such a correlation.”
No mention of causation.
We can discuss that once you have taken a course in thermodynamics and correctly understand the second law of thermodynamics.
Until then you have no credibility.
And it doesn’t matter where I work, it’s my arguments that you can’t refute, because they are true.
If you look at the UAH chart, Salby argues it was oscillating around -0.3C prior to 1993-94, then there was a step-change and it oscillated around 0.0C, then in 2012-13 another step-change and oscillating around 0.2C. It would imply something other than a correlation with CO2. Salby says CO2 progresses as an integral of temperature.
Meant to say linear correlation.
Which leaves the same old problem.
If Selby wants to convince anyone that CO2 is presently following temperature he needs a convincing mechanism to explain the temperature rise, something none of the sceptics have been able to produce.
What proportion (other than none) do you ascribe to natural cycles?
Eman,
Almost all climate scientists will state that CO2 follows temperature on both short and long timescales. The evidence must be there. But then they have this logic divergence and succumb to leftist propaganda concerning the last 250 years. For the scientists, it is all about the research dollars.
Also, Salby uses math. What does temperature do seasonally?
I am having trouble posting here with Firefox and I’m using another browser. This may be a duplicate post.
stephen…take a look at this contradiction between IPCC reports from AR5.
See page 4 of 96, P.162 overall.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to +0.15] C per decade”.
If you go back to the Final Draft in 2013, on Page 6 0f 165, in the same section under temperature, it states….
“Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including ****the warming hiatus**** [0.05 to +0.15] per decade)….”
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
I added the *** around ****warming hiatus*** to emphasize what a load of cheating SOBs run the IPCC. Somewhere between 2013 and now, the IPCC has secretly amended the AR5 review report to exclude the reference to hiatus.
One definition of hiatus is ‘a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process’. It is even called ‘the pause’ by diehard alarmists.
Note in the first link there is a reference to an upload in 2017. Someone has amended the report and uploaded it.
The point to note is that even the IPCC admitted insignificant warming between 1998 and 2012 even though they are busily trying to hide their admission.
A quick visual scan of the UAH graph above from 1998 – 2015 shows a flat trend. That’s 18 years with no warming. After the 2016 EN, another visual scan shows a flat trend.
Use the red running average curve as an averaging aid.
Gordon,
“The point to note is that even the IPCC admitted insignificant warming between 1998 and 2012 even though they are busily trying to hide their admission.”
Calculating a trend from a local maximum to a local minimum, yeah, there’s nothing wrong with doing that.
Was 1998 greater than 2016? Statistically speaking?
Was either greater than 1878?
You are confusing global temperatures with el Ninos again, RLH.
Barry: Are you suggesting that El Nino is not related to global temperatures? If El Nino has not increased (much) since 1878, how has global temperature increased since then? AGW does not operate just on temperatures that are not the peaks does it?
You are confusing a conversation about global temp trends with your obsession about el Ninos. Like a drunk at a party who has no interest in what other people are doing, and shouting whatever is buzzing around his brain.
Do you have a global temperature for 1878?
2016 was warmer than 1998 by a little or a lot, depending on your source.
Bob:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
says that it has decreased.
RLH,
Didn’t someone ask you if you were confusing ENSO with Global temperature?
damn
entropic…”As Mark B says, the problem with Becks data is that it is heavily influenced by local CO2 emissions”.
***
And Mauna Loa is not??? It’s an active volcano, in fact, it’s the largest active volcano on the planet and one of it’s main emissions is CO2.
I presume the scientists at the Mauna Loa CO2 measuring station know how to extricate the amospheric CO2 from the emitted CO2 (or do they?) so why would Mark B think chemists of the day like Kreutz were incapable of doing the same?
It seems one could find a better mountain.
Maybe people hundred years could find a better mountain,
but today, they have too many reasons why they can’t.
It tends to remind me of Mormons.
Mauna Loa is extinct.
EM,
Maybe not. US Geological Service –
“Mauna Loa is among Earth’s most active volcanoes, having erupted 33 times since its first well-documented historical eruption in 1843.”
Now say something obviously wrong about physics. At least you’ll be consistent.
Carry on.
There hasn’t been an eruption on Mauna Loa since 1984. Prove that it’s not extinct.
How is a volcano defined as being active, dormant, or extinct?
Submitted by Robert Peckyno on Thu, 05/13/2010 – 11:25
Those definitions are not set in stone, and they mean different things to different people and to different volcanoes. One of the simpler ways to answer is that an active volcano is one that has erupted since the last ice age (i.e., in the past ~10,000 years). That is the definition of active used by the Global Volcanism Program in their catalogs. A dormant volcano would then be one that hasnt erupted in the past 10,000 years, but which is expected to erupt again. An extinct volcano would be one that nobody expects to ever erupt again. These are human definitions of natural things — there have been a number of eruptions from “extinct” volcanoes!
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/faq/how-volcano-defined-being-active-dormant-or-extinct
Activity has been recorded in 2019:
https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-when-will-mauna-loa-erupt-next
So Mauna Loa is in the pause between the last eruption and the next eruption.
UAH is in the pause between the last temperature record and the next record.
Neither the volcanic activity nor the rising temperature trend have stopped.
“Neither the volcanic activity nor the rising temperature trend have stopped”
But the graphs and data shows that the global temperature has been declining since 2016.
“But the graphs and data shows that the global temperature has been declining since 2016. ”
Has it?Just for fun I plotted it.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016.4/to:2023/every/plot/uah6/from:2016.4/to:2023/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016.4/to:2023/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:2016.4/to:2023/every/trend/offset:-0.1
I left off the 2016 El Nino peak to remove the effect of an El Nino at the start and a La Nino at the end.
I then calculated the OLS trend and the +/-0.1C 95% confidence limits.
That gives limits. I can be 95% confident that the trend over the last seven years is probably no larger than 0.15C or less than -0.25C.
As usual with short term data seven years is too small a period to give meaningful trend data.
The lines are sloping downwards none the less.
And if we go from the beginning of 2016
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/every/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/every/trend/offset:-0.1
nearly enough to make it ‘significant’.
P.S. How does going to 2023 make La Nina ‘not included’?
I’ve always heard there’s no such thing as an extinct volcano.
RLH
Are you really a data analyst?
You are making a lot of elementary errors.
You’re the most arrogant retired school teacher I think I’ve ever seen.
Arrogance?
I’ m pointing out RLH’s poor technique. He claims a significant cooling trend in recent years independent of the usual post-El Nino cooling. I analyse the data with the 2016 El Nino removed to see if RLH’s trend exist and find nothing significant.
He then puts the El Nino back in to try and boost the significance?
If you regard that as legitimate analysis you’re as incompetent as he is.
ET: Do you have a comment about the trend since 1983 in Meiv2?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
Not enough information to make a meaningful comment.
Can you plot the the temperature of the baseline figure MEIV.4 O over time?
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1351485
for the best graph of meiv2 that I have.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
for a definition of what it shows.
Still not a great help.
I’m not a fan of inspection. It’s too easy to see what you want to see, as Gordon has just demonstrated.
Can you redo your graph with OLS trend lines and, if possible, confidence limits.
Since it is a graph of anomalies I would also need to know how the baseline changed over time.
“Can you redo your graph with OLS trend lines”
Nope as OLS tells nothing about the future, just the past. Confidence limits on what? The accuracy of the measurement series or the nearness to the actual tropical temperature that it is a sample of?
All I can do is offer LP filters of 12 month and 5 years which tells more about the composition and makeup of it than any OLS will ever do.
I can offer you a S-G projection if that will help.
That is surely better than
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
which is what is normally given from NOAA.
If you need the methods by which meiv2 is composed see
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/#methods
They take measurements with a care to the prevailing winds and with checks for CO2 outgassing.
There are other sites that corroborate ML, such as in Antarctica, where daily air samples have been taken for a few decades. They all corroborate each other, the only difference being the depth of the annual oscillation (steeper in the NH, shallower in the SH).
Here is an excellent visualization of that.
https://engaging-data.com/global-co2/
Here is a 10,000 year record of various ice cores graphed, so you can compare one core with another.
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Amazing how all that perfectly aligns to produce the hockey stick. It is similar to Darwin’s Tree of Life, perfect.
Or perhaps they agree because they are all measuring the same planet? They agree because they accurately describe how the planet changed.
And, that’s your story and by God, you’re sticking to it.
That curve for CO2 is also seen in other proxy records – sediment, coral, leaf stomata etc. So either the conspiracy to make hockey sticks runs across different disciplines and continents or that’s a fairly robust timeline for atmospheric CO2.
Barry, proxy records are speculation. And, they continue to get funding to support the speculation.
I guess you have no opinion on how pre-instrumental temperatures evolved, then.
Big Oil doesn’t pay them much.
Yes, a sensor, an algorithm, and an agenda. That’s how it evolved.
A sensor for proxy records? Wha?
They pull an ice core sample, stick it in a machine (they have sensors), and get an atmospheric reading. It doesn’t take a direct atmospheric reading from 100,000 years ago. It takes an algorithm to convert it. Someone made assumptions and wrote the algorithm. It is speculation.
In a machine?
What sensors are used, stephen?
Sensors you’d find in all types of analytical equipment such as pH meters, mass spectrometers, atomic absorp.tion, uV, various lab equipment, etc. etc. Then all that information is put into an algorithm and a prehistoric climate is generated. You’re just like Nate. I give you the information and you don’t accept it and continue with your inane questions, propaganda, and subterfuge.
“algorithm
[ˈalɡərɪ(ə)m]
NOUN
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer: ”
Would you be happier if all the physical analysis was done by hand and the calculations done on an abacus?
All the machines and the algorithms do is make the process more efficient.
No kidding?
Nino index 3.4 is lower than in May.
https://i.ibb.co/jWbF2pN/nino34.png
Don’t worry. The upcoming El Nino will be bigger than 2016. Won’t it? /sarc
/ sarc
Do you mean relative to other el Ninos (as in ONI), or ‘bigger’ in terms of the impact seen in global temperatures (ie UAH, Had.CRU etc)?
barry
A confirmation of what you write, using a look at JMA’s grid
1. The difference visible between El Nino in 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp1998ane.png
and in 2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp2016ane.png
2. The difference visible between La Nina in 2010
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2010/gridtemp2010ane.png
and in 2021
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2021/gridtemp2021ane.png
… especially when comparing these ENSO events in MEI
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
shows that 1983 was larger than 2016.
No I mean Meiv2
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
That doesn’t remotely answer the question I was asking. Ah well.
Barry: So you have no opinion on Meiv2 then. Or of Michelle’s observation that she and others have detected a shift to more prominent La Nina like conditions.
“The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W). The EOFs are calculated for 12 overlapping bi-monthly “seasons” (Dec-Jan, Jan-Feb, Feb-Mar,…, Nov-Dec) in order to take into account ENSO’s seasonality, and reduce effects of higher frequency intraseasonal variability”
That Meiv2.
“Do you mean relative to other el Ninos (as in ONI)”
Well a shift to more La Nina like conditions hardly means a strong El Nino in the immediate future does it?
Better not call it superdeveloping
Bin&Barry forecasting teamed up again
why don’t you give us an update on your NINO 3+4 babbling “we will see” forecast
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
They are all banking on the next El Nino being bigger than 2016.
bob d…”Calculating a trend from a local maximum to a local minimum, yeah, theres nothing wrong with doing that”.
***
Why are you alarmists so hung up on beginnings and ends of periods? The IPCC trend from 1998 – 2012 included the 1998 EN and it was still flat, even with a semi-major EN in 2010, preceded by a semi-major LN in 2008, which cancelled it.
Basic calculus tells us the area under a thin, tall spike can be offset by a lesser area with wide, not so tall hump. Look at the red curve in Roy’s graph.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2022_v6.jpg
The EN spike of ’98 is immediately canceled by the following negative anomaly from 1999 to 2002. Then we have an average hovering around the baseline from about 2002 to 2008. That is followed by an inverse sine wave from about 2008 to 2011 which pretty much cancels while slightly favouring cooling.
Then we have a blip under the baseline from 2011 – 2013 and we need to go to about 2015 to cancel it out. That’s 18 years with an essential flat trend. The rest obviously has a flat trend or as Richard has pointed out, a negative trend.
Where the burst of warming came from around 2015 is a mystery. Is that another one of those Great Pacific Climate shifts we had in 1977 that no one could explain? Turned out to be the PDO.
No one has monitored the oceans like we have in the current generations and maybe we have some sur.prises coming as the series unfold.
” Why are you alarmists so hung up on beginnings and ends of periods? ”
We could ask you denialists the same question. You keep putting up cherrypicked graphs showing short term cooling while ignoring the long term warming trend.
( Incidentally, the opposite of alarmist is denialist. If you want me to call you something more polite, do the same in return. Perhaps we should call each other the sceptics and the consensus.)
Cherry-picked graphs??? I am talking over 20 years of flat trend in a range that is supposed to have a trend of 0.14C/decade. Two of the four decades show no trend while the other two are supposed to be re-warming from volcanic aerosols.
I fully understand that since the UAH record began in 1979, there has been a mathematical average of 0.14C/decade. The difference between you and me is that I look at what the data is saying while you are satisfied with an imaginary 40 year positive trend.
I am not arguing that no warming took place during that 40 years but it is minimal and not the catastrophic peril shouted by alarmists. I am arguing as well that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Geophysicist Syun Akasofu reckons the globe should rewarm at about 0.5C/century.
We don’t know how much it cooled during the LIA and I think what we are seeing today is likely a combination of re-warming and the effect of ocean oscillations. There is no way a trace gas is causing the warming and it certainly is not causing heat waves and severe weather.
EM,
I prefer The Established Viewpoint and Contrarians.
Consensus and Contrarians is fine too.
For Gordo, Crank is better.
Gordon,
Because it’s the wrong thing to do.
Why do you think it’s ok to eyeball trends?
End points and length of data affect the uncertainty of the measurement.
What more do you not understand?
We were trained to visualize answers in engineering classes. Besides, it saves a lot of time if the answer is visually apparent.
Roy has done us a great favour by including the red average curve in his data. Just eye-ball it and it gives you a ballpark answer.
Gordon,
You have to calculate the uncertainty in the trend in order to make sure you are not fooling yourself.
I did that using UAH 6.0 and the method of Foster and Rahmstorf.
The trend is -0.041 +/- 0.190
The uncertainty is larger than the trend, so it’s uncertain.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d …”The problem with your problem is that you have two vectors acting on an orbiting body, one has to be acceleration and the other one has to be velocity…”
^^^
No acceleration, Bob, otherwise the orbiting body would have to move in the direction of the applied force, which is vertically toward Earth’s centre. Of course the acceleration could be in a resultant direction but then you’d need another force acting along with gravity. There is no such force.
All you have with the Moon is a constant linear momentum, which means a constant linear velocity. Newton acknowledged that and that the Moon’s motion in curvilinear. So, you could add a vector tangential to a radial line from the Earth’s centre (presuming a circular orbit) and the Moon’s velocity vector would be tangential (per.pendicular) to it at any one instant. With an ellipse, it’s not much different.
However, the tangential velocity is not acting on the Moon, it is a product of existing constant linear momentum. Essentially, there is nothing acting on the Moon excep.t a near-radial gravitational force. That force is not strong enough to accelerate the Moon toward Earth but it is strong enough to hold the Moon, with its constant linear momentum, in orbit.
The problem you have is explaining how the Moon can move with constant linear momentum while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. Think ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, a race car on an oval, or an airliner flying at 35,000 feet above the Equator.
What do they all have in common? They are all moving with curvilinear translation without rotation. It’s easy when you work it out, Bob, using real physics.
“the Moons velocity vector would be tangential (per.pendicular) to it at any one instant”.
That should mean the Moon’s velocity vector is per.pendicular to a radial line from Earth’s centre. My wording made it sound as if the velocity vector was per.pendicular to itself.
Gordon,
“All you have with the Moon is a constant linear momentum, which means a constant linear velocity”
How come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, bob.
This here page is supposed to be about science. Not the flat earth variety.
I think its DREMT’s channel where the lunartics go to discuss their odd perversions of the laws of physics.
Ken…if you disagree with what I am saying, you can try to prove me wrong. All I get from you are snarly comments with no physics.
I have done. You’ve disagreed.
I have better things to do than argue about the equivalent to ‘how many angels can sit on the head of a pin’.
Not only do you attempt to pervert the laws of physics Ken, but you also try to force-feed us your tangled politics.
You’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Ken
” Not the flat earth variety. ”
It’s not only flat earth thinking; it is also pure lying, as we can see here:
” All you have with the Moon is a constant linear momentum, which means a constant linear velocity. Newton acknowledged that and that the Moons motion i[s] curvilinear. ”
Never and never did Newton ‘acknowledge’ that anywhere.
The absolute contrary is the case, as is perfectly visible in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV in the third (and definitely last) edition of his ‘Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica’, which he published in 1726, just before dying (the first one was published in 1687, the second one in 1713).
There he writes:
” Quoniam enim Luna circàaxem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circàTellurem periodum suam absolvit … ”
Translation:
” For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth … ”
No one can erase nor even a posteriori manipulate that sentence.
*
Permanent lying is a fundamental principle (not only) of Robertson’s way to ‘think’.
This is far worse than simple-minded flatearthism due to a lack of education.
Bin, this has been explained to you before. Newton was repeating the beliefs of his time. He later proved that wrong, by applying his newly-invented calculus to gravity’s effect on Moon. That’s why we now use the ball-on-a-string analogy for simple orbital motion.
Your cult religion prevents you from learning science.
Clint R
” He later proved that wrong, by applying his newly-invented calculus to gravitys effect on Moon. ”
You are as we can see exactly the same kind of liar as are Robertson, Hunter and a few of your friends-in-denial.
Newton NEVER did that, Clint R. The 1726 edition was his definitely last work, published just before he died.
*
” Your cult religion prevents you from learning science. ”
We can all see, when reading your endless, childish lies, that this applies to you much more than it does to me!
“Thats why we now use”
‘we’ members of the teeny tiny luney cult.
Science OTOH, not so much.
Bin, I offered you the evidence, but you refused it. You don’t want truth.
If you were interested in science and reality, you would realize you have no working model for orbital motion. Science has one — a ball-on-a-string. You reject it.
You reject all science and reality. You rely on calling others “liars”.
“Science has one a ball-on-a-string”
Science says that a ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
RLH, being uneducated is one thing, but do you want to be dishonest also?
Are you denying the several links from college/university websites using the ball-on-a-string?
A ball-on-a-strig has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
….A ball-on-a-string….
P.S. Get any of those universities or colleges (in writing) to support your non-scientific view of things.
RLH, you evaded the question:
Are you denying the several links from college/university websites using the ball-on-a-string?
Clint R
” You reject all science and reality. ”
No.
The reality is that, as I wrote, you and all your friends-in-denial are not able to scientifically contradict what scientists did during the last 300 years, and whom especially you woefully insult as ‘astrologists’.
*
” You rely on calling others ‘liars’. ”
Interesting sentence when coming from a person who
– permanently calls me and others a ‘braindead cult idiot’
– permanently lies about what Isaac Newton really wrote.
*
But you’ll never end doing that.
Thus: live in peace, Clint R, with your ‘ball-on-a-string’.
Bindidon, if that’s your concession speech, I graciously accept.
But it you continue to claim Moon has axial rotation, without providing a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, then you are a braindead cult idiot.
” Bindidon, if that’s your concession speech, I graciously accept. ”
Oh! Are you so naive? You can wait a long time for that.
” But it you continue to claim Moon has axial rotation, without providing a workable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ … ”
Typical brainless nonsense a la Clint R.
It’s hard to imagine something dumber than a so-called model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’. Such nonsense exists only in the morbid brains of scientifically uneducated deniers.
*
At least you seem to give up your eternal lie concerning Newton’s alleged ‘newly-invented calculus to gravity’s effect on Moon’, which of course does not exist anywhere else than in your pseudo-skeptic brain.
You are in real progress.
Bonne continuation, Clint R!
Bin, if you throw away the conventional model, you need to have a better one, or at least one that works as well.
You don’t. You’re all bluster, but no substance. Centuries-old astrolgers trying to measure something that ain’t happening, ain’t substance.
You were offered the link verifying Newton’s work, but you rejected it. You’re cult beliefs are more important to you than reality.
* “your”
Gordon,
“No acceleration, Bob, otherwise the orbiting body would have to move in the direction of the applied force, which is vertically toward Earths centre.”
Acceleration is also a change in direction, since the velocity vector has direction and magnitude, a change in either means acceleration.
This is basic high school physics, which you would have to have passed to become any kind of engineer.
Ever drive a car around a curve?
It’s more control if you give it a little gas.
bob d…”Acceleration is also a change in direction, since the velocity vector has direction and magnitude, a change in either means acceleration”.
***
You don’t understand vectors, Bob. With regard to an acceleration vector, the vector has two components: magnitude and direction. The acceleration component is in the magnitude and has nothing to do with the direction.
Consider an acceleration vector along the x-axis. You could write it as dv/dt.i, where i = the unit vector along the x-axis. The value of i is always 1 and the magnitude of the vector relies on the value of dv/dt.
Suppose I want to change the direction of any vector. If the vector along the x-axis is 5 units long, it would be written as 5i. If another vector along the positive y-axis is 5 units long, it would be written 5j, and the new vector would become 5i + 5j.
To find the new vector, we take the magnitudes and find the root of the sum of the squares as in root(5^2 + 5^2) = root (50) = 7.07 units. So, now we have a vector pointing somewhere between the positive x- and y-axes.
To find the angle between the new vector and the x-axis, we have the resultant and the adjacent side = 5 units. Therefore, the cosine of the angle is 5/7.07 = 0.707. The angle with that cosine is 45 degrees.
We now have a vector of magnitude 7.07 pointing at an angle of 45 degrees to the x-axis.
What you are claiming is that changing the angle of the vector on the x-axis, 5i, to point along a line with a 45 degree angle between it and the x-axis, will change its acceleration. You can see plainly that changing the angle alone has no effect on the acceleration. If the acceleration was 5 along the x-axis and you changed its direction to 45 degrees, it would still have the value of 5.
You can also see from my example that it requires another vector acting in conjunction with the x-axis vector to change both magnitude and direction. That would require another force being added to the mix and there are no forces acting on the Moon other than gravity.
Gordon,
The force of gravity is sufficient to change the direction of the motion of the Moon.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mop/m8/sl2details.cfm
Please email Dennis. He might help you on this.
“No acceleration, Bob, otherwise the orbiting body would have to move in the direction of the applied force, which is vertically toward Earths centre.”
By this definition, if you toss a ball in an arc, at the top of the arc the acceleration would also be zero, since the applied force is vertically toward the earth’s center, while the motion at that moment is horizontal (ie perpendicular). Are you truly arguing that in that moment, the ball is not accerating???
(In fact, since the ball is NEVER moving ‘vertically toward the center of the earth’ then — by your definition — the ball is NEVER accelerating!)
tim…”Are you truly arguing that in that moment, the ball is not accerating??? ”
***
Tim. you’re a master of the red-herring argument. What does the Moon have to do with a ball being thrown in the air?
I am talking f = ma…Newton II. Please note that a mass, m, requires a force, f, to accelerate it. If the force can move the mass, then accelerate it, the mass must move in the direction of the force.
You cannot have acceleration without movement in the direction of the force. That movement is indicated by s, as in s = vt. Velocity = v = ds/dt at any instant. Velocity requires movement, aka displacement.
Acceleration = dv/dt = d2s/d2t. Acceleration requires movement of a body.
The Moon has gravitational force acting on it in a radial line toward the Earth’s centre. If there was any acceleration in that direction the Moon would require movement toward Earth’s centre. With its considerable momentum, the Moon would move toward Earth along a spiral path.
The Moon has no movement in that direction it’s only movement is along an instantaneous tangential path to a radial line from the Earth’s centre. Of course, I am presuming a circular orbit but I have shown in other posts that it would be similar given the Moon’s almost circular eccentricity.
If gravity was switched off, the Moon would continue along its instantaneous tangential path is a straight line. The only reason it follows an orbital path is that Earth’s gravity is strong enough to redirect it’s linear motion into an orbital path. The same gravitational field lacks the strength to accelerate the Moon toward the Earth.
In the past, you have referred to changes in acceleration in the Moon’s orbital path but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. During its orbit, the change in acceleration is due to average speed, which is not a vector quantity. It is a simply averaging of the Moon’s angular speed. If that speed changes, there is acceleration or deceleration.
Please keep in mind that to accelerate any body like the Moon, a force is required. In that case, the Moon’s momentum has to change and the Moon would need to move to a higher orbit.
The Moon’s momentum, which is constant and cannot change unless a force is applied, is in an equilibrium condition with Earth’s gravitational force. At certain points in the eccentric orbital path, Earth’s gravitational force weaken slightly and that allows the lunar momentum to have a greater effect.
That means the Moon’s momentum can extend the orbital shape into a slight ellipse. Of course, that changes the average speed as measured by the time to cover a certain distance.
> If gravity was switched off, the Moon would continue along its instantaneous tangential path is a straight line.
It would also *continue* spinning on its own axis.
> The only reason it follows an orbital path is that Earths gravity is strong enough to redirect its linear motion into an orbital path.
That redirection requires a force, which induces an acceleration, a = F/m.
You’re flunking the first lecture of the first semester of first year physics here.
A passenger jet circumnavigates the globe. If gravity were suddenly switched off, and the jet flew away from the Earth in a straight line, would it be rotating on its own axis, end over end, as it did so?
Please stop trolling, WYA.
Answer the question, Brandy Guts.
brandon…”That redirection requires a force, which induces an acceleration, a = F/m”.
***
It is clear that you don not understand Newton II. The part usually omitted from Newton’s original work is what he declared initially. He said ‘if a force can move a mass… then f = ma’.
You’re a = f/m only applies if the force can move the mass enough to accelerate it. If the mass does not move your equation makes no sense, since f/m = 0 cannot be done unless f = 0.
f/m = 0, for an f > 0, could be stated as a limit as mass -> infinity, presuming f is finite and constant. However we are talking strictly about a force and mass of defined quantities. Therefore a = f/m = 0 cannot be done in physical reality.
You should be very careful when you transpose equations, to ensure the result fits the physical reality. Normally, Newton II is not written in that form.
**********************
The redirection certainly requires a force but the force is obviously in physical equilibrium with the lunar momentum. The force cannot accelerate the Moon in the direction of the force but it is strong enough to hold it in a physical equilibrium.
dremt…”If gravity were suddenly switched off, and the jet flew away from the Earth in a straight line, would it be rotating on its own axis, end over end, as it did so?”
***
You got Brandon there, Dremt, he is running for the hills, slinging ad homs and insults as he goes.
“If gravity were suddenly switched off, and the jet flew away from the Earth in a straight line, would it be rotating on its own axis, end over end, as it did so?”
Once every 24 hours, yes.
☺️
” … he is running for the hills, slinging ad homs and insults as he goes. ”
Says this blog’s most insulting dumbass, who dares to name scientists ‘cheating SOB’s.
RLH’s stupid comment puts him in a class with Ent. Neither has a clue about orbital motion.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Your views about orbital motion fly in the face of what scientists agree upon.
Braindead cult idiots are NOT scientists, RLH.
Real science is all about reality. Like your twin Bindidon, you reject the reality of a ball-on-a-string, yet have not working model to replace it. You ignore the colleges and universities that use it. You reject reality in favor of your cult beliefs.
(No, I won’t bicker all day with you. I don’t have time to waste.)
“Real science is all about reality”
Indeed it is. A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits. Nothing at all.
> The redirection certainly requires a force but the force is obviously in physical equilibrium with the lunar momentum.
Two problems here, Gordon:
1) force and momentum are different units and thus cannot cancel each other by addition
2) the gravitational force and lunar momentum vectors are at right angles to each other, so even if they were the same units their addition would result in a vector of non-zero magnitude, therefore equilibrium cannot obtain.
Brandon, if another car T-bones your car in an intersection, your car’s momentum and the impulse force of the impact will work it out. Nature doesn’t have to worry about units. You may not understand vectors, but nature does.
In a circular orbit, gravity and lunar momentum vectors are at right angles, and the resultant would provide the orbit. The “equilibrium” mentioned refers to the stable orbit.
“In a circular orbit”
The chance of an orbit being as pure circle are infinity small.
No, not *that* Principia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6N6a9YErA
Young Brandon found another link he doesn’t understand.
How cute.
Conservation of angular momentum is definitely *not* real.
https://youtu.be/nedusgCUZC4?t=240
Sorry Brandon, but that’s just stupid.
Conservation of Angular Momentum is a valid concept, but you have to know how and when it applies. It’s all covered under the topic “physics”, if you ever get that far.
🐉
Second question for Brandy Guts, which he can answer when he finally gets around to answering my first question:
Can a ball on a string be described as not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball itself, but instead rotating about an axis that is external to the ball?
[the correct answer, that both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" should agree on, is "yes"].
brandon…”> The redirection certainly requires a force but the force is obviously in physical equilibrium with the lunar momentum.
Two problems here, Gordon:
1) force and momentum are different units and thus cannot cancel each other by addition
2) the gravitational force and lunar momentum vectors are at right angles to each other, so even if they were the same units their addition would result in a vector of non-zero magnitude, therefore equilibrium cannot obtain”.
***
There is something fundamental you are missing. We are not talking vectors here, and the resultant of two vectors. As you pointed out, momentum and gravitational force have different units. The orbital mechanics involved do not involve a vector relationship between the two.
This is more a case of static equilibrium without acceleration being involved. Even though the Moon is moving at a considerable velocity, the interaction between Earth and Moon is closer to static equilibrium than to a dynamic interaction involving Newton II.
We cannot replicate that action in our atmosphere due to resistance between air and the moving object. At the distance the Moon is from the Earth, the atmosphere is so thin it presents insignificant resistance to the Moon.
The question arises as to why an object of any mass moving through the air near the surface falls to the surface. Obviously it’s a combination of gravitational force and air resistance, mostly gravity.
Why does the same not apply to the Moon? It’s not simply the lack of air resistance, it’s the fact that gravity lacks the strength to accelerate the Moon vertically toward it.
The Moon’s gravity has enough strength to raise our oceans about 1 metre and the surface about 1 cm. It lacks the strength to move the Earth toward it. It’s the same in the other direction. Even if the Moon was sitting still at its present distance, Earth’s gravity is not strong enough to accelerate it toward the Earth.
Again, this is a unique situation we don’t find in our terrestrial environment. Trying to apply Newton II to the orbital situation simply won’t work.
When you see equations claiming there is a slight acceleration, they are talking about a change in orientation of a tangential vector as the Moon moves. They are mistaking a change in vector direction for acceleration.
As I explained earlier, a vector has magnitude and direction with the direction based on unit vectors i,j,and k for 3-space. Each unit vector has magnitude = 1. To increase the length (magnitude) to 5, you have to multiply the unit vector by the scalar quantity 5. That scalar quantity is the magnitude of acceleration in an acceleration vector.
You cannot simply change the direction of a velocity vector and call it acceleration. If you have an acceleration vector dv/dt.i, with magnitude 5m/sec^2, that means it points along the x-axis with length 5. If you now point it along a 45 degree angle, the direction has changed, but the acceleration magnitude is still 5. Therefore, changing direction in a velocity vector with a constant scalar magnitude cannot be called acceleration.
I am not comfortable talking about acceleration vectors because they are not a normal situation. You can have a velocity vector that is constant but a constant acceleration vectors surely has limits.
BTW, IMHO, this is how Einstein messed up with his relativity theory. There is nothing wrong with the basic equation until he added in a multiplier for time. He got that multiplier from thought experiments involving kinematics but he missed something basic. You have to be mighty careful when you examine acceleration as an independent phenomenon without reference to the force and mass. When you separate acceleration as an independent phenomenon it leads to idiotic concepts like time dilation and the length of a ruler becoming dependent on velocity.
The situation with the Earth and the Moon re orbital path is unique. You have a body moving with constant linear velocity having its path bent gradually into an elliptical path. Obviously a force is involved but the relationship between the two bodies re force is static equilibrium, not the dynamics involving Newton II.
Of curse, spinners have mistaken the change in direction of a velocity vector for local rotation.
Come on, Gordo.
Vector operations compose.
One or two, it does not matter.
Think.
Answer the question, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1351437
Nice try, Little Willy.
Graham,
If force and momentum have different units, would you say that Gordo is saying stuff once again?
None of my business. Gordon’s Gordon. I’m DREMT. We’re two different people, who each speak for themselves. If you have a question to ask Gordon, take it to the very bottom of the comments where he might see it.
The fragments are definitely NOT SPINNING!!!!1111
https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0?t=520
Not on their own axes before disintegration, no. Before disintegration, they are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, and not on their own axes. After disintegration, they are rotating on their own axes.
> After disintegration, they are rotating on their own axes.
This definitely DOES NOT *imply* your airliner would tumble on its own axis like this ball isn’t:
https://youtu.be/xxrM5tv_RNI?t=99
“The fragments are definitely NOT SPINNING!!!!1111”
Fun things with a router motor.
I once put a sanding disk on a router motor, lucked out, didn’t have to go to the emergency room.
Yikes!
Graham,
There is little point in asking Gordo if he knows he is saying stuff. Only God knows if he is self-aware of his mythomania. But there is a point in asking you, the captain of the Moon Dragon crank brigade.
And no, you are not your ironic sock puppet handle. Until you get a decent one, you are Graham, or Kiddo, or Whiny.
…and until you call me DREMT, you are Little Willy, Little Willy.
As usual Graham ignores the argument that makes his deflection moot.
The handle I have is quite decent. Yours is not. So you may not be as decent as you claim.
What argument?
Please stop playing dumb and read back my comment, Graham.
Pay attention to the first part.
I’m not the captain of any “moon dragon crank brigade”, so your “argument” falls apart accordingly. You have no argument, which is why I asked you “what argument?”
Of course you are, Graham, at least figuratively speaking,
That you wait for a Gordo or a Pup to stir back the pot does not change that allegorical fact.
It’s flattering that you seem to think I’m in charge, but I’m really not. We’re just a few individuals that disagree about a lot of things but happen to agree on some. There’s not really any sort of working together as a team. That sort of thing is left to you guys.
A team captain is not a coach or a team owner, Graham. He is not in charge of anything, He has a symbolic capacity to represent the team. He also symbolizes its heart and soul.
You have been trolling here for at least 71 months about three simplistic problems you and your Dragon Crank team cannot solve. The captain of Team Physics is Tim. Our alternate captains are Bob and Nate. They are the ones who got the experience.
Questions of honour escape you.
Please stop trolling.
That’s just a bunch of abusive nonsense, Little Willy.
Graham’s gaslighting continues.
Another ridiculous comment, from Little Willy.
willard….I don’t see any point you are making or any questions you are asking, just smart-assed comments like this:
“Vector operations compose.
One or two, it does not matter”.
***
What the heck does that mean?
Come on, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_composition
Do you even functions?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The climate radicals are going after indoor ice rinks.
Can you imagine no more NHL hockey?
https://spencerfernando.com/2022/08/18/ndp-mp-muses-about-getting-rid-of-indoor-ice-rinks-for-the-climate/
Alternate read: A left-wing politician had a brain fart and no one came to the rescue, she had to shut her own self down.
Right wing operatives posing as journalists framed it as a secret plan of the Canadian government.
Any journalists ask the question? Stay tuned!
You’re analysis is correct. However, I would remind that, of late, yesterday’s conspiracy is today’s trVth.
Example?
example? Really? Okay. Think of the COVID narrative where the source was considered to be bat soup from a wet market located close to a biohazards lab that specialized in bat viruses. Anyone suggesting the source was the lab was vigorously censored.
” of late, yesterdays conspiracy is todays trVth.”
Sounds like the Republican party platform.
Barbaric sport! I recall once seeing ice sweeper debris after a match. It wasn’t the blood that put me off, it was the eyeball!
ken…from your link…
“NDP MP Muses About Getting Rid Of Indoor Ice Rinks For The Climate”
***
I am musing about the following fact. If the NDP continues along this path, I predict extinction of the NDP as a viable party in Canada.
The NDP has lost it’s way. At one time it had a viable platform that led to important gains like Medicare, pensions, etc. More recently, it has been infiltrated by special interest groups.
These vermin attach themselves to parties because no one would listen to them otherwise. Once they get in the door, they manipulate the party and rules to take over.
The problem is all parties are infested with these green and woke ideologues.
All you need to do is look at the climate change issue. No level of government has done any due diligence to conduct quality assurance involving testing checking and replicating science underlying the AGW hypothesis (which we know to be falsified).
So where does the climate change narrative come from? If you join a political party and learn how it derives ‘policy’ its all about what they think people will vote for. Its not about facts or science at all; its all political narrative.
NDP has caused the problem with its pandering to cake and circuses issues but all the parties are doing it now to our disadvantage.
I fear the only way for correction is to accept we are at that point where the Tree of Liberty requires refreshment.
ken…”So where does the climate change narrative come from? If you join a political party and learn how it derives policy its all about what they think people will vote for. Its not about facts or science at all; its all political narrative”.
***
That’s what I’d like to know, where does it come from?
A while back I approached an NDP member who I had helped out in the past. I thought maybe, considering our past friendship that he’d enlighten me about global warming policy. Before I got a few words out he stopped me, claiming he knew where I was going with my questions and that he’d already made up his mind.
No one with an interest in this, including me, can afford to make up his/her mind. What he was saying, in effect, was that he had caved in to an appeal to authority and was refusing to answer my questions.
It’s scary the number of totally brainwashed people running this country.
bob d…”How come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?”
***
At any point on the orbital path, the lunar velocity must be tangential to the elliptical path. That’s a no-brainer in calculus, the first derivative of the curve is the velocity vector and the tangential vector. Why the velocity remains constant takes a deeper explanation.
The most obvious explanation is also a no-brainer. In order for the velocity to change, the momentum must change, and that requires a force acting along the velocity vector. Where would this force come from?
It’s not gravity since gravity cannot move the Moon to cause an acceleration with its full force. If the tangential motion had acceleration that would require a force component from gravity which was a fraction of its full force.
I think there is a tendency in certain minds to visualize the lunar orbit as a path created for the Moon to follow. That is not the case, the Moon’s linear momentum creates the path in conjunction with Earth’s gravitational field. The key is in the interaction between those phenomena.
To understand that better it is necessary to consider the conditions likely available when the Earth captured the Moon.
The Moon was likely moving in a straight line with a momentum and distance from the Earth conducive to capture. As the Moon entered the Earth’s sphere of influence, Earth’s gravitational field started to act on it. That would tend to bend the linear momentum of the Moon into a curved path, as Newton indicated.
We have a critical condition. If the lunar momentum was too low to avoid orbital capture, it could have crashed into the Earth. Had the lunar momentum been too strong, the Moon would have shot out of possible orbit along a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit and not been captured.
Had the relationship between lunar momentum and Earth gravity been just right, the Moon would have entered into a circular orbit. As it stood, the momentum of the Moon was a bit stronger than the ability of Earth’s gravity to move it into a circular orbit but not strong enough to break free. Therefore the Moon’s momentum stretched the orbital path into a slightly eccentric orbit.
That’s the key, lunar momentum has a slightly greater influence in the orbit, creating a slight eccentricity.
Let’s look at the interaction of gravity and lunar momentum in a purely circular orbit. Earth’s gravity would be shown as a radial line connecting the lunar centre to the Earth’s centre. At each instant, the Moon’s velocity vector would be perpendicular to that radial line. Hope you agree.
Let’s look at the elliptical orbit. The Earth is at the major focal point of the ellipse and the gravitational force tries to act from centre to centre. At each end of the major axis, that is always true where it meets the orbital path.
However, in-between those end points, gravity cannot act with the same force it does in a circular orbit. We are concerned at all times with the component of gravity acting on the near face, the lunar side that always points inwardly. To find that component we need to do some ellipse-related math.
As I said before, at any point on the orbital path, the lunar velocity must be tangential to the elliptical path. That’s a no-brainer in calculus, the first derivative of the curve is the velocity vector and the tangential vector.
If you consider the effect of gravity in that near face, you must break the gravity field vector into components. Now we have a component acting perpendicular to the near face which would not be there with a circular orbit.
It’s like a mass sliding down an incline. Gravity is always acting vertically on the mass, but the incline forces a component into the ramp and one down the ramp. The resultant of these two components is the vertical gravity vector = mg.
Therefore, the gravitational force affecting the Moon’s near face varies slightly depending on its position in the orbit. When it reduces slightly, lunar momentum has slightly more effect and slightly elongates the orbital path.
There is no need for its linear velocity to change, the path extends to accommodate the change in Earth’s gravity. The Moon travels further but with the same linear velocity.
This action perfectly explains libration. I am only sorry that Binny’s sources missed it.
There is a simple way in an ellipse to graphically calculate the radial line representing the component of gravity acting on the near lunar face. At any point of the orbit, draw a line to each focal point then bisect the angle formed. The bisector is the radial line and a line perpendicular to it at the orbital path is the Moon’s linear velocity vector.
Note that the radial line no longer points to the centre of Earth as it would in a circular orbit. It is that change in the angle of the near face that allows us to see a few degrees around the edge of the Moon, a condition we call libration.
No rotation, no movement, but we can see more of the surface of the Moon’s surface. We are witnessing pure curvilinear translation without rotation.
With a car moving at constant velocity around an oval track, we’d have the same conditions but with a big difference. The car is restricted to moving on a predefined elliptical path. That is not true with the Earth-Moon system. The orbital path is created on the fly based on a slightly changing gravitational field.
There is no such thing as ‘pure curvilinear translation without rotation’ except in your deluded mind.
There are just elliptical orbits about a barycenter that everybody else agrees upon.
Gordon,
Go get you calculus textbook again.
“At any point on the orbital path, the lunar velocity must be tangential to the elliptical path. Thats a no-brainer in calculus, the first derivative of the curve is the velocity vector and the tangential vector. Why the velocity remains constant takes a deeper explanation.”
The velocity does not remain constant.
Do some math, take the derivative at a point, then take it after the Moon rotates through 90 degrees.
If you are smart enough, you will see that the magnitude and direction of the velocity has changed.
bob d…”The velocity does not remain constant.
Do some math, take the derivative at a point, then take it after the Moon rotates through 90 degrees”.
***
How does it change, there is no force acting in a tangential direction to change it? Math won’t help you with this one, Bob, unless you are deeply into analyzing complex interactions.
Gordon,
The force does not have to be in a tangential direction.
“How does it change,”
You ask, if it is moving north, then 90 degrees later, it is moving west.
That’s a change in direction, remember vectors have magnitude and direction, if either changes, that means an acceleration has occurred.
Which doesn’t have to be along any particular direction.
I though you studied engineering physics?
I guess not, or if you did, you flunked out.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d…”Sorry guys, I dont speak idiot
The only way to determine if something is rotating or not is to use the inertial reference frame and see if the object points to the same distant object all the time or not”.
***
Then why do you continue to speak “idiot”?
Rotation is not measured in relation to a distant object, it is measured by angular velocity or momentum about an axis. This is where you spinners get so screwed up, you are focused on philosophy and not the reality of physics.
One side of the Moon always points to the Earth. That side can be represented as a tangential surface, or in a line drawing as a tangential vector. Naturally, the vector rotates wrt the distant stars so spinners automatically presume that indicates local rotation about an axis.
Curvilinear translation without rotation produces that effect. Local rotation about an axis cannot produce the same effect. The Earth is a perfect example, it rotates about a local axis but cannot keep the same face pointing at the Sun.
One thing stands out in a glaring manner. You spinners are also climate alarmists and you bring the same perverted science to climate issues as you do to physics.
“One side of the Moon always points to the Earth”
By the rotation of the Moon once on its axis per orbit around Earth.
” You spinners are also climate alarmists and you bring the same perverted science to climate issues as you do to physics. ”
As usual, this blog’s really dumbest science denier misrepresents and perverts the situation.
He should better try to explain to us how it is possible that the Moon doesn’t rotate about its polar axis when people having computed Moon’s rotation period
– in 1750
AND
– since the 1980’s
come to exactly the same result.
*
In 1750, Tobias Mayer computed (visible in his treatise), for Moon’s rotation period:
27 days 7 hours 43 minutes 11 seconds 49 sixtieths of a second
that is, in decimal days
27.3216645446 days
to be compared with the most recent results using Lunar Laser Ranging
27.321661 days
what means that Mayers computation was identical to the LLR results till the FIFTH position after the decimal point.
And that though he made completely different observations, and used completely different data processing methods!
Only the dumbest deniers can ignore such evidence.
Bin, those figures refer to Moon’s orbital period. Moon is NOT rotating on its axis or we would see all sides of it.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string might help you understand.
For the dumbest of all them I repeat:
Only the dumbest deniers can ignore such evidence.
I’m proud, by the way, to be far less dumb, stubborn and ignorant than you are, Clint R.
Feel free to name me a ‘braindead cult idiot’, I love this expression.
I’m NOT ignoring such evidence, Bin. I’m explaining it to you.
I can explain it, but I can’t understand it for you. You’re a braindead cult idiot, and apparently loving it.
binny can’t produce the text where Mayer claims that. As Clint points out, that is a reference to the Moon’s orbital period. There was no way, particularly with Meyer’s faulty understanding of the related physics, he could have worked that out.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
Trolling is NOT science, RLH.
You should know. You do it so frequently.
That’s wrong, RLH. Now you’re resorting to false accusations.
You constantly stalk me claiming nonsense like “A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.” Yet I have linked you to numerous college/university sites that use the simple analogy. You take no responsibility for your one-line stalking comments.
THAT’s trolling. You’re a troll.
“Moon is NOT rotating on its axis or we would see all sides of it”
As it rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth we only see one side of it.
rlh…”As it rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth we only see one side of it”.
***
Richard, I have been asking you to explain how that is possible. How does the Moon rotate through 360 degrees per orbit while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth?
If an airliner flying at 35,000 feet above the Equator flies around the Earth, does it rotate through 360 degrees? It keeps the same face pointed at the Earth and if it doesn’t, it will likely crash. It cannot rotate in any direction through 360 degrees without crashing.
Possibly it could do a wing-over, where the plane rolls through 180 degrees about its nose-tail axis and it is upside down. Hoot Gibson, a legendary pilot, apparently recovered a plane like a 727 from such an incident. However, even with his talent, he could not recover from a nose over tail rotation.
Do I need to point out the obvious? When Hoot Gibson was half-way through his 360 degree rotation, he was hanging by his seat belt straps and the face pointed formerly at the Earth now pointed away from it.
The truth is, Richard, an airliner cannot rotate 360 degrees about any axis and still keep the same face pointed at the Earth. Why should it be different with the Moon?
Curiously, the raw data from an airliner’s inertial navigation system shows a pitch downwards through 360 degrees during a circumnavigation.
I wonder why?
“If an airliner flying at 35,000 feet above the Equator flies around the Earth, does it rotate through 360 degrees?”
wrt to the fixed stars (and the inertial reference system on the plane) it does.
Same reason that an “inertial navigation system” placed on Mt. Everest might show a change in orientation through 360 degrees whilst the Earth rotates. However, you have already previously agreed that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, it is instead rotating about the Earth’s axis, along with the rest of the Earth.
So you agree that the airplane IS rotating 360 degrees wrt the fixed stars/inertial navigation system.
Not on its own internal axis.
Please stop projecting your own egocentrism into airplanes, Graham.
An axis is fixed in some space, and objects extend in space.
These animations will help you understand how stupid you are:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
This video reveals how you are oblivious to the fact that once you fix an axis in space and move, it is the space that moves around you, Graham:
https://youtu.be/F47RnAjDi-M
For an egocentric guy, that kinda sucks to forget that.
“Not on its own internal axis”
There is no external axis for the combination of 2 systems, so the internal axis for the whole will be distinct to the the internal axis of the individual parts.
Little Willy and RLH talk complete nonsense, as usual.
DREMT has an axis all of his own.
Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, not on its own axis.
The cannonball rotates about the Earth’s axis, not on its own axis.
The airplane rotates about the Earth’s axis, not on its own axis.
Mount Everest moves 14 mm per year and not all in the direction the Earth orbits the Sun.
An axis is a series of points in some space, metric or not.
The cannonball does not rotate unless there is some force to make it do so. Its trajectory is nothing to do with its rotation.
Nice red herrings.
I explained why you said something that is clearly false, Graham.
Truth may not be that relevant to you, but it is to me.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis at a rate of once per day, it is merely rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth. That there is some movement or drift of Everest at some minuscule rate per year is completely irrelevant to the point being made.
The cannonball is not rotating either.
Exactly, RLH. The cannonball is not rotating on its own axis. Now you’re getting it.
> Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis at a rate of once per day
It could, however.
After 71 months of trolling I believe it is time for you to learn about modalities, Graham.
The cannonball is not rotating at all.
“It could, however”
Sure. I guess if somebody cut through the base of the mountain and then rested it on some sort of giant, slowly rotating platform.
“The cannonball is not rotating at all.”
The cannonball rotates about the Earth’s axis, not on its own axis. The force from the cannon, acting at right angles to the force of gravity, provides the torque to set that rotation off.
Simpler than that, Graham –
Rotate the frame of reference accordingly.
Cannonballs only fail to rotate in a thought experiment where it does not matter whether it rotates or not. In real life, bullet spin is a thing:
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/211_fall_2014/Edward_Russell/Edward_Russell/Bullet%20Spin/Bullet%20Spin.html
Little Willy has no idea what he’s talking about, as usual.
The cannonball is not rotating at all wrt the fixed stars.
…on its own axis.
Graham’s gaslighting continues.
When rightly told that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, Little Willy always cries "gaslighting".
The cannonball is not rotating at all wrt the fixed stars thus, if in an orbit, all sides are visible from the central body.
Wrong.
When Graham declares himself the winningest winner of yet another issue that would require we rewrite most physics courses in the known universe would he be right, he does so without showing anything.
DREMT is wrong, as usual.
RLH is wrong, as usual.
The cannonball is not rotating at all wrt the fixed stars or an inertial reference system thus, if in an orbit, all sides are visible from the central body.
Wrt an inertial reference frame, if the cannonball is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not rotating about its own axis, then the same face is always oriented towards the center of the orbit.
entropic…”Curiously, the raw data from an airliners inertial navigation system shows a pitch downwards through 360 degrees during a circumnavigation.
I wonder why?”
***
It’s done to give passengers a more comfortable ride. Pointing the nose down a tad gives the passengers a slight anti-gravity lift.
Gordo is saying stuff, as usual.
The cannonball is not rotating at all wrt the Earth. It is just in orbit about it which does not alter its orientation to the Earth.
I repeat my 5:27 PM comment, but note with some amusement that you are now contradicting yourself.
No contradiction. The cannonball is not rotating at all wrt the Earth’s center, fixed stars or an inertial reference platform.
GR: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-aircraft-fly-with-a-slight-nose-up-attitude-throughout-the-flight
RLH does not see the problem. How funny.
” Bin, those figures refer to Moons orbital period. ”
No they don’t.
If you would read papers and try to contradict their results instead of endlessly boasting your prepubescent nonsense, you would be a lot more credible.
The figures refer to Moon’s spin, Clint R.
The fact that Moon shows us the same face all the time disturbed neither Mayer nor any contemporary observer of Moon’s motion.
They all knew how to look behind.
Whether or not you accept the evidence: does that matter?
Depuis toujours, quand le sage montre la lune, l’imbcile regarde le doigt.
Moon is NOT spinning, Bin. YOU are.
Those figures refer to Moon’s orbital period. You can’t measure something that isn’t happening, unless you’re braindead.
binny…”The fact that Moon shows us the same face all the time disturbed neither Mayer nor any contemporary observer of Moons motion”.
***
They were too dumb to notice the obvious. I am not blaming them entirely considering the context of the times. They were stuck with observing via an optical telescope a small portion of the lunar orbit. Today, we have satellites and other platforms from which to observe.
However, it took a long time before Tesla noted the obvious, that it’s not possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis.
At least NASA acknowledged a problem. They noted that their claim of rotation was based on the stars as a reference. When I replied that a body not rotating in one reference frame could not begin rotating in another reference frame, there was no answer.
What NASA is observing is a vector on an orbiting body changing orientation wrt the stars. However, vectors representing the near face, the COG, and the far side of the Moon are all moving in parallel. That indicates curvilinear translation without rotation.
Come on, Gordo.
Ptolemy did not need any damn telescope to get what you would not had you an oracle machine.
Email Dennis.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re in the new thread.
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
” it is measured by angular velocity or momentum about an axis.”
Yes relative to an inertial reference frame.
Go get a physics textbook.
Philosophy?
Really?
Reference frames have been done.
DREMPTY,
“Reference frames have been done.”
Yes, but you got them wrong.
Graham, please stop shoving straw into unidentified mouths.
And like clockwork Graham tilts at windmills.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Seems we may need to revisit the topic, Graham.
71 months of trolling and you still do not get curvilinear translation,
bob and Little Willy lie, as usual.
Try this, Graham:
https://www2.tntech.edu/leap/murdock/books/v2chap1.pdf
That will be 50 bucks, that is 10 for Bob, 10 for Clowns Without Border, and the rest for my time.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, whilst not rotating about its own internal axis. Glad you agree.
And I’m glad you finally agree that one does not simply settle questions of angular velocity and momentum by interpreting a motion as rotation or translation, Graham.
More so that most interesting motions, like the Moon’s, involve both.
The only thing that matters to me right now is that you agree the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. Great stuff, thanks.
You emphasize the wrong word, Graham.
The operative word is *can*.
Also, you seem to forget the very first comment I made on this silly bait.
"The operative word is *can*."
Sure, some argue that it can’t.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352763
I knew you’d pretend nobody argues that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352776
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
No Bob, the angular velocity is relative to the local axis.
Gordon,
Since all the particles of the Moon, the ball on the string, or the bike pedal welded to the crank all move in concentric circles around that local axis, then they are all rotating around that local axis.
The axis being in the center of the orbit, and not within the moon, ball itself, or bike pedal.
> the center of an orbit
Incorrect, Graham.
Try again.
The axis is external to the object. No need to try again.
A center of mass is not exactly a geometric center, Graham.
71 months of trolling and you still fail basic concepts.
The axis of rotation is external to the objects. In the case of the ball on the string and the bike pedal it is located exactly in the center of the orbit. Looks like I failed nothing.
No circle, no pure rotation.
Orbits are most of the time non-circular, including for our Earth-Moon system.
Please stop trolling.
…and yet, “orbit/revolution” is often defined as a rotation around an external axis, as you know (and have even agreed to, thus making you a “Non-Spinner” without you even realizing it).
That’s because a rotation may involve some translation, Graham.
Only Moon Dragon cranks insist on pure rotation. Yet you can’t distinguish a geometric center from a center of mass.
Fancy that.
If you agree that “orbit without spin” involves rotation around an external axis, then you agree that an object that is orbiting, without spinning, changes orientation whilst it moves. Thus, you are a “Non-Spinner”. Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”, Willard.
Only Moon Dragon cranks speak of orbits without spin, Graham.
Astrophysicists have observed that celestial bodies tend to spin.
Physicists calculated why.
When will you show your calculations that support your alternative viewpoint?
Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”, Little Willy. Sorry, called you by the wrong name previously.
Moon Dragon cranks are holding that the Moon does not spin, Graham. That implies an orbit without spin. It is impossible to be a Moon Dragon crank and hold that the Moon spins. This is a necessary condition to be a Moon Dragon crank.
That an orbit involves a rotation around a center of mass does not imply any of that.
71 months of trolling and you still fail at modalities.
“That an orbit involves a rotation around a center of mass…”
You just keep on confirming it! Thank you.
If you agree that “orbit without spin” involves rotation around an external axis, then you agree that an object that is orbiting, without spinning, changes orientation whilst it moves. Thus, you are a “Non-Spinner”. Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”, Little Willy.
My pleasure to clarify your logic fail, Graham –
Moon Dragon cranks hold that the Moon does not spin. That’s why you call them “non-spinners.”
It is possible for a celestial body to spin and orbit at the same time. The Moon spins independently of however you describe the motion of its orbit.
Is that clearer this time, or do you want to continue to play dumb?
“It is possible for a celestial body to spin and orbit at the same time.”
Obviously. Like the Earth, for instance.
I will just clarify for any others reading, since Little Willy isn’t the brightest: the only way you can be a “Spinner” is if you believe “orbit without spin” is as per the “moon on the right” in the below GIF, which a “Spinner” would describe as solely translational motion:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
So, since Little Willy believes “orbit without spin” involves rotation about an external axis, he is actually a “Non-Spinner”. No matter how much he protests.
And so Graham soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his own epithet for the Moon Dragon Cranks doctrine implies the claim that the Moon does not spin. Everybody else understands that the Earth-Moon system is modelled with a Moon spinning.
Denial comes in all shapes and forms. For cranks, some kind of gaslighting is often involved. 71 months of trolling and Graham *cannot* bring himself to open an astrophysics book.
Sadz.
So, since Little Willy believes “orbit without spin” involves rotation about an external axis, he is actually a “Non-Spinner”. No matter how much he protests.
> believes “orbit without spin” involves
Three mistakes right there, Graham.
Revise and resubmit.
No mistakes, Little Willy. You’re a “Non-Spinner”. Embrace having a different and interesting viewpoint on something for the first time in your life.
I believe the Moon spins, Graham.
Just like everybody but a few cranks like you.
Unfortunately for you, Little Willy, a necessary condition for being a “Spinner” is thinking that “orbit without spin” is as per the “moon on the right” in the GIF I linked to earlier. You just don’t make the cut, I’m afraid.
And so Graham soldiers on, returning to his usual and irrelevant axle, oblivious that he switches from geometry to physics.
You do not meet a necessary condition of being a “Spinner”, Little Willy.
When you will master modalities, dear Graham, you might have a better chance pontificating about them. The necessary condition to hold the mainstream view on the motion of the Moon is to believe that it spins. Everything else is the product of 71 months of immature trolling logic from your part.
“The necessary condition to hold the mainstream view on the motion of the Moon is to believe that it spins.”
That is a necessary condition, Little Willy. You’ve got your blind belief in the mainstream down pat. No problems there. However, another necessary condition, that every single “Spinner” I have ever questioned about it besides you has met, is that they believe “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. You don’t meet that condition. So, you are not a “Spinner”. Sorry.
The number of sunspots of the last 30 days. You can see the second peak no higher than the first.
https://i.ibb.co/Vtk73L8/EISNcurrent-1.png
Oh look Ireneusz how irresistibly strong SC24 is in the next month of comparison!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZBizGNdZJLDKBU_5flhNVsvWBYBKLXT/view
Check out the impressive demise of this poor SC25! Peak after peak, it becomes weaker and weaker, OMG.
Does it even have the slightest chance of climbing past SC24?
It’s frightening. I’m so afraid.
Tell us all you think!
*
The chart shows EISN data including Aug 20 (88).
Keep up your stupid clown posting . so wee have more material to remind you later
Your answer was so perfectly expectable that it could well have been the reason why I posted, babbling Edog.
When we compare SSN, F10.7 and MgII we all see that the three series clearly show a current decline of solar activity:
1. SSN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZBizGNdZJLDKBU_5flhNVsvWBYBKLXT/view
2. F10.7
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
3. Mg II
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TeTmv3aYPCjUhQcP2HMgftcEFwNOVlNH/view
*
What is somewhat irritating is that in the Mg II series, SC24 is heavily on decline since long a while, what is not at all visible in SSN and F10.7.
Maybe this is due to Mg II’s observation period, which is very different from the two others.
*
Maybe it would be interesting to
– start the comparison by Jan 2022
– show percentages of values instead of the values themselves, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
– build the daily product of the three percentage series
and compare the result for SC25 vs. SC24.
IP, if the second peak holds, your prediction will be correct.
Bindidon will be soooo jealous!
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://i.ibb.co/Fg1n1jY/solradmon-eng.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://i.ibb.co/Fg1n1jY/solradmon-eng.png
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZBizGNdZJLDKBU_5flhNVsvWBYBKLXT/view
appear to have different start dates for this solar cycle.
Thanks.
One chart takes into account the smallest number of sunspots, the other the least UV radiation. The beginning of the UV cycle was determined after the UV increase, as can be seen in the graph.
Regardless, you can see that in this chart, activity in the 25th cycle is now declining.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZBizGNdZJLDKBU_5flhNVsvWBYBKLXT/view
Indeed, initially the number of sunspots grew quite rapidly in the 25th cycle, but now there is a stagnation. This is clearly visible in the chart of the highest magnitude in the WSO Stanford data. You can see that magnetic activity was higher after the peak in 2014. However, the trend shows otherwise.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
What you see here from people like Bindidong is that he has no understanding how systems work , all he does is collect rows of numbers and draw straight lines through them.
Combine that with being totally stuck on stupid ideology and you get replies like this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/
As always, the babbling Edog can’t stop discrediting and insulting.
A pilot he sez he is! Perfect.
I didn’t know that pilots would show – behind a nickname of course – so superficial, boastful, vulgar and boorish as he does.
That’s the one and only reason why I name him ‘babbling Edog’.
eben …”all he [Binny] does is collect rows of numbers and draw straight lines through them”.
***
Come on, Eben, Binny is not smart enough to draw a straight line through anything, even with a ruler. He gets Excel to do it. He programs it with faulty data and it draws a straight line through anything.
And not a day too soon – 7 straight lines for the price of one
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352569
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
August 9, 2022 at 2:33 PM
all it means is, for a given scenario of future emissions, the actual atmospheric rise in CO2 wont be as large as they think.
The first thing I found was that my idea that Nature each year removes a set fraction of the difference between the observed CO2 concentration and some baseline value is not new.
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has and always will be an equilibrium between the CO2 substrates which are massive in the earth , and the rate at which they can go into and out of the atmosphere from these substrates.
This is dependent on the available substrates plus the temperature and pressure of the planet under consideration.
For a typical rocky planet of this size with a substantial water interface with an oxygen nitrogen atmosphere the following dynamics hold.
CO2 is dissolved into all water in the atmosphere, oceans lakes and earth surfaces where air can permeate,
A side effect of this is that the actual amount of surface where earth to water to atmosphere exists is grossly underrepresented. Usually the equilibriae are only given for the 2/3 ocean surfaces neglecting both the water in the earth in contact with the atmosphere and the water in the atmosphere in direct contact with the earth.
CO2 binding and storage [sinks] do not occur exclusively in the ocean.
This may account in part for Dr Spencer’s surprisingly low build up of CO2.
Thank you for this article.
Thank you for this chance to contribute even if is a minor point.
How is it with CO2, is it rising or falling?
https://i.ibb.co/yQwZg4k/gfs-world-ced-t2anom-1-day.png
You will never observe any effect of CO2 when religiously contemplating one day’s temperatures 2 m above surface.
{sarc} Van Gogh couldn’t have painted it much better… {/sarc}
So is -0.8 C in the Southern Hemisphere a lot or a little?
Don’t people live up to a height of 2 meters? Not everyone flies in the clouds.
” Dont people live up to a height of 2 meters? ”
Of course, we all do, regardless the altitude.
But it is not the place where CO2 matters.
Sorry, today it is -0.7 C in the southern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/R0WJqS2/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
> But accounting for ENSO
https://climateball.net/but-abc/#enso
I thought that ENSO balanced overall to neutral even if we get more La Nina than El Nino in the mix.
And I thought Roy was not Bob Tisdale, Richard.
Climateball works in mysterious ways.
Willard,
You probably are sufficiently deluded to believe that strangers value your “thoughts”.
What are “climateballs”, anyway? Another product of your fanciful imagination?
Keep up the nonsense – gives everyone with any sense a good laugh, at least.
Mike Flynn,
Your second sentence does not cohere with the first.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
To Gordon Robertson
Over the years I have followed Dr Spencers Blog on this site. I have come to appreciate the comments you have made and specifically look for them. They reflect a depth of scientific knowledge and good judgement
I would be interested to learn should you be willing what your background is. My email is denh1935@gmail.com
Thanks for your consideration
rlh…”There is no such thing as pure curvilinear translation without rotation except in your deluded mind.
There are just elliptical orbits about a barycenter that everybody else agrees upon”.
***
Allow me to list a few example of curvilinear translation without rotation.
1)An airliner flying at 35,000 feet around the Equator.
2)a ball rotating about a hand on a string.
3)a race car following an oval track.
4)a locomotive running on a circular track.
5)a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a rotating merry-go-round
6)a person walking CW around a tree with his/her right shoulder pointed to the tree.
In your deluded mind you are confusing rotation about a local axis with a vector on a translating body changing it’s position wrt the stars, or an external reference.
I confuse nothing. It is you who are confused. You even think that a barycenter does not exist when Newtons’ 3rd Law requires there to be one.
RLH, “barycenter” has nothing to do with this issue. You found out about a barycenter from googling, and assumed it was relevant, so you threw it against the wall hoping it would stick.
You don’t understand anything about this issue, and you avoid learning.
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The ball is “orbiting”, but NOT “rotating about its axis”. You refuse to accept that reality because it is counter to your cult beliefs.
A more advanced model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” would involve vectors. But, you don’t have any experience with vectors.
You’re a braindead cult idiot. You just fake being an AGW skeptic only because you like to bicker. You have NO understanding of science.
(I will not respond to your usual bickering.)
“You found out about a barycenter from googling”
Wrong, as usual.
rlh…once again, I have no problem with the concept of a barycentre just as I have no problem with a centre of gravity. You seem to think that because a barycentre is defined between Earth and Moon that both have to rotate about each other.
That’s physically impossible if Earth is to maintain an elliptical orbital path around the Sun. The truth is that the Earth and Moon do not rotate about each other simply because there is no momentum for either in those directions.
You could calculate a barycentre for a dumbbell sitting on a table, it’s a mathematical calculation. Does no mean the two ends of the dumbbell are rotating about the barycentre.
On the other hand, stars in a binary system can rotate about a barycentre.
The various bodies obit, not rotate, about each other/their barycenter. They rotate about their own axis during that orbit. Those are 2 separate motions.
> a ball rotating
Read that part again, Gordo.
Please remind readers the definition of a pure curvilinear translation.
I mean, come on.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=atlc&fdays=2
So, maybe some in September?
Before September we could get the launch of SLS.
There is some clouds, but I don’t a hurricane will an issue.
But it might be delayed for other problems.
Also: Late 2022Atlas 5 CST-100 Starliner Crew Flight Test
“A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket will launch Boeings CST-100 Starliner spacecraft on its first mission with astronauts, known as the Crew Test Flight, to the International Space Station.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
2022 could be a good year for Boeing.
Spacex will launch another crew to ISS before this, plus a cargo to ISS. And couple Heavy Falcons, also, still looks good for spaceX launching one every week of this year [or more}.
It still looks like FAA is delaying Starship launch, but no longer threatening a really long delay- which was good news.
Anyways, SLS will largest rocket launch the world has ever seen this the last launch of Saturn V [about 40 years ago] SLS will become larger than Saturn V. And Starship will be largest rocket to ever be launched. And first fully reusable rocket ever launched.
But actually becoming fully reusable and largest rocket ever launched could take another year or so.
I have a couple comments that have been stuck in moderation for several days.
They may contain forbidden words or sequences.
This site has several auto-moderation quirks. The letters d and c in sequence are taboo. So are words like absor*btion.
Get into the habit of copying your comments before posting them. If one fails to appear, you can then post it in parts to find out where the problem is.
aaron
Beware of writing, in your comments, words containing the character sequence ‘d’ ‘c’, or the word ‘absorp-tion’ without something separating ‘p’ and ‘t’.
Your comment ‘disappears’.
But by clicking on the browser’s ‘one page back’ arrow, you can get it back, it is then at the end of the thread.
After correction, the comment then is reinserted at the place initially intended.
I looked at the preliminary state of the Sun for August
Last month average was 91
https://i.postimg.cc/vHq05N74/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
This month so far it’s 84 with current being 74
and dropping down with likelihood staying low
Which means there has been no more ramp up in the last 5-6 month, only going sideways
It’s got 56 now, and looks like could be spotless or close to it
in few days, though:
–Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.3% Below Average
48-hr change: -1.9% —
Maybe whole sun, rather our view of it, is “more active” and reinforcement are coming to your side, sooner than it appear to be the case.
Also we don’t see the polar regions. though I think there was space mission going to do that [or already doing it- don’t remember the details of it. I will search it:
Solar Orbiter on way to explore Suns polar regions
Ken Kremer February 11, 2020
…
The international Solar Orbiter is the first mission designed to image and explore the Suns polar regions thereby offering unprecedented science returns on basic understandings of how the Sun works and better predictions of space weather events that impact everyday life on Earth and our astronauts living aboard the International Space Station (ISS).
…
Solar Orbiter will spend about three months in its commissioning phase, during which the mission team will run checks on the spacecrafts 10 scientific instruments to ensure they are working properly. It will take Solar Orbiter about two years to reach its primary science orbit.
https://www.rocketstem.org/2020/02/11/solar-orbiter-exploring-suns-polar-regions/
speed: 332.4 km/sec
density: 1.92 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Aug 22
Sunspot number: 46
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.35×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.5%
And the weird:
–A STRANGELY-MAGNETIZED SUNSPOT: A new sunspot (provisionally numbered AR3088) is emerging in the sun’s southern hemisphere. Its magnetic field is not normal:
The sunspot, which didn’t even exist yesterday, is inset in this Solar Dynamics Observatory map of magnetic fields on the sun. According to Hale’s Law, the sunspot’s magnetic poles should be arranged +/-, that is, positive (+) on the left and negative (-) on the right. Instead, they are rotated 90 degrees; positive (+) is on top and negative (-) is on the bottom.
This is a rare “perpendicular sunspot,” with magnetic poles orthogonal to the sun’s equator. What’s going on? Something unusual may be happening to the sun’s magnetic dynamo beneath the surface where this sunspot is growing. We’ll keep an eye on AR3088 to see what happens next.–
And it’s pretty big also
Another big drop in sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/WBc0Qz1/EISNcurrent-1.png
We observe strong ripples in the strength of the magnetic field of the solar wind. It can be seen that the effect in terms of the number of ground-based neutrons occurs with some delay.
https://i.ibb.co/nMkdpLQ/onlinequery.gif
Another wave of La Nia is visible. I believe the peak will occur in November 2022.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=08
Gordon understands Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. He writes long dissertations trying to explain that fact to the cult idiots. But Gordon, being the nice guy he is, doesn’t understand he is dealing with people that have NO interest in learning. They are religiously committed to their false beliefs. They have no interest in reality.
So when he tries to explain, the idiots are just waiting for a chance to attack him. In his efforts to explain, if he gives them any opening, they will use it to refute all of his work. That’s why I try to keep my comments short and to the point. Even then, the cult idiots will misrepresent my words. They have to. They can’t stand reality.
With all of the above in mind, I need to address one of Gordon’s statements, and the ensuing attack by the cult.
Gordon stated: “All you have with the Moon is a constant linear momentum, which means a constant linear velocity”.
That statement allowed braindead bob to then ask: “How come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?”
Moon has a constant linear momentum as averaged over its orbit. But within an orbit, its linear momentum and linear speed are constantly changing. This is due to its elliptical orbit. If its orbit were a perfect circle, then momentum and speed would not be changing.
I will only respond to responsible questions/comments.
Gordo allowed himself to present a ball rotating around an external axis as an illustration of a pure translation, Pup. Even you should be able to recognize that this go against Moon Drsgon dogma,
Gordo is the crankiest cranks amongst cranks.
Please bow to Gordo.
Clint R,
So now you provide proof you either never took physics or you flunked it.
“Moon has a constant linear momentum as averaged over its orbit.”
Linear momentum is a vector and it makes no sense to average a vector over time.
“But within an orbit, its linear momentum and linear speed are constantly changing.”
Once in a while a blind sow finds an acorn.
“This is due to its elliptical orbit. If its orbit were a perfect circle, then momentum and speed would not be changing.”
Momentum being mass time velocity as a vector with direction, you know that the direction of an object in a circular orbit is always changing, or do you not know that, because you just posted the opposite.
Seems you don’t understand that vectors have direction and magnitude.
Flunking high school physics for 200 Alex.
Both momentum and velocity have magnitudes which are scalars which can be averaged. Notice I used “speed” instead of “velocity”. That should have been a clue, if you weren’t desperately trying to pervert my words.
Clint R,
” If its orbit were a perfect circle, then momentum and speed would not be changing.”
Did I misquote you?
That statement is wrong, you should retract it.
” Moon has a constant linear momentum as averaged over its orbit.”
This is also not true, because the Moon moves around the Sun.
You should be careful with what you post, because I know some physics and you don’t.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
I was clearly referring to “magnitudes”, as indicated by my use of “speed”.
And Moon has NO linear momentum from Sun.
You don’t understand any of this. You just attempt to pervert reality You try to pervert my words, and you even try to pervert how a simple bicycle pedal functions. With you, it’s any perversion to protect your cult.
You’re a pervert, bob.
(I won’t respond to any of your comments that contain perversions of reality. Someone has to be the adult in the room.)
Keep on trucking the stupid truck Clint R
“And Moon has NO linear momentum from Sun.”
Not from Sun, brainiac, it has linear momentum with respect to the Sun.
Momentum and speed are different yet you put an and between them.
And, obviously you can’t ride a bicycle, because you don’t seem to understand that a bicycle pedal can rotate or not rotated because their is a bearing between the pedal and the crank.
Don’t blame me for your stupidity.
Sure, bob, and if you fixed the bearing so that it was physically impossible for the pedal to rotate on its own axis, then the pedal would move like the ball on a string, keeping the same face always towards the center.
Why is it that when you come at the limits of your expertise you come up with some silly and irrelevant counterfactual, Graham?
Translation is really not that complex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnzsQmP6eMQ
I agree, translation is really not that complex. Thank you.
Great. Progress.
And I’m sure you agree with Chic that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342147
Vintage 2019-02.
What progress? I’ve always thought that translation is really not that complex. A subject change? No thanks.
The topic was about Pup’s blunderous claim that the Moon “has NO linear momentum from Sun,” Graham.
Why don’t you support that claim?
Not for me. For me, the topic was:
"And, obviously you can’t ride a bicycle, because you don’t seem to understand that a bicycle pedal can rotate or not rotated because their is a bearing between the pedal and the crank."
…but you exploded passionately onto the scene with a desperate desire to troll me, and here we are.
Compare and contrast, Graham:
[PUP IN 2022] Moon has NO linear momentum from Sun.
[PUP IN 2020] Moon does not have angular momentum. It only has “linear” momentum.
Would you mind opine on that assertion?
After all, Pup thanked you in 2020 for allowing him to make it.
There is no contradiction between the two statements, if that is what you think.
No, Graham. I think exactly the opposite.
Pup has been trolling with that claim more than two years ago.
You know about that claim.
You do not opine on it.
And that claim is the reason why Bob spoke of bike pedals.
But you saw “bike pedal” and you jumped in this exchange without having read it, and now declare that *this* is the topic.
In Moon Dragon Crank universe, what kind of momentum does the Moon have?
Sure DREMPTY,
“Sure, bob, and if you fixed the bearing so that it was physically impossible for the pedal to rotate on its own axis, then the pedal would move like the ball on a string, keeping the same face always towards the center.”
Yeah but you can’t do that, the whole bicycle can then still rotate around the pedal, even if the pedal is welded to the crank.
Even if the same face is always to the center, it’s still rotating on its axis.
I’ll just ignore Little Willy…
…bob thinks that if a pedal is physically incapable of rotating on its own axis, it’s still rotating on its own axis. Moon dragon crank logic in action.
Graham’s gaslighting continues.
Weak willy and braindead bob don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. They just throw crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Of course Moon has linear momentum. Otherwise it wouldn’t remain in orbit.
But its linear momentum did NOT come from Sun.
(Expect the troll twins to try to pervert my words.)
Clint R,
you should try and read what I post.
I never said the Moon did not have linear momentum.
But you said
“Moon has a constant linear momentum as averaged over its orbit.”
That pretty stupid, not quite to the level of the Moon’s phases caused by the Earth’s shadow, but pretty close, I’d say you missed it by this much!
braindead bob, you’ll never be able to prove me wrong by quoting me correctly.
You should have learned the in troll school.
Clean off the wall, then it’s your bedtime.
Clint R,
I didn’t say it was wrong, I said it was stupid.
Learn the difference.
DREMPTY,
“bob thinks that if a pedal is physically incapable of rotating on its own axis, its still rotating on its own axis. Moon dragon crank logic in action.”
That’s not what I said.
Willard’s right, you are gaslighting me, possible because you don’t understand the physics, because you think the Moon does not rotate.
You have several thousand Astronomers you can try gaslighting as well.
“Even if the same face is always to the center, it’s still rotating on its axis.”
So if the pedal is locked so that it physically cannot rotate on its own axis, then you still think that it’s rotating on its own axis. That is precisely what you’re saying, bob. You’re perhaps just too stupid to realize it, but yes it’s what you’re saying.
> if the pedal is locked so that it physically cannot rotate on its own axis
Please step away of this stupid game and contemplate what you are suggesting, Graham –
Do you really think a locked pedal cannot rotate on its axis?
Srsly.
Use your imagination for one second.
The pedal is locked so that with the bicycle stationary, the pedal cannot turn at all. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis. As you wheel the bicycle forwards, the pedal will move around in a circle with the same side always oriented towards the center of that circle. Stop the bicycle again. The pedal still physically cannot rotate on its own axis. As you were moving the bicycle, the only logical conclusion is that the pedal at all times physically still could not rotate on its own axis.
I’m not sure how to say this, Graham. Let’s try:
[HAMM] The only thing that matters to me right now is that you agree the fixed bike pedal can be described as NOT rotating on its own axis. Great stuff, thanks.
[CLOV] You emphasize the wrong word. The operative word is *can*.
[HAMM] Sure, some argue that it can’t.
Good point. From what I know of my previous discussions with him, bob cannot even accept that the locked bike pedal could even possibly be described as not rotating on its own axis. Let alone get his head around the idea that it is the only legitimate way to describe it, given that it physically cannot rotate on its own axis whilst the bike is stationary.
> Good point.
Thanks. I am glad to have found the ones you were talking about earlier, Graham.
It was Moon Dragon cranks all along!
Never forget that motion is relative, so you you should try not to misrepresent what Bob holds.
Yes, bob is a moon dragon crank…in other words, he believes the moon rotates on its own axis. As I recall, you are a “Non-Spinner”, because you believe that “orbit without spin” involves rotation (you said a mixture of translation and rotation). You usually try to dodge this by saying you never used the term “orbit without spin”, but from context it was clear you couldn’t have meant anything else.
DREMPTY,
If you lock the pedal so it can’t rotate. how did you do that, by welding it to something that can rotate?
The pedal is welded to the crank, which can still rotate, so the pedal can still rotate.
You have to figure out some other way to prevent the pedal from rotating.
The pedal can rotate, but not on its own axis, if the bike moves.
DREMPTY,
How do you prevent the pedal from rotating on its own axis?
By locking it.
Graham,
A Dragon crank is a crank. Sky Dragon cranks deny greenhouse gases. Moon Dragon cranks deny that the Moon spins. And so on and so forth.
Mainstream science is not crank stuff.
Hope this helps.
Nah, moon dragon cranks believe the moon rotates on its own axis.
It’s spin, Graham, and mainstream science is not crank stuff.
You say that a fixed pedal can rotate, but not on its own axis, if the bike moves.
You do not seem to realize that you *could* rotate the bike around the pedal.
Remember what I told you about modalities?
Now is the time to take them srsly.
DREMPTY,
“By locking it.”
To what?
Sure, you could rotate the bike around the pedal, but that would be perverting the simple example. Why would you want to do that?
bob is too thick to respond to.
DREMPTY,
Why would I do that?
To be thick of course.
To try to get you to think about what you are claiming.
If the bike pedal changes its orientation, it has to be rotating about a local axis.
I can’t help you with the physics, nor with the eighth grade science.
The bike pedal changes its orientation because it is rotating…
…but not on its own axis.
Perhaps you can settle another argument. bob, do you agree that the locked bike pedal can be described as not rotating on its own axis?
> that would be perverting
You said that the pedal “physically cannot rotate on its own axis,” Graham.
Revise and resubmit.
I said:
“The pedal is locked so that with the bicycle stationary, the pedal cannot turn at all. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis.”
Tell me, Little Willy: if the bicycle is being rotated around the pedal, is the bike stationary?
DREMPTY,
“Perhaps you can settle another argument. bob, do you agree that the locked bike pedal can be described as not rotating on its own axis?”
No I do not, because if 5 = X^2 + Y^2, it is a simple substitution to substitute X=2 for X, and Y=2 for Y, which changes the axis of rotation.
So it’s trivial to change the location of the rotation axis, so I can change it from external to internal.
Bottom line, the Moon rotates on its own internal axis.
But then, that’s a little tougher substitution because the axis the Moon revolves around and the one it rotates around are not parallel.
“The moon does rotate on its axis. One rotation takes nearly as much time as one revolution around Earth. If the moon were to rotate quickly (several times each month) or not rotate at all, Earth would be exposed to all sides of the moon (i.e. multiple different views).”
from https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/young-naturalist-awards/winning-essays/2004/afpectus-lunae-does-the-moon-rotate-on-its-axis#:~:text=The%20moon%20does%20rotate%20on,(i.e.%20multiple%20different%20views).
“No I do not”
Well, that settles another argument in my favour. Thanks bob.
DREMPTY,
But you never told me what you locked the pedal to?
Sorry, but you are only winning arguments in your demented, uneducated, non critical thinking deluded mind.
It was an argument between Little Willy and myself, bob. You see, I had said that there were people here who argued that an object moving like the locked pedal can’t be described as not rotating on its own axis, and Little Willy didn’t believe me.
Braindead bob, I remember when you claimed the pedal was not rotating.
Do you?
Clint R,
Yeah, I do.
But then that is when it is free to rotate with respect to the crank.
The discussion now, is where we prevent it from rotating with respect to the crank.
Do try to follow the argument.
Okay bob, I just wanted you to confirm that you believed the pedal could not rotate “when it is free to rotate with respect to the crank”.
(That’s what “braindead” looks like.)
Tell me, Graham – when you move pedals on your bike, does your bike remain stationary?
Perhaps you should check out the meaning of stationary.
You should also think again about how Bob transforms one rotation into another. It involves equations, however, and we both know how you suck at them.
Clint R,
Confirmation denied,
Because I said something completely different.
Allow me to quote myself.
“And, obviously you cant ride a bicycle, because you dont seem to understand that a bicycle pedal can rotate or not rotated because their is a bearing between the pedal and the crank.”
What a crank you are.
“Tell me, Graham – when you move pedals on your bike, does your bike remain stationary”
Covered that as well, Little Willy:
“As you wheel the bicycle forwards, the pedal will move around in a circle with the same side always oriented towards the center of that circle”.
You lose yet another one.
DREMPTY,
Depends on what kind of pedals you have on your bike.
Clipped, clip-less, rat-traps, or the ones on your bike.
Tell me, are they pink?
“Okay bob, I just wanted you to confirm that you believed the pedal could not rotate “when it is free to rotate with respect to the crank”.
(That’s what “braindead” looks like.)”
Yes, Clint R…when the pedal is free to rotate on its own axis, they think it is not rotating on its own axis. When the pedal is not free to rotate on its own axis, then they think it is rotating on its own axis!
☺️
In astronomy, dear Graham, stationary means no apparent motion in longitude. There is a word in that definition that makes your modality a tad too strong. I will let you find it.
71 months of trolling and still no curiosity,
Yeah DREMT, braindead bob is always such a hoot.
He claims to have been trained as a machinist, but doesn’t seem to understand axels are made so that something can rotate.
They’re both funny, Clint R. Neither can ever admit when they’re wrong, which is more often than not.
* axles
Lift the bicycle by its crank and spin the bicycle. Are the pedals spinning or not?
> Depends on what kind of pedals you have on your bike.
Moon Dragon cranks have very powerful pedals, Bob. They power their bikes without any angular momentum!
Depends, Brandy Guts. If you could somehow grasp the locked pedal in your hand and rotate the entire bike smoothly around it so that the pedal was rotating on its own axis, then that pedal would be rotating on its own axis. It would be an extremely difficult move to pull off, and it is just a perversion of the 8:02 PM example, so why think about it?
Clint R,
You said
“He claims to have been trained as a machinist,”
Nope, I never made that claim.
So that makes you a liar.
> why think about it?
To avoid thinking about the question I posed, of course.
I wonder why that is.
I answered your question to the best of my ability, Brandy Guts, which is far more than you deserve given that you did not answer mine.
Clint R,
What a marroon.
“but doesnt seem to understand axels are made so that something can rotate.”
Nope, you are too stupid to understand that an axel is something figure skaters do.
Bearing are the things made so something can rotate.
You are some kind of funny too.
braindead bob, I got that from your claim that you had been a “machinist mate”. If you weren’t trained for that, thanks for admitting it. It explains a lot.
Sorry, but I already corrected my typo. So your vacuous insult just goes into the “braindead bob’s desperation because he’s got NOTHING” bucket.
> I got that from your claim that you had been a “machinist mate”.
As always you misunderstand, Pup. Watch Bob’s mate in action:
https://youtu.be/8SbUC-UaAxE
You did not answer my question, Graham; you proposed your own question and answered it.
You should revisit your August 21, 2022 at 7:53 AM reply to me and ponder why those fragments don’t behave like passenger aircraft, and the implications that has for your trolling.
CLint R,
“braindead bob, I got that from your claim that you had been a machinist mate. If you werent trained for that, thanks for admitting it. It explains a lot.”
Well that makes you an ignorant slob, not bothering to look things up and assuming a Machinist’s Mate is a machinist.
Here I’ll google that for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinist%27s_mate
I was the NEC N51Z variety.
You can be ignorant, but do try not to be an ignorant asshole.
I answered your question to the best of my ability, Brandy Guts. Which is more than you deserve, given that you did not answer either of the two questions that I asked you previously. If you think a passenger jet circumnavigating the Earth is comparable to a part of a record as it turns on a turntable, then you should agree that the passenger jet is not rotating on its own axis. After all, the part of a record is not rotating on its own axis, it is just rotating about an axis in the center of the record, same as every other part of the record.
We know bob has backed himself into a corner he can’t get out of because his profanity is starting.
Probably he never received training on anything that had axles or bearings, if he was a welder.
Clint R,
Better read that again, NEC N51Z was a secondary classification.
So welding was not my primary classification.
“Probably he never received training on anything that had axles or bearings”
You would be wrong with that statement
But since I was a welder, I know that welders crayons are good to use to see if the bearing will go on the shaft nicely.
You can stop being an ignorant trolling asshole any day now, or go to your grave being one.
I don’t give a fuck.
It beggars belief that you can’t envisage a bicycle rotating around the axle of its own crank, Graham.
It’s similarly difficult to believe you don’t realize how your August 21, 2022 at 7:53 AM post contradicts how you wish your airliner to behave.
It’s impossible to believe that Bicycle Crank Cranks don’t realize that a normally operating bicycle frame isn’t spinning.
Yes, a normally operating bicycle frame isn’t spinning. You finally got something right.
Yet a normally operating bicycle pedal *is* spinning according to Bicycle Crank Cranks, even though it maintains the same orientation with the non-spinning frame.
In order to “maintain the same orientation with the non-spinning frame”, the pedal has to rotate on its own axis, Brandy Guts, because the arm it is attached to is changing its orientation. That’s why a functioning pedal is not locked, and has a bearing, to enable it to rotate on its own axis.
Graham still fails to understand curvilinear motion:
https://youtu.be/BdtzuJG97AY?t=110
Why would he watch a 10 min video when he can troll for 71 months?
Presumably Little Willy means curvilinear translation. Sure, some would argue that the correctly functioning bicycle pedal is an example of curvilinear translation…but those who understand rotation a little better would argue that it is an example of rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposing directions but at the same rate.
Presumably Graham still comments without clicking on links first.
My response is fine as it is, Little Willy. If you have something to add, say it in your own words.
Presumably Graham still fails to notice the title of the video.
Graham.
If the frame is not spinning.
And the pedal does not change orientation with the frame.
How can the pedal spin while the frame does not.
I didn’t click on the link, Little Willy. If you have a point to make, say it in your own words.
Brandy Guts, I refer you to the explanation I already gave to you in my previous comment. If you still fail to understand how a bike works, perhaps find a responsible child who can explain it to you further.
Poor bob has lost it again.
Brandon, the pedal is rotating on an axle as it “orbits” the hub. That allows it to always have one side flat. Two motions — orbiting and rotating. Earth has those two motions. Moon only has one — orbiting.
DREMT has explained this repeatedly. Only someone braindead could not understand it.
Graham still won’t click on a link leading to a video that solves his silly ball on string.
As BG correctly says, it would beggar belief without our Moon Dragon cranks’ loss aversion for their 71 months of trolling.
The current topic of discussion is the bicycle pedal, Little Willy. If you wish to change the subject to the ball on a string, then perhaps start a new thread. If interested, I will join you there.
It was wrong the first time DREMPTY explained it, and it will still be wrong after a thousand times.
Maybe if he tries bold fonts and all caps
I understand how a bicycle works quite well, Graham, thank you. Here is what I understand:
Your hands attach to the handlebars. Your ass attaches to the seat. Your feet attach to the pedals.
If the frame does not rotate then neither do your hands or ass.
Only an ass would believe that their feet can rotate while their body does not, and not become painful at some point.
Goodnight.
No, bob, the locked bicycle pedal really can be described as not rotating on its own axis. Even Little Willy agrees.
DREMPTY,
Clint R was claiming that in order for the bicycle pedal to remain flat, it has to be rotating in its bearing.
“No, bob, the locked bicycle pedal really can be described as not rotating on its own axis. Even Little Willy agrees.”
He was not talking about the locked pedal.
“Brandon, the pedal is rotating on an axle as it orbits the hub. That allows it to always have one side flat”
That is the stupid Moon on the right rotating clockwise once per orbit argument.
Do try to keep up
Sure, bob, but the locked pedal is still very relevant. I was just letting you know that the locked pedal really can be described as not rotating on its own axis. Even Little Willy agrees. Similarly, the normally functioning pedal really can be described as rotating on its own axis. Just some facts for you to deny.
> The current topic of discussion is the bicycle pedal,
The topic of this subthread is angular momentum and was in response to this comment from Bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352582
Graham might argue that his interjections regarding a silly bike pedal is irrelevant.
I would not dispute it.
Worthless willy throws braindead bob’s slop against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Here’s the disinfectant:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352588
clint…”Gordon stated: All you have with the Moon is a constant linear momentum, which means a constant linear velocity”.
***
I usually clarify that my reference to linear velocity means instantaneous linear velocity. The tangential linear velocity vector to any curve is always an instantaneous value. In fact, any velocity expressed as v = ds/dt is instantaneous by definition. The ‘d’ in ds means ‘differential’ and any differential quantity must be instantaneous.
Bob is completely lost with basic calculus. If you have a particle or body moving in a straight line the relationship is v = ds/dt. If you have a particle moving on a circular path with equation x^2 + y^2 = r^2 it’s the same kind of relationship between v and s but expressed in a manner to allow for the curved path.
Spinners blogging here are utterly confused as to the meaning of curvilinear translation. If the former, a body moving in a straight line, is called rectilinear translation, any body moving on a curve is curvilinear translation. Simple as that but even people writing textbooks can’t figure that out.
So, if the Moon is moving along a curvilinear path, as Newton acknowledged, and it keeps the same side always pointed inward at the Earth, it is obviously moving with curvilinear translation. It is equally obviously not rotating.
Appreciate your support but please don’t worry about my feelings. I post so others tuning in can see what a load of utter fools we are dealing with. Since they are mainly alarmists as well that serves two purposes.
Gordon, people that know physics likely understood what you were saying. But there is NO way to communicate science to the cult without them trying to pervert it.
That’s the problem we face.
Gordon,
I don’t think you ever passed all three semesters of Calculus.
But any way, curvilinear translation is motion along a curve with no change in orientation.
Look it up.
So the Moon changes its orientation, so it’s not just curvilinear translation, nor is it rectilinear translation.
The only thing left is rotation.
You can’t change definitions.
Orbital motion is not covered under other types of motion like kinematics and kinetics. So Gordon is trying to explain to you in terms you will understand. But cult idiots can’t understand anything that debunks their false beliefs.
Clint R,
Gordon is still using the wrong definition of curvilinear translation.
And kinematics can be applied to orbital motion.
“But cult idiots cant understand anything that debunks their false beliefs.”
True, but you can’t figure out who is in the cult and who is not.
You can apply kinematics to orbital motion all you want, bob. But that doesn’t mean you will get correct answers.
You’ll end up with nonsense like Moon has angular momentum.
Sorry Clint R,
The Moon has angular momentum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBJjORy9y9s
Yes bob. that’s what braindead looks like.
You can apply kinematics to orbital motion all you want, bob. But that doesn’t mean you will get correct answers.
You’ll end up with nonsense like Moon has angular momentum.
Ask Graham about that one, Pup.
Should be fun.
Now Clint R is claiming the Moon doesn’t orbit the Earth.
Man, that’s one big hill of stupid.
I know you didn’t say that, but you implied it by saying the Moon doesn’t have any angular momentum.
Maybe you could unlearn something by watching that video.
31 years of military and civilian service all went to waste, what a shame.
Orbiting does NOT mean angular momentum, bob.
Earth orbits around Sun, but there is no angular momentum around Sun. Earth rotates about its axis, so there is angular spin momentum around Earth’s axis of rotation. If gravity were turned off, Earth would go on a straight line, still rotating, as its angular spin momentum is conserved.
People get confused about angular momentum in an orbit. That comes from trying to apply kinematics and kinetics to orbital motion. That’s generally a mistake.
Study up bitches
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/angular_momentum.html
Let’s see if Graham will notice this important detail:
“This equation works for a single particle moving around a central point, for example a planet orbiting around the Sun or a rock tied onto a string that is swung in a circle.”
Little Willy desperately baits…
This from bob’s link — “…or a rock tied onto a string that is swung in a circle.”
Dang, their nonsense blows up in their face, again!
… and Pup missed both my comment and the beginning of the sentence he quotes!
Let’s quote it again, for Graham’s sake:
Perhaps that’ll help him guess why Bob keeps talking about particles-with-an-s.
Little Willy continues to desperately bait…
Braindead bob and worthless willy, I’ll explain angular momentum to you if you will both agree to not comment here for 45 days. That’s a very special end-of-summer deal.
Don’t miss out.
Graham desperately dodges an issue that would force him to realize why he failed to answer BG’s question correctly. He might still appreciate:
He should thank Bob for having provided such a clear resource!
Clint R,
Post your qualifications and certifications to teach Physics and its game on.
Until then, you are just an unqualified boaster, who doesn’t know angular momentum from a hole in the ground or his asshole, whichever happens to be closer.
Little Willy is still desperately baiting…
Graham still washes his hands over Pup’s blunder:
https://youtu.be/qBJjORy9y9s
College Physics. Fancy that.
Little Willy is still labouring under the misapprehension that I am responsible for other people’s comments. If you want Clint R to explain himself further, why not take him up on his offer? It’s a special summer deal, after all…
Graham still refuses to work out the implication of the fact that the Moon indeed has angular momentum.
71 months of trolling, dissolved by a 7 min college physics video.
The question really is if the moon has spin angular momentum, Little Willy. “Spinners” would of course say it does, “Non-Spinners” would of course say it doesn’t.
And so Graham finally concedes that he indeed has skin in the game of chicken between Pup and Bob after all.
If you say so, Little Willy.
I’ll leave my offer in place for another day. But, worthless willy and braindead bob seem opposed to any learning.
It’s almost like they’re afraid of reality….
Clint R,
no tickee no laundry
If only we had a bicycle wheel with the tire filled with lead shot
Clint R,
“Orbiting does NOT mean angular momentum, bob.
Earth orbits around Sun, but there is no angular momentum around Sun.”
And you think you can teach me about angular momentum.
Don’t think so.
Because an orbiting body has angular momentum.
Go take the plastic off of the physics textbook.
My special offer expires today, bob.
You don’t have to remain braindead. Here’s a chance to learn. Don’t pass it up.
” Heres a chance to learn.”
Pretty sure he means ‘a chance to unlearn’, because what he has taught so far is certainly not correct physics.
Troll Nate had NO science, again.
Just his lame ineffective flak.
Clint R,
No proof that you are qualified to teach physics, no tickee no laundry.
If you plan on teaching that the Earth has no angular momentum with respect to the Sun, I am afraid I will have to flunk out, talk to the Dean and get your ass fired.
But then you don’t have any kind of teaching certificate, do you?
No resume, no job.
Show me your resume, I’ll consider hiring you to teach me physics.
“Gordon understands Moon is NOT rotating about its axis”
Gordon, like you, is wrong about that. Orbiting another body and rotating about an axis are 2 separate motions, not dependent on each other.
True, “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are 2 separate motions. Now you just need to show where Gordon or Clint R have argued otherwise.
Another easy win:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1353478
You are getting sloppy, Graham.
You were looking for evidence that Gordon or Clint R have argued that “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are not two separate motions, Little Willy. Instead, you have linked to an unrelated comment by Tim Folkerts.
Indeed, Graham, and I just cited a comment with a quote that establishes it.
Incorrect.
Sloppy.
Yes, you have been. The evidence requested is not in your linked comment.
Incorrect.
“a ball rotating on a string has fundamentally the same motion as the Moon in its orbit.”
is the only quote attributable to Gordon in your linked comment. There is nothing in that quote about “orbiting” and “axial rotation” not being separate motions.
Please read the quote again, Graham.
I have read it multiple times already. “Non-Spinners” think of “orbiting” as being motion like the ball on a string. That motion is then separate from “axial rotation”. It is critical to keep the two motions separate. We argue that the moon is only doing the former. There is nothing in the quote that contradicts any of that.
Please read the sentence again, Graham.
I cannot understand it for you.
If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, then I will just ask you to please stop trolling.
Definition of fundamentally
: with regard to what is basic, essential, or fundamental :
– at a fundamental level a fundamentally honest person a fundamentally new/different approach
– Most theories of the internal structure of Venus begin with the assumption that the planet is fundamentally similar to the earth [Andrew and Louise Young]
: in a basic or fundamental manner
– This “disposable” work force is the most important trend in business today, and it is fundamentally changing the relationship between Americans and their jobs. [Janice Castro]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentally
Thanks, but I already knew what "fundamentally" means. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, then I will just ask you to please stop trolling.
Perhaps this will help:
"Orbiting" means rotating on an external axis.
"Axial rotation" means rotating on an internal axis.
Those are the two separate motions.
When Gordon says "a ball rotating on a string" he is not referring to "axial rotation". Unless he has suddenly decided to go back on every single time he has made clear that the ball on a string is not rotating on an internal axis. That seems unlikely.
Gordon has routinely made clear with his various constructs the ball is not rotating on an internal axis as observed from the orbital center, just like the lunar scenario pointed out by Clint R.
Gordon’s constructs clearly show the ball is rotating on an internal axis when observed from outside its orbit as Clint R also pointed out long ago for the lunar scenario.
DREMT remains wrong about lunar motion & is simply riding a long dead horse.
Oh, God. It’s here.
Perhaps this would help:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rotate
But if Graham could be able to learn to read, he would have done so before his 71th month of trolling this website with three crank claims.
Yes, Little Willy. All particles of the ball follow circles with a common angular velocity about a common axis. That axis is in the center of the orbit, not the center of the ball itself…
…but you are changing the subject again.
This might help Graham identifying the topic:
“a ball rotating”
Perhaps he also needs that other definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ball
The topic is:
“You were looking for evidence that Gordon or Clint R have argued that “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are not two separate motions, Little Willy”.
You failed to find that evidence, and are now trolling away like mad trying to change the subject onto something else. Inevitably, you will just keep going until I ask you to please stop trolling.
So: Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> you failed
Incorrect, Graham. You, by contrast, failed to identify the topic.
I presented evidence where Gordo clearly said that the orbit of the Moon was fundamentally the same as the rotation of a the ball on a string.
That proves you wrong, and sloppy.
…and, as I explained, he does not mean “axial rotation” of the ball, therefore he is not saying that “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are the same motion. So you did indeed fail to find evidence that Gordon or Clint R have argued that “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are not two separate motions. So, once again: Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Incorrect, Graham. Still, it would be interesting to know –
When you insist in speaking of *axial* rotation, it is to oppose it to what other kind of rotation?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1353894
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So I was right.
No, Little Willy. You were wrong, as I explained. You are just pathologically incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Incorrect on two counts, Graham.
You did not explain anything, and you are still confused by what rotating about an axis means.
In fact you are trying to evade the facts that a ball on a string involves a rotation, and that a rotation implies an axis.
Good luck with that.
Sure, Little Willy, a rotation implies an axis…but unless Gordon specifically meant an axis that is internal to the ball, rather than an axis that is external to the ball, then you failed to find the required evidence. The chances that Gordon meant the ball is rotating on an axis that is internal to the ball are vanishingly small, since he has always argued previously that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the ball itself.
Incorrect, Graham.
Richard said that an orbit does not imply a rotation about an axis.
You simply misinterpreted.
Once again.
Richard said (and keeps saying, over and over again) that:
“Orbiting another body and rotating about an axis are 2 separate motions, not dependent on each other.”
Yet “Non-Spinners” agree that there are 2 separate motions, not dependent on each other. We just disagree with the “Spinners” on what “orbiting” is.
If Richard had instead meant to say that “orbiting” was not a rotation about an external axis, he would have just said so.
Yes, Graham, you keep saying something truly irrelevant here.
Perhaps you missed this:
> Rotation around a fixed axis is a special case of rotational motion. The fixed-axis hypothesis excludes the possibility of an axis changing its orientation and cannot describe such phenomena as wobbling or precession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
That might help you understand the point of contention between Gordo and Richard.
It has nothing to do with axial rotation.
…and we are off, with another attempted change of subject…
Seventy one months of trolling and you cannot grasp the most rudimentary distinctions, Graham –
A ball-on-string is an example of a rotation of a fixed axis.
The Moon wobbles while it orbits around he Earth.
Gordo claims that the ball-on-string is fundamentally the same as the orbit of the Moon. Richard contends that an orbit does not involve a rotation around an axis.
The opposition is not between where is the axis of rotation, but whether the axis is fixed or not.
Please stop trolling.
You are mixing together statements from different discussions and painting a false picture on what this dispute is even about. No point talking to you.
The sentence Richard wrote is enough to understand that he was not talking about axial rotation, Graham. He wrote it time and time again. Gordo also wrote the same comment about how the Moon was similar to the ball-on-string because of its fixed axis. Words upon words to that effect.
It is as if you had a problem with your theory of mind. Alternatively, it is as if you were trolling, this time by injecting the silly idea that Richard was speaking about axial rotation.
Could be both.
"2 separate motions, not dependent on each other", Little Willy. That’s what he said. If "orbiting another body" is one of the 2 separate motions involved, what do you think he means by the other motion, if not "axial rotation"?
Yes, Graham, two different motions –
A ball-on-string is a rotation about a fixed axis.
The orbit of the Moon is another kind of rotational motion. It has no fixed axis.
Two different motions.
Search for *barycenter* on this page. Count the number of times It is Richard who mentions it.
So the two different motions referred to in RLH’s 7:25 AM comment, are "orbiting" and "orbiting". OK then.
Yes, Graham. Two different motions. That is why Richard says that they are two different motions.
It is as if you understood what he meant all along but could not resist misrepresenting it for the lulz. That would be trolling. You should not do that.
…and in what sense did RLH mean that “orbiting” and “orbiting” were not dependent on each other?Yeah
Indeed, Graham. Orbiting about an axis involves a fixed axis. Orbiting around another body does not.
You got this. Well done.
You didn’t answer the question.
Easy peasy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1353478
That still didn’t answer the question. You’re not getting it. Let’s try this occasion that RLH said basically the same thing:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1353730
Now I know that Clint R means confusing “orbiting” with “axial rotation” (as in “rotation about an internal axis”), and I know what he means by that. Do you still maintain that RLH here is referring to two different types of “orbiting”, in other words that he has misunderstood Clint R? Or do you concede that you might be the one misinterpreting RLH?
Of course I answered the question, Graham. Now, tell me –
In Gordo’s ball-on-string, are the ball and the string dependent or independent? I think the motion of one depends upon the other.
In the case of the Moon and the Earth, the opposite is the case.
Why is that?
Why are you changing the subject again? I just asked you two more questions. Either answer them, or please stop trolling.
You’re the one changing the subject, Graham.
You challenged Richard to show where Gordo or Pup “have argued otherwise,” turning Richard’s “dependent” into “separate” along the way. The ball-on-string meets your request when properly worded.
And now you’re trapped. Again because of 386. When will you learn?
You should not presume that Richard follows an exchange. He seldom does. A true independent spirit.
I’m not trapped. It’s certainly possible I misinterpreted RLH. I just don’t think that’s the case. You, on the other hand, would never even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. That’s why this is so funny.
Indeed you’re trapped, Graham.
Richard only has to show that Gordo or Pup believes that the Moon-System involves motions that are not dependent on each other.
Gordo has time and time again asserted that the motions of the Moon-Earth system are fundamentally the same as the ball-on-string.
And a ball-on-string contains no independent motion.
One important difference between the Moon-Earth system and the ball-on-string is that the former has no fixed axis.
Now you know about that.
Thank you for having rediscovered “dependent” in Richard’s comment. Your challenge kinda omitted it. It was important that you find it back.
Sure, Little Willy. Whatever you say.
No, Graham. That’s not good enough.
Gordo says: “a ball rotating on a string has fundamentally the same motion as the Moon in its orbit.”
This is directly opposite to what Richard says: “orbiting another body and rotating about an axis are 2 separate motions, not dependent on each other.”
The motion of the ball is not independent from the motion of the string and what powers it.
This is why Pup washes his hands over the ball-on-string, except of course when he misreads a simple sentence from the handout that Bob provided.
Let’s quote it again:
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/angular_momentum.html
There is a way to make sense of what Richard says. There is a way to make sense of what Gordo says. Their viewpoints are conflicting, but each has merit. Depends what you want to do.
Oh, what was the title of the handout again?
Right – angular momentum.
71 months of trolling and you keep forgetting about the most important concept to discuss.
Cue to Hamlet, sorry, Macbeth, a guy who at least had more ambition than to suck at silly word games.
Actually, Gordon just meant (by “fundamentally the same motion”) that the ball on a string always keeps one face towards the inside of the orbit, like the moon does. His remark had nothing to do with fixed axes, physical connections, or angular momentum…but please, keep spinning your web.
I think that Gordo’s “fundamentally the same” is stronger than that, Graham, and I just gave you a source as to why one could see it that way. All you got to do is to view the Moon as a single point. It does not matter if the point spins or not. It’s dimensionless.
Now, recall when I reminded you of this other claim by Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1354396
This provides a more granular approach to the problem. Or as Tim said in the comment I cited at first, “Until a model explains accurately elliptical motion and libration, it is a ‘kindergarten’ model”
Hence why I reminded you of the fact that rotational motion extends beyond rigid bodies. Once one realizes that there is no rigid connection between the Moon and the Earth, one has to come up with a model that goes beyond mere definitions of rotation or translation. Something more like physics, where speaking of motion ought to be enough.
OK, Little Willy…
…but going back on topic for a second, you didn’t find any evidence that Gordon or Clint R have argued that “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are not two separate motions. So, the discussion is over.
The topic of this thread is your challenge to Richard, Graham.
The thesis is that Gordo indeed holds that the ball-on-string is fundametally similar to our Moon-Earth system.
The themes are model granularity and rotational motion in general.
The main takeaway is – without a fixed axis, you need a physical model whose complexity surpasses anything Moon Dragon cranks ever showed.
Here’s your homework for the rest of the month: try to find where the 1.022 km/s of the Moon comes from.
Well, my challenge to RLH didn’t involve any of that.
It is amusing to read posts telling you that ‘there has been no more ramp up in the last 5-6 months, only going sideways’.
I won’t dispute the text as such: no one would say that the current cycle SC25 is ‘ramping up’, though a comparison to SC24 shows that the newcomer is currently at least less lame than its predecessor.
*
But I thought: why not having a look at how older cycles were ‘ramping up’ during exactly the same period as SC25’s last 6 months, i.e. about 180 days after day 810.
Here is a chart comparing, for this 180 day period, SC25 till SC19, which is by the way the strongest one since 1755, with a smoothed maximum at 285, and a top peak at 473 on 1957, Oct 29.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XecjcA9Yf2Bwul7Y7Ytzd5Q0ulb3Ttaa/view
We see that indeed, SC25 really didn’t invent the gunpowder, but also that it is not at all the lamest duck along these seven cycles.
And we see also, that SC29, the strongest of all cycles, paradoxically is ‘ramping down’ a lot during the comparison period; only SC21/22/23 show a really positive slope.
The moral of the story: to compare such a period in lots of different cycles does not give any significant result.
More straight lines from clueless Bindiblabberdon
Says the babbling Edog who is at best able to discredit and insult, and manifestly didn’t understand even a bit of what I wrote, let alone would he ever be able to compile such data.
It will bee a lot more amusing few month from now,
In the meantime you can keep updating us on your psychobabbling NINO 3+4 forecasts
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
https://i.postimg.cc/fTc7fnWN/nino34.png
Stop endlessly blathering about my alleged forecasts, babbling Edog, and start instead concentrating on how utterly wrong the red SC25 prediction is compared to the real values in the chart you posted upthread:
https://i.postimg.cc/vHq05N74/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
Why did you intentionally avoid mentioning this flaw?
Quite simply because your thoughts are ideologically dominated and therefore totally one-sided.
Oh god , the red line again , Is this Bindi guy totally stupid or what ???
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/04/experts-adrift-solar-cycle-25-already-twice-as-active-as-expected/#comment-2536879
Don’t try to kid us with simple-minded stuff you post on JoNova, babbling Edog.
Look at what we see, and admit what is. Basta ya!
Why don’t you go talk to the genius scientist who draw that red line you dimwit, I was the first one to point out there is no way the actual cycle would follow it.
I didn’t know until yesterday that Moon Dragon canon requires objects in orbit around each other to be in some kind of “equilibrium”, the result of which is that neither object is undergoing constant acceleration along its respective curvilinear path. Apparently it involves adding together vectors of different units at right angles to each other, except when someone points out such addition is an invalid operation, at which point we don’t need no stinkin’ vectors — the Universe magically knows what to do, not unlike Schrodinger’s cat. Then in the very next post it’s back to vectors again … I wouldn’t make this up.
Because I’m a helpful guy, here’s how “non-spinners” can have their vectors and keep them too: CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. It has the same units as gravitational force. It has the same magnitude. It pulls the exact opposite direction of gravity, therefore the sum of their magnitudes is zero, we have an equilibrium, and thus there is NO ACCELERATION!
Incidentally this is why objects in orbit are weightless AND experience a tidal tug-o-war!
My modest proposal is something that spinners and non-spinners alike should be able to agree upon, but probably won’t since it is based on SCIENCE. Alas.
Way to go, Brandon. You’re starting to understand.
As you learn more, you will find out some people call gravitational centrifugal force a “pseudovector” because it only arises from the physics. It’s similar to cross-product vectors such as angular momentum.
Let’s go Brandon!
I should have known you’d be the first to say that’s what Gordo’s vector equilibrium had been getting at all along, Clint.
Well, now you know.
Since you’re finally interested in learning, are you ready to go back and clean up some of your mistakes? Like this one, for instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352024
I’ll be glad to help, when you’re ready.
Only you could pretend that an explanation you didn’t give was yours all along, Clint.
Please don’t ever change.
Is that a yes or no?
I’m always happy with you cult idiots learn something. Just let me know when you want to continue. It’s a big world out there….
Shorter Pup:
https://youtu.be/Ms7KbMfXHp8
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
brandon…”I should have known youd be the first to say thats what Gordos vector equilibrium had been getting at all along, Clint”
***
What you have missed is Newton’s introduction to Newton II. He states in Principia something like, ‘If a force can move a body…then f = ma’. Clearly, Earth’s gravitational field cannot move the Moon in the direction of the applied force. That’s why I claim a static equilibrium, there is obviously enough force to hold the Moon in orbit but not enough to accelerate it in the direction of the force.
There is no centrifugal force acting on the Moon. The only significant other force is the Sun’s gravitational field and it too is centripetal. The only significant force is a centripetal force due to Earth’s gravity. We have no need to balance forces since the centripetal force acting on the Moon is insufficient to move the Moon toward the Earth. Ergo, f = ma does not apply. It would be interesting to calculate the force required to hold the Moon in orbit.
Some textbooks might argue that F = ma is the force but that’s not possible. If it was, the Moon would move physically toward the Earth, losing orbit. We might be able to use F = G(m1m2)/r^2. We have two masses and we should be able to calculate the attractive force between them. Obviously, that force is insufficient to move the Moon vertically out of its orbit but it is strong enough to hold the Moon in orbit.
Newton did produce a convoluted diagram of how the force acted but that was in the early days of calculus, his invention. Newton derived calculus in part based on the algebraic interpretation of geometry by Descartes. Descartes, on the other hand, had a seriously wild interpretation of reality. It was left up to Newton to produce a science in conjunction with reality and although I admire Isaac all to heck, he had to be struggling with the magnanimity of it all.
IMHO, Einstein provided a nuisance value by leading physics off on a wild tangent. By managing to discredit Newtonian physics, he not only made a fool of himself he set physics back by decades, if not centuries. Our current problem is that too many scientists hero worship Einstein and fail to grasp the major error in his work, that of making time a real phenomenon. Not only that, falling for the bs that space-time is a physical reality that can replace Newtonian gravity.
It’s about time we had more scientists like Tesla and Louis Essen (atomic clock), who can challenge stupid physics, like the Moon rotating on a local axis. Einstein’s vision of the universe, in which mass can warp space-time is about as ludicrous as the nonsense-based views of Descartes.
BTW…if you read through Binny’s authority figure Meyer, the latter talks about a centrifugal force acting on the Moon. That’s when I dismissed him as a serious physicist.
“there is obviously enough force to hold the Moon in orbit but not enough to accelerate it in the direction of the force”
You do realize that changing from a straight line to an orbit requires an acceleration don’t you?
> There is no centrifugal force acting on the Moon.
True. You may want to tell Clint, who is under the impression my “explanation” is actually correct.
> The only significant force is a centripetal force due to Earths gravity.
Agreed.
> We have no need to balance forces since the centripetal force acting on the Moon is insufficient to move the Moon toward the Earth.
You claim a “static equilibrium” so something needs to cancel to zero by addition. Your first attempt to do so tried to combine the Moon’s momentum vector with the centripetal force of gravity, which is an invalid operation as I already explained.
> Ergo, f = ma does not apply.
Except it does, as does the algebraic rearrangement a = F/m, because an object following a curvilinear path is under constant acceleration, and the centripetal force of gravity provides that acceleration.
This applies to *all* circular motion, not just orbits. Like I said before you are disagreeing with first year undergrad physics textbooks.
> It would be interesting to calculate the force required to hold the Moon in orbit.
As you say, F = G(m1m2)/r^2 is the appropriate equation to use. G is 6.6743×10^-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2, the mass of the Earth is 5.97×10^24 kg, the mass of the Moon is 7.3×10^22 kg, and the mean distance between the Earth and the Moon is 3.84×10^8 m. Rounding up gives 2.0×10^20 N (kg m s^-2), a nice easy number to remember.
If you did the calculation for Sun/Moon, you would find that Sun exerts more force on Moon that Earth does. (By a factor of about 2.2.) That means Sun should be able to pull Moon away from Earth. But, it doesn’t!
That’s one of the reasons you can’t used kinematics or kinetics in orbital motion.
Clint R,
“That means Sun should be able to pull Moon away from Earth. But, it doesnt!”
That’s stupid, for 50 bucks, I’ll tell you why.
I was about to send my explanation but I don’t want to ruin your opportunity for some beer money, Bob!
Yes bob, it is stupid that you can’t understand my clear words. In fact, it’s “braindead stupid”.
I get enough of that for free. Thanks.
If you try to apply kinetics here, the stronger calculated force from Sun would pull Moon away from Earth. That’s why kinetics and kinematics don’t always apply to orbital motion. Gravity is a thing of its own.
But, I’m probably giving you a headache with all this learning. I’ll stop.
Clint R,
The stupid is you are neglecting an important force.
The Stupid, it burns.
Yes bob, you’re getting desperate, but we both know you can do even worse.
Get really pathetic for us. That’s when it really is fun.
Clint R,
Alright I’ll let the cat out of the bag, because you are too stupid to figure this out.
“That means Sun should be able to pull Moon away from Earth.”
The reason the Sun doesn’t pull the Moon away from the Earth is that the force the Sun exerts on the Earth is even greater than the force the Sun exerts on the Moon.
So do you feel really stupid now?
You should.
Wrong reason, bob.
I am sure you think you have the right answer.
How about you post your answer and if I prove it wrong you don’t post for a month.
bob, sorry but you don’t have the background. You can’t even understand the simple physics problem. Last I knew, you were still getting the wrong answer, even though I gave you the solution!
THAT’s what “braindead” looks like.
Clint r,
I have provided evidence of my physics background, but you have not.
So there is no evidence that you have any physics background.
And you won’t answer the question “what are the requirements to add vectors/”
And you got the wrong answer to your little vector problem, because you can’t add a velocity vector to an acceleration vector.
See this is how I play this game, I attack your arguments, first, then I swear and call you names. You don’t bother with my arguments and go straight to attacking me.
So I play fair and you play the bully.
Sorry fucking loser.
Wrong bob. The vectors all had the same units. The units were unspecified because the problem was to demonstrate your cult knew nothing about adding simple vectors. It’s not unlike asking an 8 year old to add 4 to 5. They don’t need to know the “units”. Your cult not only demonstrated they didn’t understand basic vector addition, but they couldn’t even understand the solution.
It’s not my fault you don’t understand any of this.
Clint R,
That’s not true,
As I pointed out, you said there were two vectors acting on a body orbiting in a circle.
That means the two vectors have to be velocity and acceleration.
That means you can’t add them.
I don’t know why you can’t get that through you thick head.
Clint R,
And to add
“Wrong bob. The vectors all had the same units. The units were unspecified”
This does not compute, if the vectors are unspecified, then you can’t claim they are the same.
The first thing about adding vectors is to ensure they have the same units.
You have exposed yourself to lack basic knowledge of vectors.
For about the 5th or 6th time bob, the simple problem did NOT require units. You’re just throwing crap against the wall to cover for your incompetence.
If you need units to solve a simple problem, here’s your chance:
Three forces act on a point. 5N@225°, 10N@180°, and 5N@-45°.
What single force would cancel the three forces?
Did you mean for that third vector to be negative 45 degrees, Clint?
Correctamundo.
Clint R
Still won’t admit that the extra information in your problem caused the vectors to be specified, which results in their not being the same units thus no addition of those vectors is possible.
Oh, and finally you pose a problem that does have a valid solution.
15.25 N @ 35.26 degrees
bob, I know this is all new to you, so I’ll give you a chance to check your work.
We can just say you had a practice run….
Clint R,
I typed it wrong,
I meant to enter 12.25 N not 15.25 N.
So 12.25 N at 35.264 degrees
I figured it was just a typo bob, because the decimal was correct and the angle was correct. That’s why I offered you a second chance. The reason you made the typo was likely because you were more interested in bluster than accuracy. Science ain’t about bluster, trolling, false accusations, avoiding reality, and profanity. You’ve got “immaturity” confused with “science”. The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
That’s why you appear braindead.
I’d like to see you clean up your act. Grow up, and get away from your cult. But it will take a lot of discipline on your part.
Can you do it?
Clint R,
That depends on you.
Can you admit you have all the science wrong?
Can you admit the ball on a string is rotating on its axis?
Can you admit that the greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Can you admit that the Earth has angular momentum with respect to the Sun?
Maybe it’s you who needs to grow up and help us get out of the mess that burning fossil fuels has got the human race into.
“Youve got immaturity confused with science.”
Maybe since you started off with the insults, you could grow a pair and leave off of the insults, it adds nothing to the discussion, just shows off your immaturity.
I know it’s immature play the “he started it” card, but you’re way too old to be calling names like a little school yard bully.
I know I am tilting at windmills and a leopard doesn’t change its spots, but I’ll give you a chance, give me 30 days with no insults and I’ll respond in kind.
Because I am not the one with the fake, made up, and wrong Science.
You can’t do it.
That’s what I thought.
Clint R,
You are off to a good start, one post without an insult.
When you mature bob, you will learn the difference between an insult and reality.
When I say you’re braindead, that’s not an insult. It’s referring to the fact that you reject reality. You live in a world where your opinions are “reality”. You constantly claim that other people don’t know physics, when it is you that doesn’t know physics. You want to make things up to support your opinions, like some immature brat. If people prove you wrong, you resort to juvenile profanity. THAT is why you’re braindead.
Napoleon,
I knew you couldn’t make it even a day without insulting me.
What you think is reality is delusional, I suggest you seek psychiatric help.
Wrong bob. You didn’t learn from my last comment.
You’re braindead because you reject reality. That’s NOT an insult, it’s reality.
Napoleon,
At least I have brain.
Brandon R. Gates
I’m afraid that won’t help.
This endless, tedious discussion never will find an end because deniers discredit scientific results even though they are unable to scientifically contradict them.
As one of my former university professors said decades ago:
” Who isn’t able to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
*
Two interesting papers, derived from the analogy existing between electromagnetism and gravitation:
Spin – orbit coupling in gravitational systems
Arbab I. Arbab (Quassim & Khartoum U), 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Arbab/publication/306255599_Spin_-_orbit_coupling_in_gravitational_systems/links/5b87f2b1299bf1d5a731f8ea/Spin-orbit-coupling-in-gravitational-systems.pdf
The planetary spin and rotation period: A modern approach
Arbab I. Arbab & al., 2013
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4720
Arbab is professor for experimental physics at nuclear level.
*
I presented these papers years ago on this blog, and they were of course discredited and denigrated by the ‘Ignoramuses de service’.
That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you, Bin. Look at equation 5. Moon has no axial rotation.
If you can’t understand the links you find, just learn about the ball-on-a-string.
Sez the one who appears as the Ignoramus de service Nr 1, but in fact is very probably a troll, who is perfectly aware of how nonsensical this ball-on-a-string really is, and endlessly kids us.
Bindidon, the reason you write nonsensical babble like that is because you have NO science. You reject the ball-on-a-string because it debunks your false beliefs. The simple analogy is science. It is used in many colleges and universities. You reject science.
Like the other cult idiots, you don’t understand the links you find.
You’re a perfect example of how uneducated people end up being perverted by cults.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
If you understood vectors RLH, you could compare the vectors of ball-on-a-string with those of a moon in a circular orbit.
“IF” is the keyword….
The Moon is not in a circular orbit.
Elephants are not apples, either.
So you can’t compare the Moon to a ball-on-a-string. Thank you.
No, but I can show how silly and immature your objections to the simple analogy are.
You’re welcome.
(I’m not able to babysit you today. See if Bindidon can take over.)
As I said, a ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
rlh…a ball rotating on a string has fundamentally the same motion as the Moon in its orbit. It always keep the same face pointing in and it cannot rotate on its local axis because the string prevents it rotating about that axis.
Why you cannot see that is the question. Like the other spinners you seem to live in a world of reference frame based thought experiments and appeals to authority.
The Moon does not have a string attached to its surface. It only has gravity (effectively acting at its center) that does not act like a string at all.
P.S. A ball-on-a-string is the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk. None of them have anything to do with orbits and orbital mechanics.
“The Moon does not have a string attached to its surface. It only has gravity (effectively acting at its center) that does not act like a string at all.”
No RLH, the string is a good model for gravity. It provides the centripetal force acting through center of mass. It’s one of the two vectors providing orbital motion of the ball.
I hate to get involved, but one quick comment.
Gordon says: “a ball rotating on a string has fundamentally the same motion as the Moon in its orbit. ”
No. A ball on a string travels in a circle. The moon travels in an ellipse. A ball on a string keeps one face directly toward the center. The moon has libration.
A ball on a string is only a superficially similar motion.
A ball on a string has a fundamentally different motion in the two ways described above.
Until a model explains accurately elliptical motion and libration, it is a ‘kindergarten’ model.
Folkerts, don’t try to mislead us. You don’t “hate to get involved”. You love to get involved so you can pervert physics. And now you are twisting and distorting Gordon’s words.
You’ve got to be braindead to not understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. It is NOT a model of Moon’s exact motion. It is only an analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The ball is “orbiting”, but not rotating. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit, and one side always faces in the direction of travel.
You’re as dishonest as you are incompetent.
Speaking of you perverting physics, did you ever come up with a valid technical reference to support your bogus claim that two 315 W/m^2 arriving the same surface can raise its temperature to 325K?
No, you didn’t because you can’t. You made up that nonsense because you delight in perverting physics.
What will you try next?
Gordo contends that the Moon essentially moves BOS mode.
Pup asserts that the BOS is only an analogy, and for something else.
Who will prevail as the Moon Dragon crank boss?
Stay tuned!
“the string is a good model for gravity”
No it is not. Rigid (or semi-rigid) connections are nothing like gravity.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pay attention to what Richard just said, Graham:
“Rigid (or semi-rigid) connections are nothing like gravity.”
You’ll need it in another subthread.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Episode 1842 Scott Adams: Republicans Might Have Trouble In The Midterms, The Big Bang Might Be Fake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMleb36-_Qs
Scott talking about correlation of vitamin D
And I thought must be a lot people think there is correlation
of warmer periods of time and higher CO2 levels.
And CO2 is a weak effect and might take a long time to have this small effect.
We live in an Ice Age, warmer would be better.
Higher CO2 help plant life grow more.
The huge amount CO2 china added, has not much effect upom global CO2
nor has been much warming, nor will there be much warming in coming decades or within the next century.
All govt efforts to reduce CO2 levels have failed, and govt should try to curb CO2 emission, but should be reducing pollution, slavery, and oppressive govts, such as China.
And encouraging more natural gas use is simple and doable thing.
Controlling CO2 is sort of like putting cities on Mars,
though putting cities on Mars is cheaper to do and causes less harm
[or kills less people].
No one wants a government to put cities on Mars.
Exploring Mars is different.
We have a government agency to determine if and how we might use this solar system. And one does that by doing exploration of space.
NASA has wanted to send crew to Mars for decades, and has littered
Mars surface with robotic mission.
NASA has claimed Mars is most habitable planet other than Earth,
but in all this time, we don’t know if Mars is most habitable planet other than Earth.
So government sending people and stuff to Mars to create cities on planet which we don’t even know if it’s habitable, would be almost as
wrong, as trying to control CO2 [and failing at cost of trillions of dollars. [cities on Mars “could be” cheaper- but explore it first, and then don’t have government make cities on Mars regardless of what exploration result happen to be. But people should allowed to make settlements on Mars- even if NASA continues to fail to explore Mars, and people they decide to take that wild gamble, which have less of a risk if NASA didn’t fart around not exploring Mars and which NASA spent tens of billion dollar and used decades of our time.
And FAA continues to delay Starship test launches. Govt singular talent is wasting time {and getting over paid to waste our time].
Read about this major breakthrough in understanding the effect of greenhouse gases … they actually cool us according to the physics explained here and in the cited papers and video.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/digital-id-and-the-climate-scam-with-maria-zeee/#comment-1701
Oh noooo!
Not this Do*ug Cot*ton again.
We all got enough of him here.
Blinny the dimwit posts the 666th post. The surface warms the atmosphere, Blinny. Not the other way around.
You have a very loving way of getting biblical, Troglodyte.
I left a comment just for you at Malcolm’s:
For some reason it disappeared.
Probly a glitch.
Anderson, the perverse 2nd Amendment guy, can tell us here what he wants (why I name him a ‘perverse guy’ you understand when you read his trash on Roy Spencer’s thread ‘A tribute to Rush Limbaugh’).
He is a gullible believer of people who were banned from this thread by Roy Spencer in persona.
P… off, Anderson, you are way, way, way worse than a dimwit.
You poor dumb German saps had your firearms confiscated by the Nazis. Oh wait, that should have precluded you.
… and it shows.
Perverted 2nd amendment lovers like you have nothing but “Nazis” in their insane brains.
It did not:
https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/world-war-ii/french-resistance/
A resource with weapons, women, and easy words to read.
Just for you, Troglodyte!
The only tangible thing he did was damage this Blog.
Like many people, he does not know we are in an Ice Age.
We are in an Ice Age because our ocean is cold.
I will give him a clue.
If we reduce CO2 and water vapor, it’s NOT going to warm
this Ice Age.
Or the cold ocean has reduced CO2 and water vapor.
SpaceX: Both Falcon 9 and Starship Will Deploy Second-Gen Starlink Satellites
The change promises to speed up deployment of the second-generation Starlink satellites, although SpaceX is still waiting for approval from the FCC.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-both-falcon-9-and-starship-will-deploy-second-gen-starlink-satellites
So, latest idea modify the second-generation so can fit in falcon 9 [or falcon heavy??].
“SpaceX is preparing to use both Falcon 9 rockets and its upcoming Starship craft to build the company’s second-generation Starlink satellite internet network.
The company mentioned the change in a Friday regulatory filing(Opens in a new window) with the FCC. According to SpaceX, the plan should “further accelerate” the deployment schedule for a second-gen Starlink system, which will span nearly 30,000 orbiting satellites.”
In 2020 and 2021, the ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere was at a record high in November and December. This year will be similar.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2022.png
Actually the ball on a string is a good analogy for lunar rotation.
Consider the hammer throw. The hammer is a ball on a string.
Before the throw the ball is not rotating.
During the throw the ball rotates at the same rpm at which it revolves around the thrower.
After release the ball continues to rotate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CstXdSnuxyI
“During the throw the ball rotates at the same rpm at which it revolves around the thrower.”
During the throw the ball is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the thrower. Just like Mt. Everest, which as you have already previously agreed, rotates about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis, at a rate of once per day.
You oversimplify.
Try attaching an inertial navigation system to Mount Everest. This shows various motions.
The mountain is stationary relative to the Earth t which it is attached.
The mountain is revolving once every day around the Earth’s axis in a circular path consistent with its latitude.
It is also rotating once a day around an axis parallel to the Earth’s axis.
We will leave out the mountain’s motions relative to the Earth’s barycentre, Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the Sun’s proper motion. These are below the detection threshold of a typical INS
“The mountain is revolving once every day around the Earth’s axis in a circular path consistent with its latitude.
It is also rotating once a day around an axis parallel to the Earth’s axis.”
Incorrect, Entropic Man. If, in addition to rotating about the Earth’s axis, Mt. Everest was rotating about its own axis, Mt. Everest would have to be not physically attached to the Earth.
Afraid not. The mountain can rotate around its own axis at the same rate at which the Earth is rotating.
…if it was detached from the Earth and mounted on some kind of giant, rotating platform.
Indeed, since the mountain is attached to the Earth, it must rotate at the same rate as the Earth.
Or are you so deluded as to think that the Earth is not rotating?
“Indeed, since the mountain is attached to the Earth, it must rotate at the same rate as the Earth…”
…about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own.
Graham is looking for a dead reckoning, EM.
Little Willy is looking to troll.
Graham is confusing my path integration with his own.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham, please stop ignoring famous theorems,
“Graham is looking for a dead reckoning, EM”
I have one, but he is more in to Cold Play.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Questions of science, science and progress, do not speak as loud as 71 months of trolling by Graham.
bobdroege, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Your music sounds like Coldplay, take it as a compliment.
OK, bob.
Paint the inner half of the ball white and the outer half black.
The camera will see no rotation before the throw, then alternating black and white faces during and after the throw.
By your interpretation the ball would be rotating on the ground and then not rotating during the throw and after release.
Once again you have this delusion that all motion of the ball is relative to the thrower, rather than the rest of the universe.
Once again you attack a straw man that I believe all motion of the ball is relative to the thrower, rather than the rest of the Universe. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the ball is rotating about the thrower, and not rotating on its own axis.
W”rt an inertial reference frame, the ball is rotating about the thrower, and not rotating on its own axis.”
Nope. That should be
“Wrt an inertial reference frame, the ball is revolving about the thrower, and rotating on its own axis.
Incorrect, Entropic Man…because in your alternative sentence “revolving about the thrower” would no longer mean “rotating about the thrower”, it would have to mean “translating about the thrower”.
[HAMM] You think that the motion of the ball is relative to the thrower.
[CLOV] Wrong, I think the motion of the ball is relative to the thrower.
“Whoosh!” went the point I made, flying over Little Willy’s head.
71 of trolling by repeating the same thing over and over again and Graham still proclaims that he is misunderstood.
When you finally show evidence of understanding, I will let you know.
Since you seldom read but almost always parse comments for anything that could confirm your Drsgon Crank biases, Graham, it might take a while.
It will take a while because your comments typically demonstrate a lack of understanding. I do not see that changing any time soon.
Reading the quote I cited ought to be enough, Graham.
Once again sloppy.
Responding in the wrong place is sloppy, Little Willy.
Incorrect, Graham:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite
To which quote in this thread were you referring then, Little Willy?
Graham, please stop playing dumb if you can.
Your 8:23 AM comment seems to be completely out of place. I am not sure how it relates to anything in this thread. Hence why I implied that you appeared to have responded in the wrong place. It seems more related to a discussion we are currently having upthread.
Your seeming module was incorrect, Graham, just as was the definition you presumed of the word *to cite*. So the sloppiness is all yours.
You are stuck with Gordo and Pup. As captain of Team Moon Dragon Cranks, you have to deal with it.
Also, you missed the bit where Tim mentioned non-circular ellipses. That sinks your ship.
Hence all you got is this silly trolling,
So I was right. Your comment had nothing to do with anything in this thread. Most likely you accidentally commented in the wrong place, but cannot admit your error. Either that, or your intention was to deliberately try and throw this thread off course. In which case, you are trolling.
> So I was right.
Incorrect.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ent, you have only found some nonsense to throw against the wall trying to protect your cult. You have NO understanding of the physics involved, and you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
What you see when the string is released is the 3rd Law of motion. The tension in the string translates to a torque, upon release, causing the ball to spin.
But, Moon does NOT have such a string. Gravity does NOT provide a torque.
Here is a partial list of all the nonsense your cult has spewed, trying to protect your cult beliefs:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucaults Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards
All that silly nonsense to protect a false belief — amazing! But, that’s how cults perform.
“Confusing ‘orbiting’ with ‘rotating on an axis'”
There is no confusion, the 2 are separate motions.
That’s a long list of things you don’t understand Clint R.
Better get some textbooks and study up, there is hope for you.
> The tension in the string translates to a torque, upon release, causing the ball to spin.
lol. Releasing the string removes all influence it has on the ball, Clint.
Thanks for attempting some physics, Brandon.
That’s why I didn’t respond to RLH or braindead bob. They’re just boring trolls. But, I like your funny fissix.
The reality you overlook is “What happens to the tension in the string upon release?”
I know you’ll have another funny response. Don’t disappoint me, please.
Clint R,
Where is the “d” in your torque calculation.
The tension of the string is released of course. Only in the BOS Crank universe could removing a force cause another one.
It’s the same place it would be in any torque calculation, bob. That’s just one way of understanding this issue. If you agree to the special offer, you will learn how it applies.
Are you going to accept the offer?
Clint R,
Nice dodge,
I was asking where on the ball, when the string is released.
I see it as zero, so no torque on the ball.
Again you fail
The ball was already spinning before the string was released.
But you don’t understand that basic property of a ball on a string.
Cause you are a physics loser.
Tell me again, where did you study physics?
I responded that I would take you up on your offer Clint R, conditioned on you proving you are qualified to teach Physics.
You can’t even prove that you took any Physics, can you?
That just means you are a troll, with no Physics training.
bob, almost anyone knows more about physics that you braindead cult idiots. That’s why I’ve provided several simple problems. NOT one of your cult has answered correctly. All you can do is attack others, claiming they don’t know physics. That’s what Norman does. You two must have been in the same trolling class.
Again, the special offer expires today. You should give it a try. The danger is you’re too braindead to learn.
Clint R,
I told you I would accept your offer, but I put a condition on it.
Tell the truth, you are not qualified to teach Physics.
I am not in the mood to take Physics lessons from someone who claims a ball on a string is not rotating on its axis.
That fact conclusively disqualifies you from teaching Physics.
Remember who started with the personal attacks, that was you, I go by a rule, that I treat people as they treat me.
If you can’t state where you took Physics, I can only conclude that you never took Physics at all.
And there are problems with your problems, you got the answer to your heated blue plate problem wrong because you don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics.
The truth hurts, that’s why you get mad and call people braindead.
You don’t need to make up excuses why you can’t learn, bob.
That comes with being braindead.
Clint R,
It’s not that I don’t want to learn, or can’t learn, it’s that you would be teaching bullshit.
Like that a ball on a string is not rotating on its axis.
You make up shit, are you surprised I don’t want to learn made up shit?
brain dead bobdroege,
Do you really think that using words like “shit” makes you look intelligent?
If that’s the case, if I can best your infantile vulgarities, does that make me more intelligent than you?
Let’s have a competition, if that’s the case. You come up with the most obscene piece of filth you can, and tell me how intelligent you think it makes you look – and why.
Off you go now, give it your best shot, idiot.
Swenson,
You have two choices.
Stop with the insults or fuck off.
I know which one you will pick, does that mean I can predict the future states of climate or the future?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
## THE MOON DRAGON CRANK MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 5.1)
**Proposition**. The Moon does not spin, i.e. it does not rotate on its axis. It only orbits around the Earth. *Footnote: Mathematical model pending.*
(AXIOMS) The Moon does not spin because there is no axis of rotation. It is impossible to spin and not to spin at the same time. Since the Moon does not spin, it can’t spin.
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis. In that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation. But it is only an illustration.
(CANNONBALL) The cannon and ball are not rotating on their own axes whilst sitting there, they are rotating about the Earths axis, same as every other part of the Earth.
(TORQUE) Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no spin.
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it no longer spins. If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating.
(SEE) We only see one side of it from Earth.
(ILLUSION) It *looks* like the Moon is spinning, but as Tesla said its an illusion.
(IMPOSSIBLE) You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon! 1 + 1 does not equal 1!
(ONLY) You can only model the motion of the moon with translation plus spin, and rotation about an external axis with no spin.
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the moon on the right.
(TRANSLATION) It is not possible for the Moon to orbit and spin without a translation.
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
(FLOP’S TRICK) Flop showed how to purely rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
(TRANSMOGRAPHER) The transmographer demonstrates that the Moon cannot be described with an orbit and a spin.
(IF-BY-WHISKEY) It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what? Thats just semantics.
(SIMPLES) The simplest way to describe the Moons motion is as ONE rotation about the Earth-Moon center of mass. Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(TRACK) Generally speaking, one can determine if a celestial body spins when by seeing all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit. It would be like watching a runner on an elliptical track from the seats in the auditorium.
(FRAMES) Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
(LRO) I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
(NAME DROPS) Tesla. Henry Perical. That csaitruth guy. Aleksandar S. Tomic.
(DUDEISM) Well, thats, like, my opinion. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
Given that Little Willy is a “Non-Spinner” himself, you’d think that he would have a better grasp of his own side’s arguments. Oh well.
Graham pouts because I have more proficiency in an argument he developed during his 71 months of trolling.
He could thank me. Kids these days. All ingrates.
…you’d think that he would have a better grasp of his own side’s arguments. Oh well.
You’d think Graham could read the first lines:
## THE MOON DRAGON CRANK MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 5.1)
**Proposition**. The Moon does not spin, i.e. it does not rotate on its axis. It only orbits around the Earth. *Footnote: Mathematical model pending.*
That’d misunderestimate his trolling experience.
Sure, you claim you believe the moon spins on its own axis. All other “Spinners” would agree that “orbit without spin” is as per the “moon on the right” in the GIF below, however:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You do not. Which makes you a “Non-Spinner”, regardless.
To Spinners observing from the surface of the circle (~Earth), the MOTR is spinning as those observers see all sides of the MOTR. To non-spinners observing from a place outside the white zone (~sun), the MOTR is not spinning as those observers see only one side of the MOTR.
Being a spinner or non-spinner only reveals the location of the observation inside or outside the orbit as Clint R pointed out some time ago.
All other “Spinners”, including Ball4, would say that “orbit without spin” is as per the “moon on the right”.
… revealing the location of their “without spin” observation is outside the orbit (~sun) as Clint R pointed out.
The location of observation for both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” is the same, because we are talking about the GIF. The POV for the GIF, how it is presented to the viewer, is a perspective from outside the orbit. When you look at the GIF on your computer screen, it is displayed to you as though you are sitting outside the orbit.
Is Ball4 trying to twist my words, again?
Tsk, tsk.
Ball4 tries to distinguish between spinners and non-spinners by observation location. . . .proving Ball4 is completely confused.
No twisting, Clint R.
Bill, located “inside of it orbit” (Clint’s terms), Clint R pointed out the MOTR would be observed spinning. Located outside the orbit, the MOTR would be observed not spinning. Clint R correctly explained awhile ago location of observation matters using lunar observations from Earth and Sun.
…but when you look at the GIF on your computer screen, it is displayed to you as though you are sitting outside the orbit. So the location of observation for both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners”, when discussing the GIF, is the same: outside the orbit.
No DREMT, location of observation can vary as observed from the Earth, the sun, Apollo 15 landing site, or anywhere else.
Location of observation can vary, Ball4, but when you are looking at the GIF, your location of observation is automatically outside of the orbit. That is what is presented to you.
When anyone looks at the GIF, they can automatically observe from inside of the MOTR orbit too. I can also observe from outside the MOTR orbit if I choose. Anyone is free to choose a location to automatically observe “inside of it orbit” as Clint R wrote or outside of MOTR orbit.
With the GIF, the location of observation is chosen for you. It is outside the orbit. That is what is presented to you. Pretending that people look at the GIF and then mentally project themselves into a different location of observation is just nonsensical. However, nonsensical is what you do, I suppose.
“With the GIF, the location of observation is chosen for you.”
No DREMT, I automatically choose another lunar GIF observation location “inside of it orbit” (Clint R terms) as I am free to do just like Clint R pointed out some time ago. DREMT may choose any location also.
The location I choose when discussing the GIF is the one presented to me. Outside the orbit.
That location is fine, DREMT.
Just write that no location of observation change has occurred or better yet, state located “outside of its orbit” (Clint R terms) when observing MOTR GIF and DREMT will communicate better.
You can just assume, as most rational people would, that when discussing the GIF the location of observation is the one presented to you.
Sure, when a location is presented (specified not assumed) as I noted 11:22 am DREMT should write to “communicate better”.
Nothing needs to be specified when the location of observation is a given, as is the case with the GIF.
There is no given, specified location of observation in the GIF, DREMT as you correctly wrote 6:53 am: “Location of observation can vary”.
Location can thus be specified anywhere in the GIF and, for MOTR, it is automatically “inside of it orbit” (Clint R terms) on the circle for me. I will always specify when my observation location changes for that specific GIF of lunar spin.
I just meant, generally, “location of observation can vary”, because you seemed to be implying I did not think that it could. However, when it comes to the GIF, the location of observation is a given, to the rational. It is the one presented to you. If you want to project yourself mentally to a different location of observation then yes, you should specify it…but those who are just looking at the GIF as it comes shouldn’t need to say anything. You are just needlessly over-complicating things, as usual.
No over-complication DREMT since correct observation of lunar spinner and non-spinner depend on location of observation. There is no X with arrow pointing at it “You are here” in the MOTR GIF for “inside of it orbit” or “outside of its orbit” (Clint R terms).
So, yes, generally, location of observation can vary & so does correct observation result vary.
Whatever you say, Ball4.
yep to Ball4 from where he stands looks up and believes the earth is rotating around the moon in perfect synchronization with a spin on the moons axis his daddy told him about.
You’d think Graham would understand that his own silly point:
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the Moon on the left, not the Moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the Moon on the right.
does not rest on geometry alone.
Perhaps he does and does not care about the consistency of the Moon Dragon Crank playbook.
…but that is not my point, and those are not my words, Little Willy. Sure, “Non-Spinners” like me and you say that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, that much is true…but the MOTR is only one very specific example of “orbit with spin”, one in which the spin rate is the same as the orbital rate, but in the opposing direction. “Orbit with spin” can look very, very different than the MOTR, and there are nearly limitless examples of what that could look like. So your summary is (typically) misleading as written.
> but the MOTR is only one very specific example
You’d think that Graham understands that this cannot counter what I said nor establish what he claims.
But then that’d only amplify the deviousness of his trolling.
What you said was that my “own silly point” does not rest on geometry alone. Obviously! There is a continuous and ridiculous straw man that Little Willy regularly attacks, that somehow by mentioning the fact that “Non-Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL, I am saying “that’s it – the contention that “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL is now proven!”
You cannot have a rational discussion with Little Willy because he is incapable of honestly representing your arguments.
You’d think that Graham would be able to identify the “point” he is making, a misrepresentation that amounts to gaslighting, and its meager support.
He prefers to troll with gibberish instead.
I’m sure that made sense in your head, Little Willy.
You’d think Graham would recall that he never succeeded with his silly GIF bait against me.
Somehow he persists.
He soldiers on.
The GIF isn’t “bait”.
Incorrect, Graham.
Oh, and when will you reveal that what I said about concepts of geometry implies that I must endorse a position that runs counter to mainstream physics?
You will not, for you cannot.
One does not simply derive physics from geometry.
In a rational universe, that would be the end of it.
We both know that you will soldier on.
“One does not simply derive physics from geometry.”
Indeed.
And so once again when Graham gets caught with a fib, he acts as if nothing happened.
He soldiers on.
No fibs here, Little Willy. A necessary condition for being a “Spinner” is thinking that “orbit without spin” is as per the “moon on the right”. You do not. Therefore you’re not a “Spinner”.
Graham, please stop twisting yourself like a pretzel.
Either you argue that a position on GIF can be derived from geometry alone or that GIF requires a physical interpretation of the motions involved.
Which is it?
“Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. “Non-Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. To decide who is right requires physics, but still, before we even get to that stage, if you do not agree that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, you cannot be a “Spinner”.
Repeating your stipulation does not answer the question, Graham.
Our exchanges focus on the notions of rotation and translation.
How can you infer a physical position from these concepts?
“To decide who is right requires physics, but still, before we even get to that stage, if you do not agree that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, you cannot be a “Spinner”.”
No DREMT.
OK, Graham. OK.
And how did you infer that I must believe that the Moon does not spin, again?
…because you don’t think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, which a “Spinner” would describe as solely translational motion. Instead, you have previously implied that “orbit without spin” involves rotation as well as translation. I wasn’t the only one to pick up on it, either. Bill noticed it, too.
You are twisting yourself into a pretzel once again, Graham –
In one comment you say that I must opine on GIF.
In the next you say I did.
Which is it?
"In one comment you say that I must opine on GIF."
Where have I said that you "must opine on GIF"?
You wrote it this morning, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1354285
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy links to a comment where I didn’t say what he says I said, then asks me to stop trolling.
When Graham plays dumb in one sub thread, he denies the obvious in the other.
Anything for the lulz.
Little Willy misinterprets things in both sub-threads.
Graham says stuff and expects room service for the 71th month in a row.
I say correct stuff, you say incorrect stuff.
Graham says incorrect stuff incorrectly.
Incorrect.
And once again Graham quiets down in a sub thread after being caught gaslighting.
You gaslight constantly. I do not.
You keep saying I’m a non-spinner when I believe that the Moon spins, Graham. Think about what this implies.
Furthermore, you keep trying to support this troll by appealing to your pet GIF when the only times I talked about it you refused to
listen to what I had to say.
Finally, you keep acting like a stupid prick and expect room service.
This is not cool, Graham. Not cool at all.
I can only go by your words on the subject, Little Willy…and your words on the subject implied that “orbit without spin” involves rotation. A “Spinner” would say that “orbit without spin” is purely translational motion, by which they would mean motion like the MOTR. It’s not my fault you are so confused by such basic concepts.
No, Graham. You can’t say that you only go by my words and in the same breath say what my “words on the subject implied.”
All this to coerce me to opine on that silly GIF.
The only way to solve the riddle surrounding that silly GIF is to talk about angular momentum, something you shy away from and explicitly refused to discuss many times in this thread.
You are a dishonorable man, Graham.
I only say “implied” because you did not specifically say the words “orbit without spin”. From context, you could only have meant “orbit without spin”, though, otherwise your comment would have been completely meaningless.
You said “implied” because that’s how you interpret what I say, Graham, and unless you beg the question at hand you’re wrong.
Just admit that you’re pulling my leg. It’s fine.
Either you meant that you think “orbit without spin” is a mixture of rotation and translation, or your comment was meaningless drivel. It would not surprise me either way.
To suggest that either you’re right about something you have yet to show or what I say makes no sense might not be the best way to prove that you’re not gaslighting me, Graham.
In any event, you got enough attention as it is.
See you next month.
Stop denying what you said, Little Willy.
The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (IV). The climate shift of 1997
https://judithcurry.com/2022/08/22/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-iv-the-climate-shift-of-1997/
August 22, 2022 by Javier Vins & Andy May
From that post:
> The problem is that there is no evidence for the existence of such thresholds and tipping points other than the existence of the abrupt climate changes that they try to explain.
Wanna bet?
Yes
“In fact, the Little Ice Age (LIA), the most recent abrupt climate event prior to modern global warming, cannot be explained by CO2 or volcanic forcing”
I read through it and they didn’t seem to have an explanation for the LIA either.
I’m quite happy with the three pronged explanation of the LIA.
1) Continuing the slow 5000 year cooling trend towards the next glacial period due to orbital changes.
2) Volcanic activity around 1200 caused increased albedo.
3) The Maunder Minimum reduced solar insolation.
2) and 3) were temporary, 1) is ongoing. Yet something (AGW?)
has caused 1.2C of warming over the last 140 years.
The natural cooling trend has been overwhelmed by an artificial warming trend.
And meiv2 says what?
Entropic man says:
1) Continuing the slow 5000 year cooling trend towards the next glacial period due to orbital changes.
——————————-
See below.
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Entropic man says:
2) Volcanic activity around 1200 caused increased albedo.
——————————-
that seems a reach. What did Pinatubo bring? like 2 years of cooling maybe.
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Entropic man says:
3) The Maunder Minimum reduced solar insolation.
——————————-
True
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
——————————-
Entropic man says:
2) and 3) were temporary, 1) is ongoing. Yet something (AGW?)
has caused 1.2C of warming over the last 140 years.
The natural cooling trend has been overwhelmed by an artificial warming trend.
——————————-
What natural cooling trend? Ice core records show orbital (if it is orbital) cooling to be about 10C in 100,000 years. That works out to about .1C per thousand years. And you think the 2C in 300 to 500 years is orbital? Why? The icecore record over the past 450,000 years has a high frequency noise cycle of about 2c amplitude over somewhere between 600 and a 1000 years. Call it noise. If thats what it is we would expect it to chaotically bounce back.
Bill Hunter
Cooling trend.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Note that the Holocene Optimum is flat to 3000BC and then temperatures start to define at about 0.1C per 1000 years.
You could argue that the LIA steepens the trend.
Volcanism.
See Bindidon’s 6.39 comment below.
RLH
You tell me. I get fed up with your endless procession of graphs presented without analysis of interpretation.
ET: And meiv2 says what?
Entropic man says:
”http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
See Bindidons 6.39 comment below.”
—————————————
I have to compliment you and Bindidon on the large stainless steel nose rings you guys wear. You pick the most radical point of view and run around the universe like carny barkers touting them. Does somebody pay you for it or did it only require a jerk on the nose ring?
So… I won?
No. You lost, as always.
Let’s see, Richard:
(1) They’re not trying to explain ice ages with AGW
(2) Javier and you accept that ice ages are examples of climatic tipping points
Mission accomplished!
Jones has claimed that the LIA did not exist and that the AMO is just coincidence.
The little Ice Age is not exactly the same kind of ice age I’m referring to, Richard.
There is a full list over there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
Unless Javier’s claim is redhibitory, you might need to fold.
LIA is what I referenced and Jones said that it did not happen. And the AMO was just a coincidence and not an Oscillation.
Then what you brought up does not respond to my point, Richard.
Should I remind you of everything Barry said about that kind of behavior?
Weird Willard,
You wrote “Should I remind you of everything Barry said about that kind of behavior?”.
Why do you need to ask? Are you particularly stupid, or are you just incapable of making decisions for yourself?
Either way, why do you imagine that anybody cares for your bizarre shenanigans – other than a source of amusement?
Carry on. Give my regards to Barry (whoever he happens to be.)
Mike Flynn,
You ask about something that isn’t addressed to you.
Why do you need to ask?
Wonky Wee Willy,
If you don’t want people to laugh at your stupidity, don’t make stupid statements in public.
In case you have not already noticed, I do as I wish, and say what I want – and there is nothing at all you can do about it, is there? Boo hoo.
I note you have done as I suggested, and carried on – as usual.
By the way, did you give my regards to Barry (whoever he is)?
Carry on carrying on.
Ice ages too are not explained by CO2 or volcanoes. Neither are the LIA or the AMO (and other natural cycles as well).
Exactly, Richard. Which means that Javier had a counterexample to his claim right in front of his nose all along.
Climate science is the science of climate, not the sciene of CO2 and volcanoes alone.
Traditional Climate science is based on the theory that increasing CO2 leads to a general increase in global temperatures (but not apparently in the maximum temps in El Nino).
You forget the ceteris paribus clause, that a cause might be non exclusive, and that we were talking about an obviously false claim by Javier on which you put a symbolic bet, Richard.
Willard being idiotic as usual.
Gun kills people, Richard.
Does that mean that only guns kill people?
Willard goes off on a tangent.
What goes for guns goes for CO2, Richard.
Considering your Climateball style, your concern about tangents is not only false but charming.
Ironically, we had no idea there was a Pacific Decadal Oscillation till 1997. We suspected something was going on in 1977 when the global average abruptly rose by 0.2C. Many scientists wanted to erase that increase as an error.
The relation of climate change to ocean activity is in its infancy. We are so hung up on a trace gas doing the impossible that we are willing to ignore what is in front of our noses.
Tsonis, of the Tsonis et al study mentioned at the link, suggested we should be looking at climate shifts related to ocean activity rather than wasting our time chasing the CO2 theory.
UV measurements in Bremen indicate that the first peak of solar activity in cycle 25 has occurred. It may turn out to be a cycle with several peaks of solar activity.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Is there even one cycle showing a singular peak on the chart?
Are there any previous cycle that shows such a low point either?
I read upthread one of these typical Robertson lies, showing his mix of ignorance and arrogance:
1. ” binny can’t produce the text where Mayer claims that. ”
I have posted the link to Mayer’s German treatise years ago already, together with a short summary in English.
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
On page 160 we see:
Der 14. Abschnitt
Bestimmung der Zeit in welcher der Mond um seine Axe drehet
i.e.
The 14th section
Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis
On page 168 we see the last computation step, giving the final result with respect to the Vernal Point: 27d 7h 43′ 11” 49”’.
With respect to the sun, this time is identical to the synodic month: 29d 12h 44′ 3” 10”’.
*
2. ” As Clint points out, that is a reference to the Moons orbital period. ”
Nonsense. This is the result of Mayer’s computation of Moon’s rotation about its polar axis.
Robertson and Clint R don’t understand such concepts, and hence deny them.
*
3. ” There was no way, particularly with Meyers faulty understanding of the related physics, he could have worked that out. ”
Nothing written by Mayer is faulty in any way, unless one claims that Newton’s understanding of the related physics was wrong as well.
Simply because Mayer’s work was based on
– Newton’s findings about the gravity laws,
– the lunar spin Newton mentioned in a letter to Mercator in 1675 and finally described in the very last edition of the Principia Scientifica in 1726,
and on
– the use of the infinitesimal calculus Newton co-invented with Leibniz.
Keep deying strong, Robertson, Clint R and a few others, especially the hypergenius discrediting Mayer’s work as an ‘academic exercise’!
Who are you all, compared to Newton and Mayer?
Correction
Der 14. Abschnitt
Bestimmung der Zeit in welcher der Mond sich um die Axe drehet
(In the original text, the word ‘um’ wrongly was set twice by the typesetter.)
Bindidon, your problem is you have no workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Cassini “laws” are NOT Laws of physics. “Tidal locking” is easily debunked.
I’ve explained Newton’s work, but you reject it. You reject the ball-on-a-string.
I am very slowly and very painfully trying to translate old German script to English but thus far, I see no claims from Meyer that he is discussing the rotation of the Moon. The title itself suggests it’s about orbital period even if he mentions other matters related to rotation.
Here’s my translation thus far. Maybe you could help with your far better understanding of German. Words like ‘Ummalzung’ and ‘Mondsflecten’ don’t translate well but I have used the term rotation (encirclement) and lunar reflection in their place.
Already, Meyer seems to have missed the obvious, that the Moon cannot rotate while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
“Determination of the time in which the moon revolves around the earth.
If it is still left that we also determine the time in which the moon completes the revolution around its earth. Emar??? appears to need a more extensive investigation into this matter. For one measures from the ancient times that the moon was always on its side against the earth, which I still see every day; and here it immediately follows that he has to finish his encirclement in just the time in which he once traverses his orbit around the earth; More than known ???? in 27 days 7 hours 43′. 5″ ????.
Belief, alone, if it is still somewhat too general and indefinite for our purpose, I must endeavor to make the concepts of them clearer and to connect the to make significant, and to connect the orbit with the lunar reflections”.
“Already, Meyer seems to have missed the obvious, that the Moon cannot rotate while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.”
Perhaps he just knew that it rotated, as everybody else already did.
You’re such a phoney. I finally teased the translation of the chapter the book calls a section, on Page 160.
“Der 14. Ubfchnitt.
Beftimmung der Zeit in welchem der Mond fich um
um die Ure drehet”.
It says roughly, The 14th section….Determination of the time in which the moon revolves around the Ure.
I presume Ure is an old German word for Earth but the entire chapter is about the Moon’s orbital period. It has nothing to do with the Moon’s alleged rotation.
I noted your point about he repetition of ‘um’.
BTW…Google translator claims the German word for axis is ‘Achse’, nor Ure.
Meyer would not be so stupid as to claim the Moon ‘revolves’ around it’s axis.
“Meyer would not be so stupid as to claim the Moon ‘revolves’ around its axis”
Only you and your tiny, tiny clique claim that it doesn’t. Once per orbit.
Who claims things like
” In fact, the Little Ice Age (LIA), the most recent abrupt climate event prior to modern global warming, cannot be explained by CO2 or volcanic forcing ”
never read the paper:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
or discredited it without any scientific contradiction.
I personally never saw any such contradiction (non-committal guest posts at Climate Etc or WUWT clearly aren’t).
“It was stronger when the planet warmed and weaker when it cooled, reaching a minimum c. 3,000 years ago, so it cannot be a strong driver of centennial temperature change. In fact, the Little Ice Age (LIA), the most recent abrupt climate event prior to modern global warming, cannot be explained by CO2 or volcanic forcing. According to the GISP2 ice core volcanic sulfate record (Fig. 4.1c; Zielinski et al. 1996), volcanic activity was above average between 11661345 AD, but was below during most of the LIA, only becoming elevated again towards the end of it, in the 17661833 AD period”
Linsley Hood
You can gullibly replicate such blah blah as often as you want.
Here are the facts no one was able to scientifically contradict:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
And who isn’t even able to find out the list of volcanoes I mentioned loses any credibility.
I always wonder when I see people comparing what happened 100 years after the end of the MWP (950-1150) to the major present eruptions.
*
Here is a (non exhaustive) list of major eruptions which occurred before the Maunder Minimum:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes, VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Island, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Açores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Island, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
and in between all these, about 35 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
No period following these 400 years is known to me which has shown such an incredible sequence.
*
What the heck is the sense of comparing Pinatubo to the volcanic activity between 1250 and 1650?
Even the VEI 7 Tambora in 1815 caused way less effects than Samalas in 1257:
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
“It was stronger when the planet warmed and weaker when it cooled, reaching a minimum c. 3,000 years ago, so it cannot be a strong driver of centennial temperature change. In fact, the Little Ice Age (LIA), the most recent abrupt climate event prior to modern global warming, cannot be explained by CO2 or volcanic forcing. According to the GISP2 ice core volcanic sulfate record (Fig. 4.1c; Zielinski et al. 1996), volcanic activity was above average between 1166-1345 AD, but was below during most of the LIA, only becoming elevated again towards the end of it, in the 1766-1833 AD period”
Linsley Hood
You can gullibly replicate such blah blah as often as you want.
Here are the facts no one was able to scientifically contradict:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
And who isn’t even able to find out the list of volcanoes I mentioned loses any credibility.
rlh…”You do realize that changing from a straight line to an orbit requires an acceleration dont you?”
***
That’s a broad statement. I presume by orbit you are talking about a planet or object orbiting another body. I say that because we don’t normally encounter a situation in our terrestrial environment where that happens. So, we don’t have a lot of experience with it.
If you were flying an aircraft in an orbit around the Earth and you wanted to reach a higher orbit, you’d have to accelerate, which means applying a force from the engines to gain velocity. If you wanted to drop to a lower orbit, you’d need to cut power, or manipulate your flying surfaces to dive. If you applied a flying surface to reach a higher orbit without applying more engine power, you’d stall.
I sense that a body like the Moon approaching the Earth on a straight line would experience some kind of acceleration initially when entering an orbital path. Once in the orbital path it is no longer subjected t that kind of acceleration.
> Thats a broad statement.
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s, like, a definition.
Willard,
You wrote “It’s, like, a definition.”
That’s about as pointless as saying “Willard’s, like, a definition” – without using the words idiot, fool, nitwit and so on.
If you are claiming that a vague phrase is “like” a definition, what do you actually mean? Do you understand what a definition is?
Try this – “belief in the greenhouse effect is the definition of delusional thinking.”
Is that what you mean?
Prolly not, Mike Flynn, but it is hard to tell for I have skipped your comment.
“we dont have a lot of experience with it”
We have sent ‘up’ rather a lot of satellites that rely on us getting orbital calculations correct.
If in orbit around the Earth, a satellite requires to slow down to reach a higher orbit (much to early astronauts confusion). This can be seen quite simply for 24 hour synchronous ones. Further away they are less than 24 hours. Closer to, more than 24 hours.
“The orbital velocity of the satellite depends on its altitude above Earth. The nearer to Earth, the faster the required orbital velocity. At an altitude of 124 miles (200 kilometers), the required orbital velocity is a little more than 17,000 mph (about 27,400 kph). To maintain an orbit that is 22,223 miles (35,786 kilometers) above Earth, the satellite must orbit at a speed of about 7,000 mph (11,300 kph). That orbital speed and distance permit the satellite to make one revolution in 24 hours”
….Further away they are more than 24 hours. Closer to, more less 24 hours….
“I sense that a body like the Moon approaching the Earth on a straight line would experience some kind of acceleration initially when entering an orbital path. ”
Wrong. A body approaching the Earth in ‘a straight line’ would just enter a parabolic path and never enter an orbit around Earth (unless it just touched the atmosphere which might just slow it down enough).
You not including gravity assists.
An approaching body can gain or loses velocity to object it approaches without touching it.
And subsection of gravity assist are powered gravity assist.
Which means roughly one can get more velocity from your thrust- one loss or gain more to the object,
Therefore gravity holes are “actually” gateways.
Or starting from a high orbit of Earth or Venus are at the entrances
of gravity hole gateways.
Or Venus L-1 [or L-2} are a gateway entrance.
And L-1 or L-2 are extremely vast volumes of space.
Or 1 trillion people could live in Venus L-1 and they at entrance
of a “good” gateway to our solar system [better than Earth or Mars high orbits].
Grand solar minimum – extra long
https://youtu.be/4mjBd_oW4lI?t=2452
That video was long and could find what talking about.
She mentioned cold weather, but weather is not climate,
And it bumped up a bit last month.
But I tend to think it will go a bit next month.
But what seems strange is lack of hurricanes- if we want to talk
about weather.
And this seems easier:
https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/
From her website:
https://solargsm.com/
Oh, she said, there:
“The largest temperature drops will be approaching during the local minima between cycles 25 -26 and cycles 26-27 when the lowest solar activity level is achieved using the estimations in Figure 2 (bottom plot) and Figure 3. Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0oC from the current temperature, which was grown by 1.4oC since Maunder minimum. ”
So dip around 2030 and 2040 by as much as 1 C.
But that not really saying global or Northern Hemisphere average temperature lowering by 1 C, as it seems to talking about dips, but I doubt it.
Or our graph was .36 above line, she saying Northern hemisphere could go near .7 C {bottom line of graph] or last month northern hemisphere was +.37 and it will drop as much as -.7 C
I guess could do for a number of months.
But that roughly like condition when satellite measurement started or a bit warmer.
And more likely to be 2040 rather than 2030, I would think.
Earlier, RLH wrote –
“Ice ages too are not explained by CO2 or volcanoes. Neither are the LIA or the AMO (and other natural cycles as well).”
In spite of Erroneous Arrhenius (champion of ethnic cleansing and one-time Board member of the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene) speculating that ice ages might be caused by variations in atmospheric CO2 levels?
It just goes to show that very clever people like Svante Arrhenius can easily fool themselves.
Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Climate cultists can’t even devise an experiment to support their nutty ideas!
How sad is that?
Straw man alert.
Paleoclimatologists do not claim that ice ages are caused by CO2.
“Climate cultists cant even devise an experiment to support their nutty ideas! ”
How about
“Let’s pump half a trillion tone of CO2 into the atmosphere and see what happens.”
The final results are awaited, but so far we have 1.2C of global warming, climate change and ocean acidification.
EM: So how about meiv2?
I’m waiting for you to tell me.
Well my simple analysis tells me that it is in a decline.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
with this year soon to be comparable to 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932012_La_Ni%C3%B1a_event
Ent, you only see what you want to see. If you don’t see it, you just make it up.
You’re NOT a scientist, you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
Ask Roy about his measurements of global temperatures about that who was told the opposite. The models were more accurate than his measurements were.
It is about the agenda. The agenda is to control the free market. They are masterminds. Don’t you want Eman running things?
” They are masterminds. Dont you want Eman running things?”
Why on Earth would I want to run things?
And who are “They”?
One of the worst moments of my life was when I realised that there were no “They”.
There are no masterminds. Just a bunch of eejits who fought their way to power or suckered electorates into voting for them.
Nobody is running the world, which is why it’s in such a mess.
We can probably all agree that on a properly functioning bicycle that the frame does not spin, whilst the tires and crank do spin. The disagreement is over whether the pedals spin.
One camp contends that the pedals maintain their orientation with the non-spinning frame, are thus not spinning, and the function of their bearings is to allow the spinning axle to rotate inside them.
The other camp contends the pedals spin in the opposite direction of the crank to maintain their orientation with the non-spinning frame, and the function of their bearings is to allow that rotation around the non-spinning axle.
Now consider the attachment points of the rider to the bicycle; hands on handle bars, buttocks on seat, and feet on pedals.
I invite the second camp to explain how the rider’s feet can be spinning whilst the hands and buttocks are not.
The rider’s feet will be moving in a circle below but relative to his hands/buttocks.
“We can probably all agree that on a properly functioning bicycle that the frame does not spin, whilst the tires and crank do spin.”
Not quite, Brandon. As is often the case, location of observation is not specified in your 10:01 am. If I am observing from a videocam positioned on the valve stem of your tire, your frame is observed spinning and the tire is observed non-spinning.
True, Ball4, but “non-spinning [bicycle] frame” *implies* that your camera is not affixed to a tire.
On August 22, 2022 at 2:03 PM I proposed a similar thought experiment: grab the crank and spin the bicycle, does the pedal spin or not? Notice how our pseudo-mod squirmed away from it.
Pseudo-mod is the beyond-all-doubt long time champion of blog comment squirming. Bill is giving robust competition though.
Again, you have not specified location of observation when you “grab the crank”. Pending that detail, the pedal may spin or not spin when grabbed.
How about your own eyes when you grab the crank and spin the bicycle, Ball4.
In this thought experiment, the bicycle is mounted to one of those contraptions that converts the bike to an exercycle and thus the bike remains stationary relative to the ground when pedaled. You’re standing at rest relative to the bicycle while watching someone else operate the pedals.
That communicates the motion better, Brandon. The pedal is then observed when grabbed non-spinning relative to your own eyes.
All motion is relative.
That’s easy Brandon. The rider’s feet aren’t spinning. They remain flat on the pedals, which are spinning. The pedals must spin to account for the revolving crank arm.
Napoleon,
The TDF rider’s feet aren’t spinning, but they remain connected to the pedals, physically locked to the pedals, which are spinning.
That’s deluded.
There is a bearing in there somewhere that allows the pedals to not spin while attached to the spinning and revolving crank.
> Thats deluded.
Or he is simply trolling. I lean toward that option.
Brandon started off this nonsense claiming: The disagreement is over whether the pedals spin.”
Bicycle pedals are free to spin about their axles. They have to be because the crank arms are revolving. The two motions, revolving and spinning, allows one flat side of the pedals to always support the rider’s feet.
Braindead cult idiots try to claim that pedals do not spin, to support their cult’s Moon spin nonsense. They have to pervert reality, to support their false beliefs. And they always get themselves wrapped around their axles in the process.
That’s why this is so much fun.
I’ve heard all that before, Clint; it’s boring. Let’s try something different.
Lift the bicycle by its crank and spin the bike about the crank’s axis. Assume the rider maintains all three attachment points.
Are the pedals spinning on their own axis or not.
That’s right Napoleon,
The pedals are spinning once per revolution of the crank and the riders feet are not spinning.
Boring or Funny?
Boring and Funny?
Brandon, I can understand why reality is boring to you. That’s why you have to try to pervert it.
You have to pervert how a bicycle is used, to protect your cult beliefs.
The funny this is, NASA is moving away from such nonsense. Your cult is leaving you!
> pervert how a bicycle is used
Ok Boomer, you should see what kids these days are doing with motorcycles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM_jORDiEz8
Yes Brandon, you’re braindead.
You don’t need to supply any more proof.
OK, boomer Pup:
https://youtu.be/UjPGqO3l3-I
Alright, Pup.
Maybe pole dance is not for you.
How about some spinning class?
Alright Witless,
Maybe reality is not for you.
How about claiming that CO2 creates warmth?
How about getting some new material, Flynn.
Brandon,
What’s the matter? Reality too inconvenient for you?
Or do you really believe that CO2 creates warmth?
Maybe you you could try to find some new material to support your fantasy, but it would be a fruitless quest, I fear.
Off you go now.
Mike, Mike,
CO2 is a bit like you in a comment section –
It does not create warmth, but without it we would have less of it.
Love.
Willard,
I accept your apology, inasmuch as you now agree that CO2 doesn’t create warmth.
You are of course correct in saying that generating less CO2 by burning less hydrocarbons creates less heat. It’s a pity that the average deluded climate cultist doesn’t realise that heat is due to the process which creates the CO2, rather than the CO2 itself.
Keep wriggling, perverting, and trying to avoid facing reality.
Your efforts provide light relief to rational onlookers.
Mike,
I am glad you finally accept greenhouse theory.
Cheers.
> We can probably all agree that on a properly functioning bicycle that the frame does not spin
No we can’t:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RgsmpOwx1R0
I submit that it’s this guy’s brain that isn’t properly functioning:
https://youtu.be/OFPmjxkNRmA?t=85
Brandy Guts, Little Willy, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Willard,
The fact that you couldnr resist commenting might indicate that you are either delusional or flat-out lying when you say you skipped my comment.
You live in a strange little fantasy world where reality is ignored, and you believe fiction is superior to fact.
Luckily, nobody values your opinions.
Let alone would – your affiliated denier clique excepted – anybody value yours, Flynnson.
You got that right, Mike Flynn –
I just couldnr resist commenting.
Witless Wee Willy,
So you lied when you said you skipped my comment, did you?
Ah well, climate cultists always resort to lying when they get caught out.
No self control at all.
[laughing]
You are not a reader, Mike, and it shows.
More ignorance and arrogance from dumbass-in-chief Robertson, who names scientists ‘cheating SOB’s, but himself permanently writes absolute bullshit.
August 23, 2022 at 10:27 PM
August 24, 2022 at 12:35 AM
” Youre such a phoney. I finally teased the translation of the chapter the book calls a section, on Page 160. ”
*
Hmmmmh! Robertson was teasing!
He thinks he is able to fluently read German written in 1750, and to translate that into today’s English. And he UTTERLY fails.
More stoopid you die, we say in my native tongue.
Though German isn’t, it’s nonetheless my every day’s language since nearly 50 years, and as opposed to the Robertson dumbass, I have no problem with understanding the German written in 1750 as well.
Thus again: a transcription of the original text (which Google Books unluckily couldn’t manage to properly process, because the quality of the original document’s typesetting was much less good than needed).
*
” Der 14. Abschnitt
Bestimmung der Zeit in welcher der Mond sich um die Axe drehet
Jetzt ist noch übrig, daß wir auch die Zeit bestimmen, in welcher der Mond die Umwälzung um seine Axe einmal vollendet.
Zwar scheinet diese Sache eben keiner weitläufrigen Untersuchung bedürftig zu seyn. Denn man weiß von den ältesten Zeiten her, daß der Mond eben diejenige Seite gegen die Erde gekehret hat, die wir noch täglich sehen</b>; und hieraus folget sogleich, daß er seine Umwälzung in eben der Zeit einmal vollbringen müßte, in welcher er einaml seine Bahn um die Erde durchlauft; welches denn bekanntermaßen in 27 Tagen 7 Std. 43' 5" geschiehet.
Allein, dies ist für unsere Absicht noch etwas zu allgemein und unbestimmt. Wir müssen uns daher bemühen, die Begriff hie[r]von deutlicher zu machen, <b>und die Umwälzung mit den Mondsflecken zu verbinden. ”
*
Google’s translation package luckily involves the translation of elder documents, what we clearly see when entering the 1750 German text and observing that the English translation needed no correction.
*
” The 14th section
Determination of the time in which the moon revolves around the axis
Now it remains that we also determine the time in which the moon once completes the revolution around its axis.
It is true that this matter does not seem to require any extensive investigation. For it is known from the earliest times that the moon has turned that side towards the earth which we still see every day; and from this it immediately follows that it would have to complete its revolution in just the time in which it runs through its orbit around the earth; which is known to happen in 27 days 7 hours 43′ 5″.
However, this is still somewhat too general and vague for our purpose. We must therefore endeavor to make the conception of this clearer, and to connect the revolution with the moonspots. ”
*
Thus, like Newton, Mayer understands that millennia old observations can’t be that wrong, and that Cassini’s ‘astrology’ ((c) Clint R) was correct, even if not fulfilling Mayer’s precision requests.
But unlike Newton, he proved all this in a wonderful mix of observations and observation data processing.
*
The kernel statement about Moon’s rotation about its polar axis, however is to be found in section 12 of Mayer’s treatise.
I’ll write a post about that.
I figured out that Ure means axis. The U-shape in the old German script is actually an A. The next letter, which looks like an r, has a small circle at the bottom of it that makes it an x. So we have Axe.
It still makes no sense because he already knows that since he has declared it to be the same as the orbital period. If I try to translate ‘Beftimmung der Zeit in welcher der Mond fich um die Axe drehet’, Google still makes a mistake as to Axe. It calls it Ax. It does not recognize the German script for Ure as meaning Axe. Even when I write it in by hand it cannot recognize the U-shaped script.
For the sake of argument, let’s call it axis. So the translations becomes ‘Determination of the time in which the Moon revolves around the axis’. It could be translated as axle. The Moon revolves around an axle or axial point.
Which axis dos he mean, a local axis or the Earth as the external axial point about which the Moon revolves? We had the same argument about Newton’s wording but I clarified that later from a quote from Principia. Newton claimed the Moon moves with a linear velocity and its motion is curvilinear.
A curvilinear motion with a body undergoing linear velocity cannot be described as rotation about a local axis. Newton had to be talking about the Moon revolving about the Earth, otherwise he contradicts himself by claiming the Moon moves with a linear velocity with curvilinear motion.
The fact that Meyer’s chapter is discussing the time of revolution has to mean the time taken by the Moon to orbit the Earth. He has no means of measuring a rotation about a local axis, especially under the constraint that the same side of the Moon must always face the Earth.
” The fact that Meyer’s chapter is discussing the time of revolution has to mean the time taken by the Moon to orbit the Earth. He has no means of measuring a rotation about a local axis, especially under the constraint that the same side of the Moon must always face the Earth. ”
Is it possible to reply in a dumber way?
Bindidon, this is another one you can’t win.
If, as your cult believes, Moon is rotating in perfect sync with its orbital motion, then how could you measure its rotation rate? You can’t. You would only be measuring its orbital motion. The rest is all your imagination.
Imagination ain’t science.
Napoleon,
You could do it with a telescope and make a map of the stars and determine the direction the Moon is facing and then measure how that direction changes over time.
Or you could use your MK IV eyeball and note that the Moon points at the Sun when the Moon is full, and points at the Earth when the Moon is new, and then determine it’s about 4 weeks.
That would be doing science.
I know you will claim that is measuring the orbital motion, but that would be incorrect.
That’s close to what Mayer did. He ACCEPTED the centuries-old BELIEF that Moon rotates. He was measuring Moon’s orbital motion.
Napoleon,
The motion of the Moon still meets the definition of rotation.
So you have that bit of science working against you.
Moon’s orbital motion meets the definition of “rotation”, if you specify Moon is rotating about Earth. (Watch RLH rush in to mention “barycenter”, as if he understands any of this.) But Moon is NOT rotating about its center of mass. Braindead cult idiots can NOT understand that.
(I don’t have time to babysit you today bob. Go bicker with RLH or willy. Like you, they have nothing going in their lives either.)
Napoleon
Only delusional Luddites specify that the Moon is rotating around the Earth, Astronomers prefer to use the terms revolving or orbiting.
Or they allow that the Moon is doing both, rotating around its axis and revolving around the Earth.
You are the one needing baby-sitting, who knows what can happen when a delusion patient is allowed out in public.
I will babysit you today, bob, as this is one you seem to have particular difficulty with…and you’re definitely wrong.
"Astronomers prefer to use the terms revolving or orbiting"
Indeed, but as Clint R used the term "orbital motion", you really have no leg to stand on:
"Moon’s orbital motion meets the definition of “rotation”, if you specify Moon is rotating about Earth."
"Revolving" just means "rotating about an external axis". From the Wikipedia article on "Rotation":
"A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles."
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own internal axis, moves like a ball on a string, with one face always oriented towards the center of the orbit. That’s a fact. It’s been established, and backed up on here, multiple times.
The only way to argue that the moon is both "revolving" and "rotating on its own internal axis" is to change the definition of "revolving" from "rotating about an external axis" to "translating in an ellipse". You have to actually change the meaning of known words to get what you want, bob.
You may now rant and rave.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without being seen rotating about its own internal axis, moves like a ball on a string, with one face always oriented towards the center of the orbit as the ball is being observed from “inside of it orbit” (Clint R terms).
An object that is rotating about an external axis, and seen rotating once per orbit about its own internal axis, moves like a ball on a string, with one face always oriented towards the center of the orbit so the ball is being observed from “outside of its orbit” (Clint R terms).
DREMPTY DREMPTY DREMPTY
“I will babysit you today, bob, as this is one you seem to have particular difficulty withand youre definitely wrong.
“Astronomers prefer to use the terms revolving or orbiting”
Indeed, but as Clint R used the term “orbital motion”, you really have no leg to stand on:
“Moons orbital motion meets the definition of rotation, if you specify Moon is rotating about Earth.”
“Revolving” just means “rotating about an external axis”. From the Wikipedia article on “Rotation”:
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own internal axis, moves like a ball on a string, with one face always oriented towards the center of the orbit. Thats a fact. Its been established, and backed up on here, multiple times.
The only way to argue that the moon is both “revolving” and “rotating on its own internal axis” is to change the definition of “revolving” from “rotating about an external axis” to “translating in an ellipse”. You have to actually change the meaning of known words to get what you want, bob.”
The question is not about whether the Moon is orbiting, revolving, or rotating about an external axis.
So we don’t have to change those definitions, but you have to consider that rotating about an internal axis and revolving or orbiting are two distinct motions independent of each other.
The question is whether or not it’s rotating about an internal axis.
The question you have dodged for all this discussion.
Please define rotating about an internal axis so we can test whether or not the Moon is rotating about an internal axis.
You will claim it’s all been discussed, but no, it has not.
"Rotating on its own internal axis" means "turning about an axis that passes through the body of the object in question".
I repeat:
The only way to argue that the moon is both "revolving" and "rotating on its own internal axis" is to change the definition of "revolving" from "rotating about an external axis" to "translating in an ellipse".
1) "Translating in an ellipse, with no rotation about an internal axis" = motion like the MOTR.
2) "Rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis" = motion like the MOTL.
3) "Translating in an ellipse, with rotation about an internal axis" (in the same direction, at the same rate) = motion like the MOTL.
4) "Rotating about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis" (in opposite directions, at the same rate) = motion like the MOTR.
(and, just for Ball4, all four of the above motions are "as observed from outside of the orbit").
DREMPTY,
I don’t want to discuss any irrelevant crap like what you posted, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Moon is rotating on its axis.
I do note however
“1) “Translating in an ellipse, with no rotation about an internal axis” = motion like the MOTR.
2) “Rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” = motion like the MOTL.”
These two statements are contradictory, it’s hard to keep things straight when you are lying.
I will only discuss the rotation of the Moon, nothing else, in this sub-thread.
The two statements are not contradictory, bob. "Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis" and "translation in an ellipse, with no rotation about an internal axis" are not the same motion, as you falsely believe. Any more false accusations of lying, and I will no longer babysit you.
Graham, please stop saying nothing:
https://youtu.be/HRKOZolW6L4
DREMPTY,
All right then,
Let’s just look at the second part of each sentence.
“with no rotation about an internal axis = motion like the MOTR.”
and
“with no rotation about an internal axis = motion like the MOTL.
So no rotation about an internal axis is both like the MOTR and like the MOTL.
Which I can only conclude that when you say rotation about an external axis you imply that that includes the internal rotation of the object.
Because that has to be different from translating in an ellipse, which we know means no rotation about an internal axis.
But then the Earth is rotating about an external axis, but you would not say the Earth is not rotating about an internal axis.
Or do you?
By the way, this is of course wrong, and it’s the heart of the matter.
” “Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in an ellipse, with no rotation about an internal axis” are not the same motion, as you falsely believe.”
It goes to how you define rotation about an internal axis, no rotation about an internal axis by you is defined as what the Moon is doing. Sorry, that’s not logical.
bob, you’re getting yourself wrapped around your internal axis! You’ve got this so confused you don’t know where you started.
First of all, a spinning planet like Earth is “rotating about an axis through its center of mass”. It’s NOT just any internal axis, its an axis though center of mass.
With Earth, the equatorial vector velocities on opposite sides would have equal magnitudes but directions 180° out. That’s what REAL spin looks like.
With Moon, the opposite equatorial velocity vectors have the SAME direction. That ain’t axial rotation.
If that is too complicated for you, go with the ball-on-a-string. That’s as easy as it gets, but still too hard for braindead cult idiots.
The trouble is, bob, I simply don’t think you have the open-mindedness to accept what I’m saying. I agree that the heart of the matter, the root of all your confusion, is that you erroneously believe “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in an ellipse, with no rotation about an internal axis” are the same motion. You think both of those are motion like the MOTR.
You simply cannot understand the concept that “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” is actually motion like the MOTL. You have some kind of mental block that just prevents you from understanding that. You think I’m pulling your leg, or that I’m changing definitions, or otherwise just doing something wrong or nefarious. It’s easier for you to carry on thinking that way, than accept that what I tell you is correct. Even though I have shown you so many sources that confirm what I’m saying in so many ways.
DREMPTY,
“You simply cannot understand the concept that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis is actually motion like the MOTL.”
The problem is not that I don’t understand it, I do understand it quite well. It just happens to be wrong.
Napoleon,
“With Moon, the opposite equatorial velocity vectors have the SAME direction. That aint axial rotation.”
Close enough, but.
They don’t have the same magnitude.
Put that in your incorrect belief system, and smoke it.
It’s not wrong, bob.
Did you notice number 3)?
> I agree that the heart of the matter, the root of all your confusion, is that you erroneously believe
So beautiful.
Napoleon,
“With Earth, the equatorial vector velocities on opposite sides would have equal magnitudes but directions 180 out. Thats what REAL spin looks like.”
Nope, they are close enough to the same direction, because the rotational speed of the Earth is much slower than the orbital speed of the Earth.
65 times slower roughly.
DREMPTY,
I assumed you posted #3 by mistake.
“3) “Translating in an ellipse, with rotation about an internal axis” (in the same direction, at the same rate) = motion like the MOTL.”
Because that makes you a spinner.
No, bob…it doesn’t make me a “Spinner”. It’s like I said, but you obviously failed to understand:
“The only way to argue that the moon is both "revolving" and "rotating on its own internal axis" is to change the definition of "revolving" from "rotating about an external axis" to "translating in an ellipse".”
You don’t really follow any of it, do you?
Don’t forget number 4), either. Read the whole thing, in fact, again and again. Maybe eventually you will work it out.
bob d…”Or you could use your MK IV eyeball and note that the Moon points at the Sun when the Moon is full, and points at the Earth when the Moon is new, and then determine its about 4 weeks”.
***
Problem is Bob, the side that is a full moon is the same side that is darkened as a new moon.
Even if you had telescopes positioned right around the Earth, under the Moon’s orbital path, how would you measure a rotation? One person with a telescope in one spot could not do that nor could a 100 people with a 100 telescopes positions every 3.6 degrees around the planet. That’s a telescope located every 250 miles around the Equator.
They would all see the same side with no evidence of local rotation.
You could only see the Moon at night and you’d always see the same face. So how the heck could it be also rotating 360 degrees about a local axis?
This notion you spinners have that the Moon slowly rotates so it keeps the same face pointed at the Earth does not hold up under physical scrutiny.
With an instantaneously stopped Moon, draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through the near face and right through the Moon’s centre and out the far side. Start the Moon orbiting and let the radial line rotate as it tracks the Moon. Use the rotating radial line as a reference. You are claiming the Moon will rotate around a point on the radial line as it orbits the Earth.
Now look at the case for curvilinear translation. The Moon is always fixed to the radial line. Perpendicular lines drawn through the radial line at the near face, the centre, and the far side will always move in parallel. That proves without a doubt that the Moon’s orbital motion is cuvilinear translation without local rotation.
bob, you’re even more confused that I thought. Now, you’re confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”. You can’t keep it straight. Vectors confuse you. Stick with the ball-on-a-string.
BTW, you didn’t mention who helped you with the last vectors problem. Someone you work with?
Gordon,
“Even if you had telescopes positioned right around the Earth, under the Moons orbital path, how would you measure a rotation? One person with a telescope in one spot could not do that nor could a 100 people with a 100 telescopes positions every 3.6 degrees around the planet. Thats a telescope located every 250 miles around the Equator.”
Yes 100 telescopes all pointed at the Moon, arranged around the Earth, and they are all pointing in different directions, yet they all see the same face of the Moon.
So imagine a double pointed arrow, it points to the Moon, and points from the Moon to the Earth at each telescope. So as the Moon revolves around the Earth, it points at each telescope in turn, so the Moon points in each direction as it revolves, it must rotate on its axis or that would be impossible.
Next point
“You could only see the Moon at night and youd always see the same face. So how the heck could it be also rotating 360 degrees about a local axis?”
Wow, you have never seen the Moon during the day?
Like I said the New Moon is pointing at the Earth and at the Full Moon it is pointing at the Sun, it has to rotate through 180 degrees to do that.
Next
“You are claiming the Moon will rotate around a point on the radial line as it orbits the Earth.”
Yes, the point on the radial near the center of the Moon.
Lastly,
Now look at the case for curvilinear translation. The Moon is always fixed to the radial line. Perpendicular lines drawn through the radial line at the near face, the centre, and the far side will always move in parallel.”
For curvilinear translation, the Moon has to remain orientated on the same distant fixed point. This is not the case, so it’s not curvilinear translation, but add rotation and you’re OK.
And as told to you before, your radial lines are rotating.
“
Napoleon,
“bob, youre even more confused that I thought. Now, youre confusing orbiting with rotating. You cant keep it straight. Vectors confuse you. Stick with the ball-on-a-string.
BTW, you didnt mention who helped you with the last vectors problem. Someone you work with?”
Nope, I am not confused, you need to look up the orbital speed of the Earth and compare it to the rotational speed of the Earth.
If then, you still think the vectors representing the velocity of the surface of the Earth on opposite sides of the Earth are not pointing within a few degrees of each other, then its up to you to add up the vectors and see if your 180 apart still holds.
Remember your claim!
“With Earth, the equatorial vector velocities on opposite sides would have equal magnitudes but directions 180 out. Thats what REAL spin looks like.”
That only works if you use a non-inertial reference frame centered on the Earth, which has the Sun orbiting the Earth, you don’t believe that.
But I’ll give you credit for trying a scientific argument, too bad you got too many things wrong.
“So imagine a double pointed arrow, it points to the Moon, and points from the Moon to the Earth at each telescope. So as the Moon revolves around the Earth, it points at each telescope in turn, so the Moon points in each direction as it revolves, it must rotate on its axis or that would be impossible.”
Only if by “revolves around the Earth” you mean “translates around the Earth”. If you use the correct meaning of “revolves”, so that the sentence becomes “rotates around the Earth”, then there is no problem. No rotation about an internal axis required.
“Like I said the New Moon is pointing at the Earth and at the Full Moon it is pointing at the Sun, it has to rotate through 180 degrees to do that…”
…but not on its own axis.
Yeah bob, you’re even more confused that I thought. Now, you’re confusing orbiting with rotating. You can’t keep it straight. Vectors confuse you. Stick with the ball-on-a-string.
BTW, you didn’t mention who helped you with the last vectors problem. Someone you work with?
Napoleon,
Yeah that’s right, just repeat what you said without listening to what I was arguing.
Add velocity vectors.
The one due to orbital motion on the high noon side of the Earth to the velocity vector due to rotational motion at the high noon point of the Earth.
Now add the velocity vector due to orbital motion on the midnight side of the Earth to the velocity vector due to rotational motion on the midnight point of the Moon.
Now compare those two summed vectors.
If you think they differ by 180 degrees you are smoking crack.
bob, you’re confusing “rotation” with “orbiting”. I was responding to your request to define rotation about an internal axis. Earth is such an example. The instantaneous velocity vectors have opposite directions on opposite sides of the equator. You’re confusing yourself with Earth’s orbital motion. We’re ONLY talking about Earth’s rotation.
This is too far over your head. You can’t keep up. I shouldn’t have to constantly explain the obvious. That’s why dealing with your incompetence is like babysitting. I don’t have the time or interest.
Clint R,
“The instantaneous velocity vectors have opposite directions on opposite sides of the equator.”
No they don’t.
To get the instantaneous velocity vectors you have to add all vectors acting on the points on opposite sides of the equator.
Sorry, but ignoring things don’t make them go away.
If Earth is too confusing for you bob, consider a globe sitting on a desk. The globe is spinning, due to a small motor. Instantaneous velocity vectors on opposite sides of the equator have directions 180° different from each other.
If you can’t understand that, you’re stuck with studying a ball-on-a-string. Braindead cult idiots can’t even understand that simple model.
Maybe science just isn’t your thing….
Napoleon,
“If Earth is too confusing for you bob, consider a globe sitting on a desk. The globe is spinning, due to a small motor. Instantaneous velocity vectors on opposite sides of the equator have directions 180 different from each other.”
Now consider reality, by throwing the globe as hard as you can, and then measure the instantaneous velocity vectors.
In order to calculate the instantaneous velocity vectors for the Earth’s surface, you have to take the orbital motion into account.
That’s what you are neglecting.
You are thinking the Earth is sitting on a Turtle’s back as it floats through the aether.
That ain’t Science.
Time to leave the Flat-Earther cult.
It’s better to be braindead than brainwashed.
That’s how an immature brat acts bob. Throw your toy across the room in frustration.
This is all WAY over your head.
Wait until you grow up.
(You never did say who helped you with the vectors problem. Don’t be afraid to admit you needed help. It was quite obvious….)
Napoleon,
You don’t seem to understand what I posted, it’s simple high school physics.
Maybe you need some help simple physics.
Maybe if you said what specific part of my post you don’t understand, maybe I could explain it to you.
It’s simple physics, some one who passed high school physics would understand, however you don’t seem to have the skills someone had a physics background would have.
It’s just adding vectors, what’s the matter, can’t handle that?
As I stated, braindead bob, “This is all WAY over your head.”
You don’t understand any of it, then you get frustrated, then you have to make things up, then you resort to your juvenile profanity.
You have no respect for reality.
(You never did say who helped you with the vectors problem. Don’t be afraid to admit you needed help. It was quite obvious….)
I’ll just repeat what you posted Napoleon.
“With Earth, the equatorial vector velocities on opposite sides would have equal magnitudes but directions 180 out. Thats what REAL spin looks like.”
Care to try and recalculate your vector directions?
Cause you have the wrong answer, due to neglecting actual physics.
Not the made up fantasies in your mind.
Same as the Moon, the equatorial vectors are in the same general direction, so you can’t use that to say the Earth is spinning but the Moon is not.
You have to do better than accuse me of not understanding something, when you get things so wrong.
I don’t have time to babysit you today, bob.
Sorry.
Napoleon,
I don’t need a babysitter as much as you need someone to explain to you how to figure out the motion of the Earth based on its observed motions.
Can you provide a free body diagram of the Earth, so we can ridicule you?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d…”[GR]You are claiming the Moon will rotate around a point on the radial line as it orbits the Earth.
[BD]Yes, the point on the radial near the center of the Moon”.
***
It is impossible for the Moon to keep the same side pointed to the Earth while it rotates about the intercept point of the radial line and the COG. The instant it starts to rotate, the intercept point on the Moon between the radial line and the near side has to rotate away from the radial line.
That point on the Moon’s near side does not move with respect to the COG point which intercepts the radial line. That should be blatantly obvious. A tangent line to the near face and the far face always move in parallel. So does a tangent line representing a circle for the COG. That means 3 points on the Moon that intercept a radial line are restricted to move in parallel.
That is curvilinear translation, Bob. If you do the same with an airliner following an orbital path above the Equator, by drawing a radial line from Earth’s centre through the COG of the airliner, you see the same thing.
Where the radial line intercepts the near side of the airliner, draw a tangent line to represent an inner orbital path. At the top of the plane, draw another tangential line to represent an outer orbital path. In between, draw another tangential line to represent a circle between the two.
Again, you have 3 parallel lines restricted to move in an instantaneous parallel direction. We ***KNOW*** the airliner cannot rotate about any of its axes.
QED
Gordon,
“The instant it starts to rotate, the intercept point on the Moon between the radial line and the near side has to rotate away from the radial line.”
No, because the Moon revolves at just the correct rate, save for libration, to keep the intercept point on the near side in line.
And you keep forgetting that curvilinear translation, just as rectilinear translation allows no change in orientation.
So if the orientation changes you have to add a rotation.
All your tangent lines are rotating and they belong to us!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
binny…”Is it possible to reply in a dumber way?”
***
Yes…when you replied with this red-herring ad hom without addressing my point.
Bindidon, you bolded the first part, but you should have bolded the second part:
“For it is known from the earliest times that the moon has turned that side towards the earth which we still see every day; and from this it immediately follows that it would have to complete its revolution in just the time in which it runs through its orbit around the earth…“
You see, Mayer was ACCEPTING the centuries-old BELIEF that Moon rotates. That ain’t science. His observation could be explained much easier had he realized Moon does NOT rotate — Occum’s Razor.
Science would be someone providing a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The only one that works is a ball-on-a-string. That model is not perfect, because it does not allow for an elliptical orbit. But, for the purposes of discussing axial rotation, the shape of the orbit is just a distraction. If you can’t accept the ball-on-a-string, then you are rejecting reality. Rejecting reality ain’t science.
You don’t believe in anything you wrote above, Clint R.
You are this blog’s dumbest troll.
That’s a total and complete rejection of reality, Bin. Then, you combine it with an insult.
THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Clint…”You see, Mayer was ACCEPTING the centuries-old BELIEF that Moon rotates”.
***
Actually, if you read him closely he does not admit that the theory is correct. He states….”for our purpose is still somewhat too general and indefinite…”.
It appears he was talking about the measurements. He clearly indicated he believed in Moon’s axial rotation:
“Now it remains that we also determine the time in which the moon once completes the revolution around its axis.
That was the prevailing belief of his time. So it fits that he would go with it.
But, if you’re working to translate his work I would be interested to confirm that he also believed lunar libration was a real motion. Many of his time believed that. They had that wrong also.
Come on, Gordo. Next sentence:
Had you read to the end you would not have stupidly ask about moonspots later on in this thread.
Read. Only then think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ball4 wrote –
“All motion is relative.”
Really? If two photons are approaching each other head on at the speed of light, what is their motion relative to each other?
You could say “twice the speed of light”, but that would be really silly, wouldn’t it? That’s the sort of thing climate cultists believe.
Maybe you really meant to say something else? That’s the usual excuse used by climate cultists.
You got it Mike … errr … Swenson, your 2 photon motions are relative to each other. What do you know, you got some science actually right for a change. The more astute blog commenters appreciate that.
Ball4,
You idiot. Are you really saying that two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light relative to each other?
Presumably you believe that you have experimental evidence to back up your assertion, but belief is not fact.
The speed of light c is a constant, independent of the relative motion of the source, and photons, naturally enough, travel at the “speed of light”! So, your statement, that all motion is relative, is wrong – at least in the view of Albert Einstein, me, and pretty one everyone else who accepts the relevant experimental evidence.
Carry on preferring the contents of your fantasy. You’d make a good climate cultist, I guess. They believe that CO2 creates warmth, which is about as silly as your thoughts on relative motion.
Mike 8:24 pm, all motion is relative. There is no hedging here, all means all. That’s why they call it relativity.
You’ve got even more science right…the speed of light (photons) IS a constant (I’ll add specifically measured in a vacuum but that is usually correctly assumed unless otherwise specified). Mike…I mean Swenson…was on a science roll tonight.
I write “was” because correctly writing speed of light is a constant Swenson then destroyed what little credibility Swenson had gained by wrongly writing: “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light”.
No! That hurts Einstein’s feelings. Speed of light is a constant. Constant really does mean constant, Swenson. Universally c is a constant (in a vacuum).
All motion is relative.
Ball4,
Nitwit. I asked you “If two photons are approaching each other head on at the speed of light, what is their motion relative to each other?”, merely to find out if you were as ignorant as you claimed.
You falsely claimed I wrote ” . . . two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light, which as anyone can see is a delusional figment of your imagination.
Initially, you were stupid enough to patronisingly declaim “All motion is relative.” I pointed out that you were wrong. Then you attempted to wriggle out of what you claimed by lying.
Typical climate cultist tactics – if caught exposing your ignorance, just lie.
Then you once again claim that all motion is relative! What a donkey you are! I’ll repeat – the speed of light c is a constant, independent of the relative motion of the source. Note well, fool – constant, independent of relative motion.
Don’t blame me for your lack of comprehension, or your ignorance. Stand up and be proud – that’s the cultist way, isn’t it?
Wrong Mike/Swenson, you have now lost all the little science credibility you had recently gained. You really did write “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light” which is impossible: two photons approaching each other head on are traveling AT the speed of light (c in a vacuum).
A. Einstein solved that problem correctly in his 1905 paper, see section 1., paragraph 5: The Composition of Velocities.
It’s why they call it relativity: all motion is relative, there is no absolute motion despite your pleas to the contrary. Especially not at your claimed 2c, that’s really a laugh.
Ball4,
You donkey. People can read what I wrote for themselves, you know.
You can’t quote me, can you?
Your fantasy is not reality, and telling lies just makes you look like another lying cultist, trying to pretend you weren’t caught out making silly claims.
Off you go now. Try convincing any rational person that your delusional lying is superior to observable reality. What a lying fathead you are!
[chortle]
“two photons approaching each other head on are traveling AT the speed of light (c in a vacuum)”
As measured AT each body. On a 3rd body that is relative to both of them, then the 2c is measurable otherwise c would not have a direction, say left and right.
RLH,
c doesn’t have a direction, you fool. Any more than 100 mph does. Or W/m2!
Maybe you could provide experimental support for measuring motion at twice the speed of light? (Your imagination is not experimental support, sad to say).
No?
Sorry, nothing traveling faster than light.
…except where Mike/Swenson wrote: “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light”
Laughable.
“Any more than 100 mph does”
Is that away from me or towards me?
“c doesnt have a direction”
So light/photons leaving me is no different to light/photons approaching me? I think you will find science can distinguish between them.
c^2 is without a sign (typically it is positive by convention). c is signed though.
Ball4 (delusional cultist) wrote –
“except where Mike/Swenson wrote: two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light
Laughable.”
Unfortunately for Ball4, neither I, nor Mike Flynn wrote any such thing.
Ball4 lives in a bizarre fantasy world where fiction is superior to fact.
Oh well, nothing will convince Ball4 that I did not utter the words he claims I did. Much like nothing will convince Michael Mann that he is not actually a Nobel Laureate, or Gavin Schmidt that he is a mathematician rather than a world renowned climate scientist!
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose.
Don’t quote any one out of context, provide the complete quote.
Swenson said that was silly, after the part that was quoted.
Which negates the quote.
bob, at 7:35 pm I actually gave Flynn-son some credit for good physics.
Now I am pointing out Flynn-son really did write the laughably wrong physics strawman “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light” so Flynn-son really did “utter those words” (Flynn-son terms).
Then for a double laugh Flynn-son tried to assign his laughably wrong strawman to me. A strawman ought to at least be correct physics. The more astute blog commenters do appreciate that sort of effort and physical understanding.
Fun to watch Flynn-son repeatedly whine about his own backfired & laughably wrong physics strawman in this thread.
Ball4,
Here’s what I wrote –
“You idiot. Are you really saying that two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light relative to each other?”
I’ll let others decide whether your fantasy outweighs my fact.
You aren’t terribly bright, are you?
Thanks for confirming Swenson really did write: “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light”.
Laughable. Not fact.
Ball4,
You nitwit.
I asked you a question.
You still havent answered.
I dont blame you.
I’ve already answered the question several times; again your writing: “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light” is laughably wrong. Not fact.
All motion is relative.
Dimwitted Ball4,
I asked you –
“Are you really saying that two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light relative to each other?
Presumably you now agree with me that nothing can exceed the speed of light, and that you were mistaken in claiming that all motion is relative.
Here – “The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the source of the light.”
Regardless of relative motion.
Tell me Einstein was wrong, and that all motion is relative, again. The sound you hear is derisive laughter.
Speed is not motion, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson, yet again your writing: “two photons approaching each other head on are traveling at twice the speed of light” is laughably wrong. Not fact.
All motion is relative. There is no absolute motion.
“The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the source of the light.” is true as A. Einstein proved correctly in his 1905 paper, see section 1., paragraph 5: The Composition of Velocities, thus Swenson’s photons approaching each other head on measure they are both traveling at c and NOT twice the speed of light as Swenson incorrectly wrote.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 never started!
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ball4…”correct observation of lunar spinner and non-spinner depend on location of observation….”
***
So, if I turn a bicycle upside down, so it’s front wheel can spin freely, and I get it spinning, then whether it is turning or not depends on the observer? The wheel rotates about its axle because its tire and rime have momentum created by an applied force.
Such a statement created by ball4 is the observation of someone who lives in his mind, via thought experiments, and who has no idea what is going on in the real, physical world.
Ball4 also thinks heat is a measure of energy transfer. He fails to answer questions about which energy is being transferred, which is obviously thermal energy, aka heat. He also fails to grasp that temperature is the measure of that thermal energy.
Reference frames are a product of the human mind and have no physical existence in reality. The forces that cause a body to rotate about an axis/axle are independent of any observer.
Gordon, whether your wheel is observed “turning” (Gordon term) or not depends on the location of the observer.
What I think is that Clausius was correct: heat is a measure of the total KE of the object’s constituent particles thus heat is not a measure of energy transfer as Gordon unphysically writes. As only a measure, heat cannot exist in an object so cannot transfer out of that object.
Thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is in the form of kinetic energy.
Temperature is a measure of the avg. KE of an object’s constituent particles at the measurement site.
Gordon has a lot of physics yet to learn & understand in the field of relativity and thermodynamics. There actually are text books (free & online!) Gordon can consult to advance Gordon’s knowledge of these fields. Otherwise, more astute commenters here will continue to correct Gordon’s continual abuse of basic physics.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
rlh…”[GR]I sense that a body like the Moon approaching the Earth on a straight line would experience some kind of acceleration initially when entering an orbital path.
[RLH]Wrong. A body approaching the Earth in a straight line would just enter a parabolic path and never enter an orbit around Earth (unless it just touched the atmosphere which might just slow it down enough).
***
It’s amusing how someone who has never officially studied physics can call someone else wrong. Especially when the person alleged to be wrong has studied theory directly related to the problem.
The parabolic path issue only develops if the velocity of the approaching body is too high to enter orbit. If it’s way too high, the path becomes hyperbolic.
You are suggesting the approaching body could approach on anything but a straight line, which is impossible unless gravitational bodies are already affecting it.
A body approaching along a straight line radial to the Earth would cause a collision. Therefore, an orbital path can only be an outcome if the body approaches the Earth at an angle conducive to orbit. Not only that, it has to be far enough away and moving at the correct speed for orbital entry.
I remembered something recently in this regard. The velocity of an object in orbit at an altitude R around a central body with mass M has to be…
v = root(GM/R)
In this case M is the mass of the central body. The small m for the orbiting body dropped out in an equality between equations. R is the radius of the Earth plus the distance from the surface to the centre of the orbiting body.
There is an interesting derivation of v from a separate source. On the Earth’s surface, the curvature drops off 5 metres for every 8000 metres of horizontal distance. If we have a body moving horizontal to the Earth surface at any altitude, it encounters the same drop off in curvature.
Therefore, as it moves in a straight line, the force of gravity will move it a certain distance toward the Earth. In order for it to remain in orbit, it’s velocity, v, must be such that the distance covered horizontally corresponds to the 5 metre drop off in the surface per 8000 metres. In other words, the body must cover 1000 to 8000 metres per second. The Moon covers a little over 1000 metres in a second.
Since a body will fall about 9.8 metres in one second, the velocity must be such that it falls from the horizontal a similar distance in order to keep it at the same orbital altitude above the surface.
I can’t agree with the notion of free fall attributed to such a body. We cannot regard a gravitational vector as a single line, instantaneous vector. I regard the vector as a field of vectors, corresponding to a field of radial line vectors, with the object being handed off vector to vector,
Over a second of horizontal (tangential) motion, the body will be drawn to the Earth via the gravitational field. During that second, the gravity will move it a certain distance toward Earth. However, during that second the Earth’s curvature has changed about 5 metres away, so the orbital altitude remains the same.
I can’t bring myself to call that acceleration since acceleration is measured in metres per second per second. If we are dealing with a second or less, how can that be acceleration?
It’s interesting that the distance any orbiting body must move in a second is related to the 5 metres drop in Earth’s curvature per 8000 metres.
“Therefore, an orbital path can only be an outcome if the body approaches the Earth at an angle conducive to orbit”
No such approach is possible unless the body in question alters its velocity as it gets close to Earth. All approaches along any other path will either collide with Earth or create a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit.
https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/traject.htm
In order to enter an elliptical orbit a ‘burn’ (i.e. the removal of energy along the path) is required in order t enter a closed, elliptical, orbit.
You really do not understand orbital mechanics at all do you?
Gordon,
Any body approaching Earth would be under the gravitational attraction of every body in the Solar System, so it couldn’t be moving in a straight line
“If we are dealing with a second or less, how can that be acceleration?”
So … bullets don’t accelerate in a gun barrel because it takes less than a second? This is silly, even for you, Gordon!
Somewhere upthread I wrote:
” The fact that Moon shows us the same face all the time disturbed neither Mayer nor any contemporary observer of Moon’s motion. ”
The dumbest possible reply to this sentence was:
” They were too dumb to notice the obvious. I am not blaming them entirely considering the context of the times. They were stuck with observing via an optical telescope a small portion of the lunar orbit. ”
This namely means that even Newton in persona would have been ‘too dumb to notice the obvious’.
Because he had – already in 1675 – perfectly understood how Cassini worked out his computation of Moon’s rotation period, as is proved by the appendix ‘Septimó, le Luna’ in Mercator’s treatise
Institutionum astronomicarum libri duo
written in 1676:
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA285&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
The denier’s trials to insinuate that Newton ‘revised’ his meaning about Moon’s spin in his latest years, have been contradicted ad nauseam long ago.
Moon’s rotation namely is perfectly described in the latest edition of his Principia Scientifica, published in 1726, a few months before he died.
**
But the very best comes below:
” At least NASA acknowledged a problem. They noted that their claim of rotation was based on the stars as a reference. When I replied that a body not rotating in one reference frame could not begin rotating in another reference frame, there was no answer. ”
Should NASA really have noted ‘that their claim of rotation was based on the stars as a reference’: this is way too superficial.
Because the rotation of celestial bodies is independent from the point of observation.
*
As astronomer Mayer so pretty good explained in his treatise, the reason to use the coordinates of a star as reference is that when you have obtained Moon spot coordinates wrt the Ecliptic, you still have the very last burden of computing the inclination of the polar axis wrt that Ecliptic.
Then, and not before, you can finally compute the really 100% selenocentric coordinates of the Moon spots you observe, and from that the rotation period of the Moon.
Gordon,
“When I replied that a body not rotating in one reference frame could not begin rotating in another reference frame, there was no answer.
That’s when whoever you were communicating with realized that you have no clue, so they didn’t respond.
Exactly.
And this below
” They were stuck with observing via an optical telescope a small portion of the lunar orbit. ”
is also a proof of Robertson’s incredible mix of ignorance and arrogance.
Astronomer Tobias Mayer for example observed the motions of lunar spot ‘Manilius’ from April 1748 till March 1749, a time span encompassing 12 orbital periods.
If anyone is stuck with anything, it’s Robertson observing those infinitesimal bits of the world that fit his discourse.
“Astronomer Tobias Mayer for example observed the motions of lunar spot Manilius from April 1748 till March 1749, a time span encompassing 12 orbital periods”.
***
Kindly explain how that proves the Moon rotates on a local axis.
How is it possible to be and to keep so dumb?
That is exactly what Mayer’s 130 page long treatise explains, Robertson.
As I explain in comments below, you weren’t able to translate even a little bit of it.
Though it will be useless work because Ignoramuses like you will immediately discredit and denigrate it, I’ll try to explain what I have understood and learned out of it.
Donkey brain Gordo,
The onus is on you to prove he didn’t, isnt it?
You know, innocent until proven guilty that sort of thing.
Off you go now – prove Meyer didn’t prove that the Moon spins. Feel free to use your giant brainpower – if you can locate it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
From troll Clint R:
” Bindidon, this is another one you cant win.
If, as your cult believes, Moon is rotating in perfect sync with its orbital motion, then how could you measure its rotation rate? You cant. You would only be measuring its orbital motion. The rest is all your imagination.
Imagination aint science. ”
Learn German, Clint R, and read Mayer’s treatise from begin till end, as I did.
Then you will understand that until now, YOU were staying in a cult: the cult of the Ignoramuses.
Bin, this is about science, not languages. You don’t seem to know anything about science.
The first thing to learn is science is based on reality, not beliefs. Translate all of Mayer’s work if you want, but if he believed Moon was spinning, he was WRONG.
That’s what you need to learn from the ball-on-a-string. You need to learn from it, rather than rejecting it. Rejecting reality is what braindead cult idiots do.
I repeat and will repeat every time you respond to my comments with such nonsense:
You don’t believe anything you wrote above, Clint R.
You are this blogs dumbest troll.
That’s a lame argument, Bin. Don’t you have any substantive science?
Don’t you have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation? The simple ball-on-a-string makes you look pathetically ignorant.
All you’ve got are your centuries-old cult beliefs.
You’ve got NOTHING.
As promised
I repeat and will repeat every time you respond to my comments with such nonsense:
You dont believe anything you wrote above, Clint R.
Especially not in this stoopid ball-on-a-string idiocy.
You are REALLY this blog’s dumbest troll. No doubt!
Bin, I hope that is not an idle threat. I hope you will keep exposing yourself as a braindead cult idiot.
It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.
So now your plan is to mix insanity with your braindead beliefs, sprinkle in some incompetence and insults, and somehow believe that makes any sense?
Like I said, I hope that is not an idle threat….
Napoleon
“It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.”
Isn’t that what you’re doing?
That’s why I limit the amount of time spent babysitting braindead cult idiots, bob. I know it’s not doing any good.
Clint…it’s really hilarious. I have spent hours translating from Old German and this is what it comes down to. Meyer stated a belief that the Moon rotates on a local axis because that’s what everyone knew from ancient times. Based on his belief, he set about proving it using shadows on the Moon.
I am not trying to laugh at the guy, I think he was a serious person who tried to do science properly. It’s the premise that science can be done by consensus and appeals to authority I find amusing.
The fact that he tried to prove it using geometry rather than sitting back and considering the entire problem is what amuses me. He believed everything from the past and set out to prove the belief rather than studying the problem.
It’s like the current mob of alarmists who claim a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming in the atmosphere. When asked for the evidence, this is what they offer…
1)scientists in the 19th century said CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
2)Since the pre-Industrial Era, CO2 has increased, and it has gotten warmer , therefore it must be the CO2 causing the warming. That goes back to 1) where all the alarmists were told by 19th century scientists that the atmosphere would warm.
Meyer’s only evidence has been gained by watching shadows on the Moon through a telescope. He has had the class to admit he could be wrong but it’s with the attitude there is no other possible solution.
Most scientists fell for that nonsense until Tesla stepped forward and proved them wrong. In this blog, we non-spinners have proved them wrong conclusively. Even then, NASA still peddles the nonsense and Binny foams at the mouth when we challenge the immature theories of Meyer.
Binny could not even begin to explain Meyer’s math.
> I have spent hours translating from old German
Come on, Gordo.
Kindly prove you did.
Donkey brain Willard,
The onus is on you to prove he didn’t, isn’t it?
You know, innocent until proven guilty – that sort of thing.
Off you go now – prove Gordon didn’t spend hours translating from old German. Feel free to use your giant brainpower – if you can locate it.
swenson…”Donkey brain Willard,
The onus is on you to prove he didnt, isnt it?”
***
Willard is such a dimwit that he could not figure out how I got my info on Meyer, by translating from old German Gothic script. Actually, it’s pretty interesting trying to transcribe it since the meaning of a sentence can be changed by changing a few letters in a German word.
Also, an ‘m’ is easily mistaken for a ‘w’ since the script form of w is an m with the third leg looped in toward the second leg. Then there is the double s which looks like a capital B with the vertical line extended both ways.
The biggest mystery was a word that looked like Ure. The U is in script form and looks like a capital U except it is a capital A. The r is downright tricky. if written like an English r, it is an r, but if it has a small semi-circle looping under it, similar to the French cedilla, it is and x. So Ure become Axe as in Axis or Axle.
I prefer Axle. I think Meyer utterly confused himself and meant the Moon was revolving around the Earth as an axle.
Plus the fact I have already posted part of my translation. Binny was so outraged that I had managed to understand old German better than him that he resorted to his typical ad homs and insults.
He is once again blethering about LaGrange because he cannot understand what Meyer is talking about.
Come on, Gordo.
Please prove you spent hours translating Mayer.
Donkey brain Willard,
The onus is on you to disprove, you dimwit.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You really have no clue, do you?
You can’t even define this silly “Greenhouse Effect” which you blather about, can you?
You may think you are being cunning, making sure no one can disprove your fantasy by experiment, but all you are doing is looking foolish to anyone who is not a devout climate cultist.
Come on, issue a few more pointless demands. Give everyone the chance to laugh at your powerless impotence!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
No need to disprove that Gordo spent hours translating old German.
He has to show his homework.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon, this Moon issue has produced some fantastic returns. The AGW nonsense is extremely complex, involving advanced physics, so it is harder to convince people with no understanding of the basics. But the Moon issue is literally as simple as a ball-on-a-string. That’s why it is so rewarding when the cult even refuses to consider the simple analogy. They reveal their distain for science and reality.
clint…as you say, it’s great fun watching the meltdowns. It’s even more fun watching NASA reaching for justifications while pretty well acknowledging the Moon is not really rotating on a local axis. They claimed it rotates wrt the stars which is the same thing as claiming it is performing curvilinear translation without rotation.
Oh look… Robertson at work!
” … and Binny foams at the mouth when we challenge the immature theories of Meyer. ”
And… where is that challenge, dumb ass Robertson?
*
” Binny could not even begin to explain Meyers math. ”
Aha.
I know from my translation of the intro of Lagrange’s work:
https://tinyurl.com/ye5ay9hm – (grrr… ‘d’ ‘c’ again)
that it is completely useless to give a technical summary of what Mayer did, as this new job will be discredited in the same incompetent way as the former one.
The discrediting started with Robertson’s absolutely unbelievably stupid reaction: he saw the title ‘Theory of the libration of the Moon’ and said:
” This isn’t about rotation at all. ”
He hadn’t even noticed that the word ‘rotation’ then appeared 18 times in the seven pages of the intro, since he had already stopped reading at the title.
There is no more typical way to describe Robertson’s ‘working style’.
*
Ignoramus Robertson didn’t even understand until today that at that time, the French Academy of Sciences had offered a prize for the best fully theoretical explanation for the libration of the Moon in longitude, and that Lagrange won the prize with his theory.
*
But I’ll do the job – malgré tout, even though I’m not a mathematician at all, let alone a Mayer-like synthesis of math, astronomy and… engineering (who wouldn’t love to see the supposed engineer Robertson make his own micrometer in 1748 to improve his observations at the telescope? OMG).
binny…from your La GRange link “It is a long-recognized phenomenon that the Moon always presents us the same face; but it is only since the invention of the glasses that we have been able to determine the laws of libration, that is to say of those swayings that the Moon seems to make around its center, and by which, during each month, it alternately hides and reveals us, towards its edges, some of its surface”.
***
LaGrange may have been a great mathematician but he lacked the abilities of a good physicist, to observe.
The statement above is the only partially-accurate statement he makes in his essay. The Moon ***seems*** to ‘sway’ around its centre. That’s not an accurate assessment of longitudinal libration but it will do. There is an ‘apparent’ motion in longitude of a few degrees that enables us to see farther around the edge of the Moon.
If he had observed the problem better, rather than relying on an appeal to authority to Galileo and Cassini, he would surely have noticed there is no libration when the Moon is at apogee or perigee. He might have wondered why.
The reason is obvious. At those positions we are viewing the Moon head-on. On either side of those positions libration begins to appear.
Why??? Glad you asked.
It’s about the instantaneous tangential motion of the Moon on an elliptical path. On a circular path, the velocity tangential vector is always perpendicular to a radial line. With an elliptical path, that is no longer true. A radial line from the Moon’s near face no longer points to the centre of a circle or to the Earth’s centre at the principal focal point of the ellipse.
The radial line now points to the side of the Earth’s centre and that change of angle is libration. The elliptical path allows us to see further around the longitudinal edge of the Moon by a few degrees but the Moon does not have to rotate on its axis to allow that to happen.
Libration is a property of the eccentricity of the orbital path. It has nothing to do with lunar rotation about a local axis.
It’s not fair to assess people like LaGrange or Meyer from a modern POV. They lived in a totally different context in which there was immense pressure on them to conform. Newton’s success depended largely on scientific societies that were everything but scientific. Newton was fortunate in that he had sponsors who bought into his science. So are we, even though many modern scientists are foolishly discrediting the work of Newton and replacing it with the sci-fi of Einstein.
Copernicus, and later Galileo, were threatened by the Church for daring to claim the Sun did not revolve about the Earth. In the day of LaGrange, he had to answer to kings and other snot-bags who deemed themselves authorities. Many scientists in those days were sponsored by kings and had to be very careful as to what they claimed. I imagine there were even better scientists who went unsponsored and who struggled for recognition.
Come on, Gordo:
> Multiple astronomical and Earth observatories are located at Lagrange points, providing a vantage point of our planet and space that you can’t get from close-up. Scientists also perform periodic studies of small bodies naturally occurring at Lagrange points. Here are some recent science results:
https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html
Read more. Pontificate less.
What do LaGrange points have to do with anything we are discussing?
Any other red-herring arguments?
Come on, Gordo.
You tried to suggest you knew physics better than the guy who invented Lagrangian mechanics because he was a mathematician. *This* is an ad hominem, coupled with a ridiculous appeal to your authority as an observer or irrelevant phenomena.
There is no need to respond to your points refuted a thousand times, which have little to do with what Binny was talking about anyway.
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Circular Flat Moon debaters selfie
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
binny…”That is exactly what Mayers 130 page long treatise explains, Robertson.
As I explain in comments below, you werent able to translate even a little bit of it”.
***
I went back over the Chapter at P.160 before reading your dumb ad hom attack. The following paragraph reveals Meyer’s naivete and admission of uncertainty.
“It is still best that we also determine the time in which the moon completes the revolution around its axis once. It is true that this matter seems in need of a far-reaching investigation. Because we know from the earliest times that the moon has always turned that side towards the earth that we still see every day; and from this it immediately follows that he completes his revolution in the same time to an end, in which he once runs through his orbit around the earth; which is known to be in 27 days 7 ft. 43′ 5″ happened. However, this is still a bit too general and vague for our purpose. We must therefore endeavor to make the concepts of this clearer, and connect the convolution with the moonspots below”.
**************************************
Moonspots???
‘It is true that this matter seems in need of a far-reaching investigation’.
Yes, indeed. It took a long time before someone like Tesla actually looked objectively at the problem, and proved the Moon cannot turn on a local axis.
‘Because we know from the earliest times that the moon has always turned that side towards the earth that we still see every day; and from this it immediately follows that he completes his revolution in the same time to an end, in which he once runs through his orbit around the earth;
This is just plain stupid. No, Tobias, it does not immediately follow that the Moon rotates once on its own axis per orbit because it keeps the same side pointed to the Earth. That’s a really stupid assumption that reveals a rigid mind. An objective mind would have investigated the problem rather than leaping to such a foolish conclusion.
In fact, the opposite is the truth. Because the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth, it is impossible for it to rotate about a local axis. We non-spinners have supplied the proof of that and no less than Nicola Tesla proved it in detail.
Meyer, like LaGrange and Cassini simply formed wrong-headed conclusions about the Moon keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. Of course, Binny, with his incessant appeal to authority quotes these guys even though he cannot explain their pseudo-science.
> No, Tobias, it does not immediately follow that the Moon rotates once on its own axis per orbit because it keeps the same side pointed to the Earth. Thats a really stupid assumption
Come on, Gordo. What “follows” is an *inference*, not an assumption.
A bit like what Lagrange says here:
But the most important part of that sentence is the following one:
*This* is what your ad nauseam about curvilinear translation cannot explain.
Think.
The deductions were obviously wrong, weren’t they?
See, Gordo?
*That* is an assumption!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”As astronomer Mayer so pretty good explained in his treatise, the reason to use the coordinates of a star as reference is that when you have obtained Moon spot coordinates wrt the Ecliptic, you still have the very last burden of computing the inclination of the polar axis wrt that Ecliptic.
Then, and not before, you can finally compute the really 100% selenocentric coordinates of the Moon spots you observe, and from that the rotation period of the Moon”.
***
Please try to pay attention. Meyer was measuring the change in angle of the near side of the Moon wrt the stars. That does not indicate a rotation of the Moon about a local axis, it indicates curvilinear translation without rotation.
What’s with the comprehension of you spinners? I have given as an example an airliner orbiting the Earth around the Equator. It always keeps it under side facing the Earth and it cannot rotate about any of its axes. It’s underside certainly changes orientation wrt the stars but it is impossible for it to rotate about any axis without crashing.
Unfortunately, Meyer had no airliners in his day, not even a biplane. Still he could have visualize a balloon circumnavigating the Earth and gotten it from there. What would happen if a balloon with a passenger basket under it rotated about its axis in a vertical direction?
And much to the objections of Richard (rlh) the ball on a string imitates this action perfectly.
Gordon,
Try using the correct definition of curvilinear translation.
“What is curvilinear translation?
Translation: Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion. When all points move along straight lines, the motion is called rectilinear translation. When the paths of motion are curved lines, the motion is called curvilinear translation.”
If you take your radial line, and just use the line segment that is within the Moon, you can see that it does not remain parallel to the original direction.
Because it turns.
bob d…”If you take your radial line, and just use the line segment that is within the Moon, you can see that it does not remain parallel to the original direction.
Because it turns”.
***
This is where you are confused, Bob. You presume it is turning on a local axis but the evidence you have just provided proves otherwise.
The definition you provided is correct for curvilinear translation. What is not obvious. is the definition of parallel must change between rectilinear, straight line translation and curvilinear, curved translation.
With rectilinear translation, it’s obvious that particles moving in parallel must follow the direction of a straight line.
How do you do that with a curve? It’s done using lines tangential to the curve an any one point. If you have two or more concentric circles intercepted by a common radial line, tangent lines on the circles perpendicular to the radial line are parallel to each other. That means concentric circles are parallel circles because tangent lines on them where a radial line intercepts them are parallel.
With a curve that is not a circle, but continuous, a radial line can be created at any point by finding a circle whose circumference is congruent with the curve at that point. A line drawn perpendicular to the radial line is the tangent line.
Any two curves are parallel if they share the radial line and have tangent lines parallel to each other. That applies to any number of parallel curves.
If we have a body like the Moon, moving in a circular orbit, and we draw a radial line through it, any line perpendicular to the radial line at any point in the Moon, intercepted by the radial line, must have tangent lines moving in parallel at any point. Therefore, every point on the Moon intercepted by a radial line from Earth’s centre must be moving in parallel along concentric circles.
It’s exactly the same for elliptical orbits. Simply treat them as the parallel curves mentioned earlier. With an ellipse it is much easier. Drawing lines from each focal point to the Moon’s centre, then bisecting the angle formed, automatically gives the radial line.
Looking at 3 examples on the Moon, consider the circular orbit with a radial line drawn from Earth’s centre right through the Moon. Where it intercepts the side that always points to Earth, we draw a tangential line perpendicular to the radial line. We do the same at the COG and the far side. Now we have three parallel lines representing those facets and they always move in parallel.
QED. The Moon’s motion is curvilinear translation without rotation.
Gordon,
Parallel only applies to lines, not to curves.
You can’t claim curves are parallel.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Come on, Gordo.
Here is why measuring the moonspots mattered:
I’ll let you find who wrote that.
willard…tuning nodes does not prove the Moon is rotating on a local axis. The node theory is based on the presumption the Moon is already rotating.
Gordo,
C’mon. Think –
Can you spin your ball-on-string so that the ball moves not on the same axis as the string while keeping your arms at the same angle?
No?
That’s what I thought. For I did. You seldom do.
Try it more often.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson
Again you cowardly whine about these ad homs you are yourself the origin of.
Why do you?
You are the one who
– permanently insults scientists writing what you don’t want to see
and
– permanently distorts what scientists discover, instead of finally trying to learn from them.
” Please try to pay attention. Meyer was measuring the change in angle of the near side of the Moon wrt the stars. That does not indicate a rotation of the Moon about a local axis, it indicates curvilinear translation without rotation. ”
Again and again, you masterfully prove us here how ignorant you are.
All what you are able to is to distort and misrepresent valuable science you discredit and denigrate, until it matches your egomaniac, unscientific nonsense.
The very best is that you never would be able to discover, let alone evaluate any ‘curvilinear translation without rotation’.
*
On the other hand, starting from the observation of Moon spots (here: craters like Manilius, discovered by early astronomers, e.g. Hevelius or Riccioli), Mayer managed to transform, in several steps, their apparent positions into selenocentric coordinates, to compute their tiny movements in a way completely independent of Moon’s orbit around Earth.
*
Here is the English translation of the section titles in his treatise
1. Of the use of an exact description of the Moon in general
2. Brief history of the description of the Moon
3. Determination of the figure of the Moon from the laws of gravity
4. From the observation of the diameter of the Moon
5. Determination of the figure of the Moon from the observations
6. Notes on the following observations of the Moon spots
7. Astronomical observations on the position of the lunar spots on the lunar disk
8. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in view of the apparent parallel
9. Determination of the position of the Moon spots with respect to the true parallel
10. Determination of the position of the Moonspots in relation to the circle of latitude
11. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in relation to the ecliptic on the Moon
12. Explanations and remarks on the properties of the Moon’s motion around its axis
13. Determination of the inclination of the lunar equator in relation to the ecliptic and the location of the equinox points
14. Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis
15. Of the usefulness of present investigations for the study of the laws of nature
16. Determination of the geographical longitude and latitude of the Moon spots
*
I’ll spend a few days to setup a translation of Mayer’s main thoughts and results, even if it will be useless work due to your inability to really go into such things.
Bindidon, you’re STILL opting for belief over science.
Look at #14: Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis.
Mayer clearly BELIEVES Moon is rotating. His measurements are all based on its orbital period, because it ain’t rotating.
The science involves understanding what orbital motion without axial rotation looks like. Once you understand that, your ancient astrologers fall by the wayside.
But, you reject science.
> His measurements are all based on its orbital period, because it ain’t rotating.
That does not compute, Pup.
Do you even precession?
Clint R
I repeat for you:
The evidence grows that you don’t believe anything you wrote above, Clint R.
All these ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ replies look too artificial.
You are a troll.
Thanks for repeating that, Bin. It’s always nice to see you make stuff up. Your cult has to do that because you’ve got NOTHING.
One could say that the tipping point in Mayer’s treatise is reached at the beginning of its section 12, when he describes the work done so far.
He considers
– an arbitrary lunar spot M;
– the lunar ecliptic (that plane parallel to the terrestrial ecliptic, and crossing the Moon in its center);
– the circle built on the Moon by the lunar ecliptic; we can name that circle the lunar equator;
– on the lunar equator, the point V where the equator crosses the line passing through the Moon’s center and the Vernal Point;
– on the lunar equator, the point S where it crosses the lunar circle connecting the lunar pole and the spot M.
For any observation of M during the entire observation period (about one year), Mayer computed until section 11:
– the arc PS connecting the lunar pole and the spot;
– the arc VS.
He describes four possibilities.
If, for all observations of M
– PS and VS keep both unchanged, then the Moon does NOT rotate; it is only orbiting;
– PS changes but VS doesn’t, then the Moon rotates, and its spin axis lies in the lunar ecliptic;
– PS doesn’t change but VS does, then the Moon rotates, and its spin axis is perpendicular to the lunar ecliptic;
– PS and VS both change, then then the Moon rotates, and its spin axis the axis is at an angle to the lunar ecliptic which can be computed.
*
It is always amusing to see that while such work is discarded by the lunar spin deniers because it is an ‘appeal to authority’, their denial itself is based, for example, on an appeal to the authority of Nikola Tesla, who however never scientifically contradicted Mayer let alone Newton, but solely wrote a non-committing pamphlet about the lunar spin.
Wrong Bin. I don’t discard Mayer’s work due to any “appeal to authority”. I discard it because it ain’t science.
Got a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” yet?
Hint: Consider a ball-on-a-string. Or Moon.
Clint R
I repeat for you:
The evidence grows that you dont believe anything you wrote above, Clint R.
All these orbital motion without axial rotation replies look too artificial.
You are a troll.
Thanks for repeating that nonsense again, Bin. Its always nice to see you make stuff up. Your cult has to do that because youve got NOTHING.
Got any more nonsense to repeat over and over?
binny…” PS and VS keep both unchanged, then the Moon does NOT rotate; it is only orbiting;”
***
That observation is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the Moon keeps the same face to the Earth relegates it to the dust bin.
Meyer has worked this out via a thought experiment while ignoring glaring evidence right in front of him. He admitted to presuming the Moon rotated then he set about proving it using geometry.
Tesla had no problem seeing the truth using the kinetic energy of orbs attached to rigid spokes. The idea being that the orbs are attached to the spokes hence unable to turn.
I gave you the perfect example using an airliner orbiting the Equator yet you remain in deep denial firmly attached to your authority figures. According to you and Meyer the airliner would have to be flying upside down at the half orbit point. All the passengers would be on the ceiling and time they took off their seat belts.
The simple ball on a string defeats Meyer, Cassini, and LaGrange.
We did not use Tesla as an authority figure. We merely acknowledged his method than developed our own reasoning.
C’mon, Gordo.
You paid more than lip service to Nikola:
> no less than Nicola Tesla proved it in detail.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”Mayer managed to transform, in several steps, their apparent positions into selenocentric coordinates, to compute their tiny movements in a way completely independent of Moons orbit around Earth”.
***
He is referencing libration with his reference to tiny movements. Libration involves only a few degrees of APPARENT motion.
Meyer failed to understand that his tiny movements were associated with orbital effects related to a slightly eccentric orbit. There was no real motion related to rotation around a local axis.
Come on, Gordo.
Libration, whether physical or not, comes from a real cause.
Besides, you are still ignoring something that was known to the ancient Greeks at least:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
They will have nothing to eat, but they will have plenty of solar panels
https://youtu.be/9xChl-4k7Sg
At least BOM has admitted the problem is La Nina and not climate change. That’s a plus.
Meantime the capitalist pigs are driving up the price of food because there’s a higher demand. The same mentality had Standard Oil selling oil to the Nazis during WW II till Roosevelt kicked their butts. Their justification was that free enterprise must prevail above all. Ergo, it’s fine to sell to your enemy.
clint…”…the Moon issue is literally as simple as a ball-on-a-string”.
***
Exactly. However, it requires a mind with clarity and awareness to see that. A mind full of conditioning and fearful of contradicting authority, has a meltdown when confronted with such a simple model.
rlh, with a master’s degree, is reduced to the repetition of a parrot. Willard rushes off to Wiki to find red-herring arguments. Bob d is reduced to tribbling his lips while Binny becomes so outraged he is reduced to dribbling.
The rest hide out in an imaginary 4th dimension of reference frames. Even NASA.
C’mon, Gordo.
Pup said time and time again that the ball-on-string was a mere analogy for an orbit without spin.
There is no Moon issue, only a Moon Dragon Crank issue. That issue is quite simple. Those who disbelieve that the Moon does not spin have to explain why the Moon actually moves at 1.022 km/s.
You won’t find that causal explanation in definitions of pure rotation or with airplane analogies.
Think.
> Those who disbelieve that the Moon does not spin
Those who disbelieve that the Moon spins, of course.
Everybody else has an explanation for the 1.022 km/s – it comes from the Moon itself.
The explanation is easy for the 1.022 km/s. It is the close to the average speed of the Earth in a circular orbit.
Consider mean distance to Moon = 385000 km. Add 6371 km for radius of Earth = 391,371 km.
Circumference of circle = 2pi.r = 6.28 (391,371 km) = 2,457,309 km for orbital path. Divide by 27.3 days to get 90029.63 km/day. Divide by 24 = 3751.23 km/hr and by 3600 = 1.04 km/second.
If you want the tangential velocity = v =sqrt(GM/r)
v = sqrt[(6.743 x 10^-11 m3/kg.s^2)(5.072 x 10^24kg)/391,371km)
convert km -> m = 391,371,000 m = 3.91371 x 10^8 m
v = sqrt[(8.7386 x 10^5)m^2/s^2]
= sqrt 87.386 x 10^4 m^2/s^2
=9.35 x 10^2 m/s
approx 935 km/s.
Since the two values are pretty close it tells you the Moon does not speed up as it moves through its orbit. That is consistent with a constant linear velocity/momentum.
What happens is the Moon’s momentum has more of an effect at certain parts f the orbit allowing it to extend the orbit into a slight ellipse. That means it covers slightly more distance in the same time which allows the orbital speed to be slightly higher than the tangential velocity.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Come on, Gordo.
You are supposed to say where that velocity comes from. In the case of the ball on string, it is easy. It is you who does the work with your body. For your analogy to apply, you would have to say that the Earth exerts the same kind of work through gravity.
Think about it. According to your story, gravity works sideways.
Pure magical thinking.
Robertson never heard about Kepler’s laws…
I wrote:
” Robertson never heard about Keplers laws … ”
This is not true; retracted.
typo…”approx 935 km/s.” should be 935 metres/second.
willard…”You are supposed to say where that velocity comes from”.
***
It came with the package. When the Moon was captured it already had the velocity. The BOS is controlled by the tension on the string. The Moon has its own momentum and just needs redirection by Earth’s gravitational field.
Cool story,, Gordo!
Now, all you need is to explain how that gravitational field completely stopped the Moon from spinning without any physical attachment like a string and you are ready for publication.
It’s easy enough to prove the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis.
I have already provided said proof.
Not possible, it is restrained by tension n the string. If it rotated on its axis it would wind itself up in the string.
No it wouldn’t, as it is rotating just exactly as fast as the string.
The far side of the ball moves farther each revolution than the near side, since their vector velocity would thus move them farther apart with each revolution, the ball has to spin.
bob, the ball on a string can legitimately be described as not rotating on its own axis. Just a fact about kinematics for you to deny.
… when viewed from the center of the ball’s orbit.
DREMPTY,
No, that’s not a legitimate description.
I have proven that it does rotate on its axis.
… inertially.
Wrong, Ball4 and bob. When viewed from outside the ball’s orbit, kinematics dictates there are two ways to describe the motion of the ball on a string:
1) Translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
2) Rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis.
DREMT is wrong again; still hasn’t learned from Clint R:
1) … inertially when viewed from “outside of its orbit”
2) … when viewed from “inside of it orbit”
No, I’m not wrong, Ball4. Curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) are different motions. As Madhavi states, you have to be careful not to confuse the two.
I repeat:
When viewed from outside the balls orbit, kinematics dictates there are two ways to describe the motion of the ball on a string:
1) Translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
2) Rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis.
> Curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis)
Pic or it did not happen.
Still wrong DREMT 8:35 am as it is DREMT not being careful since 1) and 2) per Clint R are from different observation locations as I wrote and are observing the same motion: all per Clint R.
You’re wrong, Ball4, and I’m right. The only way you could be correct is if curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion – motion like the MOTR. They’re not, however, as Madhavi confirms. The former is like Fig. 2(a) and the latter is like Fig. 2(b). As Madhavi warns, you must not confuse the two, which is what you are doing.
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
The ball on string is 2(b): rotation shown on rectangle’s own axis proving the ball (& rectangle) rotating when viewed outside the orbit as illustrated so DREMT remains wrong per Madhavi from the get go.
Refer to Clint R’s past comment to reveal the viewer’s location if the same ball (& square) motion is not observed rotating on its own axis: 2) … when viewed from “inside of it orbit” in this case from point O.
Both Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b) are presented to the reader as though they are observing the motion from outside the orbit. The ball on a string would be moving as per Fig. 2(b). That is rotation about an external axis, point O, with no rotation about an internal axis (internal axis rotation is prevented by the solid rod connecting the rectangle to point O).
As I noted before, you could also describe the motion of the ball on a string as curvilinear translation in a circle, plus rotation about an internal axis (at the same rate, and in the same direction). This description, as with the “rotation” description, would be “as observed from outside the orbit”.
The only way that Ball4 could possibly be correct is if rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) and curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion…motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. They are not, as Madhavi confirms.
You are wrong as always, DREMT, in Madhavi 2(b) internal axis rotation of the rectangle is forced to one 360 per orbit by the solid rod connecting the rectangle to point O as viewed per Clint R’s comment “outside of its orbit”.
Now learn from Clint R AND Madhavi. Clint R had 2(b) rectangle motion correctly stated also when viewed “inside of it orbit” one observes only one side of the rectangle the same face of the rectangle during its orbit. Just like the ball on string and a lunar observation from Earth.
Listen and learn.
“You are wrong as always, DREMT, in Madhavi 2(b) internal axis rotation of the rectangle is forced to one 360 per orbit…”
That could only be the case if curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion, motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. If that were the case, what would be the purpose of drawing Fig. 2(b) in the first place, and making the point of saying not to confuse curvilinear translation with rotation? Your reading of Madhavi is utterly nonsensical.
Fig. 2(a) has NO rectangle axial rotation on its own axis so the purpose of 2(b) is to show the rectangle with axial rotation on its own axis, both as viewed from outside rectangle’s orbit in Madhavi’s 2D world. This motion has stumped DREMT since Madhavi was introduced.
DREMT is still wrong not having correctly learned motion from Madhavi & correctly learned observation location from Clint R. Pity.
You are still not getting it, Ball4. In your world, if (as observed from outside the orbit) Fig. 2(b) shows rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then motion like Fig. 2(a) would have to be rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. However, in reality, Fig. 2(a) shows curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), and Madhavi warns not to conflate curvilinear translation with rotation.
“… then motion like Fig. 2(a) would have to be rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.”
No. Wrong again DREMT. Each rectangle is both spinning & not spinning on its own axis at same time depending on location of observation. It is not my world, DREMT. You remain wrong as usual. There is no such inference because you do not yet understand that all motion is relative.
As Clint R pointed out some time ago, for both rectangles in figures 2(a) and 2(b) location “inside of it orbit” or “outside of its orbit” (Clint R’s terms) in their Madhavi 2D world determines whether the viewer sees one face or all faces of the rectangle thus observes rotation on the rectangle’s own axis or no rotation on the rectangle’s own axis.
All motion really is relative in the real 3D world, there is no hedging on all. DREMT won’t be correct until that is basically understood by DREMT.
I wrote:
"…if (as observed from outside the orbit) Fig. 2(b) shows rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then motion like Fig. 2(a) would have to be rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis."
and you responded:
"No. Wrong again DREMT."
Perhaps you can explain which of either Fig. 2(a) or Fig. 2(b) shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit. You either answer, or concede that I’m correct.
That’s actually a good question for once DREMT 1:33 pm. Listen and learn from Clint R who, in the lunar case, pointed out some time ago the spin or no spin on own axis differs due location of observation.
When Clint R work is applied & observed in Madhavi 2D world as you write, rectangle in Fig. 2(a) shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit; then using Clint R words some time ago “Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the … outside of its orbit” HOWEVER, Fig. 2(a) would have to be a rotation about its own axis as observed from, as Clint R wrote, “inside of it orbit” to which per Clint R rectangle 2(a) “presents different faces”.
Again, All motion really is relative in the real 3D world, there is no hedging on all. DREMT will be wrong until basic relativity is understood & correctly used by DREMT.
“…rectangle in Fig. 2(a) shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit”
Wrong, Ball4. Rectangle in Fig. 2(a) shows curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) as observed from outside the orbit, and Madhavi specifically warns not to confuse curvilinear translation with rotation, which is what you have done.
Therefore only the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) can show rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit.
Curvilinear translation and rotation about an external axis are different motions, Ball4.
Madhavi is not the one confused since: “Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.” remains true only for “certain types of curvilinear translation”.
DREMT is the one remains relatively confused since spin “as observed from outside the orbit” is HOWEVER not same as spin observed from “inside it orbit” (Clint R terms last in quotes).
DREMT, once again your relativity application 2:40p pm is wrong, as Clint R pointed out, rotation of the rectangle in 2(a) depends on the location of observation. The rectangle in 2(a) is both spinning and not spinning on its own axis depending on location of observation “inside of it orbit” or “outside of its orbit” per Clint R who correctly applied relativity unlike DREMT.
Curvilinear translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis are different motions, Ball4. You can repeat yourself endlessly, but you’ll still be wrong.
Sure, I agree 2 different motions in that “Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.” That has nothing to do with DREMT being wrong about relativity and Clint R correct about location of observation.
No, you don’t agree, Ball4…because from your comments it can only be deduced that you think curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is the same motion as rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis). You appear to believe they are both like the motion shown in Fig. 2(a).
Appear? No. I really do agree with Madhavi. DREMT continues to dance around “no rotation” or “rotation” on own axis in the 3:53 pm comment being determined by relativity thus location of observation as Clint R pointed out long ago.
DREMT just refuses to accept relativity and that Clint R was correct on location of observation so DREMT will be the one to remain wrong without that acceptance.
Well if you agree with Madhavi then you should not think that curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is the same motion as rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis), and that they are both like the motion shown in Fig. 2(a). After all, Madhavi drew in Fig. 2(b) so that you could distinguish one from the other.
I have not written such DREMT, I agree with Madhavi that 2(a) and 2(b) “rotation” distinguish motion of the Madhavi rectangles on their own axes.
Clint R added the correct location of observation “inside of it orbit” and “outside of its orbit” meaning some time ago that DREMT refuses to accept. DREMT’s dancing sure is entertaining though.
This discussion has gone on long enough for everyone to see that you are the one dancing away from your own words, Ball4. The more you squirm, the more you project it onto me. You are very transparent.
No dancing by me DREMT, since I’m consistently quoting verbatim Clint R on location of observation “inside of it orbit” and “outside of its orbit”, Madhavi on distinguishing “rotation” on rectangles own axes, and DREMT’s need to learn relativity that all motion is relative in showing DREMT to be wrong about motion.
You are very transparent.
Graham, please stop trolling.
Since you agree with me that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit, Little Willy, one wonders what your problem is.
Since you agree that with Gordo that the Moon could be described as a translation, Graham, I am more than happy to include you amongst all of those who hold that the Moon spins!
Ah, you’re just trolling. Got it.
One more time, Robertson guesses, invents, distorts the history of Science until the result fits his permanently scienceless narrative.
*
He writes:
1. ” He is referencing libration with his reference to tiny movements. ”
Mayer’s treatise contains the word “Libration” ONLY ONCE:
https://books.google.de/books?jtp=52&id=EJqRdI1nLI4C&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Libration&f=false
Original text in 1750 German:
” Endlich kam Dominicus Cassini auf die rechte Spur. Es fiel ihm ein, diese Erscheinung, die man bis dahin die Libration des Monds nennte, durch die Umwlzung des Monds um seine Axe zu erklren; … ”
Translation:
” Finally Dominicus Cassini got on the right track. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the Moon, by the revolution of the Moon about its axis; … ”
Mayer’s treatise has nothing to do with libration – except that like Cassinis, he explains it with Moon’s spin (but with much more accuracy and precision).
*
He writes:
2. ” Meyer failed to understand that his tiny movements were associated with orbital effects related to a slightly eccentric orbit. ”
Click on ‘Page 57’ and you read further in the original text:
” Man mute die Erscheinungen auseinander wickeln, und diejenigen, welche von der Umdrehung des Monds um die Axe entstehen, von denen damit vermischten und von der ungleichen Bewegung des Monds um die Erde verursachten absondern. ”
Translation:
” One had to unravel the phenomena, and separate those arising from the Moon’s revolving about the axis, from those mingled with it and caused by the unequal motion of the Moon about the Earth. ”
*
Robertson is a simple-minded, ignorant boaster who
– knows nothing about Cassini’s, Newton’s, Mayer’s, Lagrange’s, Laplace’s and all their successors’ knowledge;
– thinks he can place inventer Tesla above REAL scientists like those aforementioned, on the basis of a superficial, narrow-gauge pamphlet.
*
And above all, the boaster fails to explain how it is possible that the German Mayer in 1750, the Russian Habibullin in 1963 and (among lots of others) e.g. the French Calamé in 1976, all managed to detect Moon’s spin by using completely different observation tools and completely different observation data evaluation techniques, and obtained perfectly similar results.
Grrr
Read in the original text on page 57 of Mayer’s treatise
” Man mußte … “
Bindidon, you didn’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” in all that rambling.
Until you’ve got a workable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
The evidence grows that you don’t believe anything you wrote above, Clint R.
All these ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ replies look too artificial, too synthetic.
You endlessly repeat the same nonsense and never argue.
You are a troll.
I merely go with science and reality, Bin. That way I don’t have to make stuff up, like you do.
Until you’ve got a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, you’ve got NOTHING.
Ancient astrologers that are clearly wrong ain’t science.
” Ancient astrologers that are clearly wrong aint science. ”
Including Newton, of course, who confirmed in 1726, just before dying, Cassini’s theory he had understood and acknowledged in… 1675.
Yes, Clint R: ancient astrologer Newton was clearly wrong.
Bindidon, if you’re trying to use Newton to elevate Cassini, you’re just headed for another FAIL.
Newton’s work proved gravity would affect a body as demonstrated by a simple ball-on-a-string. One side of the body would always face the inside of its orbit, and the front side would always face the direction of travel.
If the body were also spinning, then we would see all sides of it from inside its orbit.
Let us look in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV in the third (and definitely last) edition of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
https://tinyurl.com/ycokq9ys
which he published in 1726, just before dying (the first one was published in 1687, the second one in 1713).
There he writes:
Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth …
*
This, Clint R, is exactly what Cassini found out, and was described by ‘ancient astrologer’ Newton in 1676 in a letter to ‘ancient astrologer’ Mercator.
*
As I wrote above, Clint R: according to you, ‘ancient astrologer’ Newton was clearly wrong.
Different translations from translations can be confusing. In some places, Newton mentioned “relative to the stars”. So what was he actually referring to?
Since Newton was unclear, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. Beliefs aren’t a violation of science, until proven wrong. But the ball-on-a-string proves your beliefs wrong. That’s why you reject it. You reject science and reality.
Clint R
” Different translations from translations can be confusing. In some places, Newton mentioned ‘relative to the stars’. So what was he actually referring to? ”
*
This is, from your side, not far from dishonesty because it has been endlessly discussed during years on this blog.
Here is, for the umpteenth (but certainly not last) time, what Newton wrote in his original Latin text:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27 7 hor. 43′. ”
Translation:
“Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed points in 9.56 hours, Mars in 24.39 hours. Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23.56 hours, the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours 43′. ”
*
He writes just one sentence below so no one (Robertson and you included) can misunderstand and misrepresent his words:
” Maculae in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in discus Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terrae; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
Translation:
” The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disk in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; and with respect to the fixed points the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days. ”
*
Under ‘fixed points’ everybody having some knowledge understands the ‘distant stars’, whose position does not change compared to the celestial bodies in the Solar System.
Right? Or do you want to destillate some skepticism about that too?
*
Even the dumbest person understands here that the lunar spin deniers intentionally distort Newton’s words, by insinuating that by ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, he could well mean motions, where in fact he only means motion periods.
*
And even the dumbest person understands here as well that, when Newton mentions ‘revolves’ with regard to Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun, and gives values corresponding to their respective rotation period, he will certainly not mean, with the value 27 days, 7 hours 43′ in the same sentence, Moon’s orbiting period.
*
How long will you continue to distort this discussion, Clint R?
Till you die?
Yes Bin. as I stated, Newton was referring to the stars, aka, “fixed stars”, aka “inertial space”.
You can believe that Newton believed Moon rotated on it axis. You get to believe whatever you want to believe. The problem arises when you reject reality to protect your cult beliefs.
” … as I stated, Newton was referring to the stars … ”
And? What do you mean with that evidence? What is your conclusion?
Spare us your ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ and your ‘ball-on-a-string’.
My “conclusion” Bin, is that you don’t know anything about orbital motion, and you can’t learn.
You are completely immersed in your cult’s false beliefs. That’s why you have to reject reality. That’s why you can’t provide a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
At least you have some soothing music for bedtime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
” You are completely immersed in your cults false beliefs. ”
Thanks for confirming how you view the work of ‘ancient astrologers’ Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer & Maedler, and all those who followed them till nowadays: as a cult propagating false beliefs.
If you were able to technically and scientifically contradict all them, I would understand you after having read a successful contradiction from your side.
But you are no more than a cheap polemicist, only able to distort, discredit, denigrate and … lie.
Keep further ball-on-a-string-ing, Clint R. That’s all you can do.
I can’t take credit for debunking your cult’s ancient astrology, Bin. The credit goes to the simple ball-on-a-string. That simple analogy destroys all your Moon rotation nonsense.
Reality always wins.
You almost had him this time, if you only tried a little bit harder he would have come to your side
My side?
I have no side here, babbling Edog.
I’m just trying to defend Science, instead of filling the blog with feces like you do.
binny…”[Meyer]One had to unravel the phenomena, and separate those arising from the Moons revolving about the axis, from those mingled with it and caused by the unequal motion of the Moon about the Earth.
***
There is nothing to unravel. Had he focused correctly on the orbital issues he would surely have reached the conclusion that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its axis while keeping the same side pointed at the Earth.
He could have visualized the orbital path as a highway on which he was riding CCW around the Earth on the Earth-Moon orbital plane. If he was sitting in a seat looking out the left windows at the Earth it would always be on his left all the way around the Earth. At no time could the bus rotate on its COG since he would no longer be looking at the Earth but getting a 360 degree visual of the stars.
Had he visualized himself sitting on a large ball, where it meets the string, as a giant hurled the ball around his head, he would find himself always looking at the giant’s head through the entire orbit. Bob D. is too obtuse to see that.
This is not rocket-science, it’s very straight-forward for those who want to see the obvious. Cassini, Meyer, and LaGrange were far to rigid in their thought processes to see it. And you are so hung up on an appeal to authority that you refuse to look.
” Cassini, M[a]yer, and La[g]range were far to[o] rigid in their thought processes to see it. ”
Pseudoscience genius and absolute dumbass Robertson forgot to add Newton and Mercator in the list behind Cassini.
*
Robertson reminds me once more Kurt, my lady Rose’s uncle, who over ten years ago endlessly repeated like Robertson the same things about everything.
He has peu à peu stopped blathering for now about two years, he is silent all the time and absently looks through us into the distance when we visit him in the old people’s home.
If they only built more solar panels
https://youtu.be/_K8L5lKWDI0
bobd…”Parallel only applies to lines, not to curves.
You cant claim curves are parallel”.
***
Don’t be so obtuse, Bob, I just explained it to you using basic calculus re tangent lines.
Even Wiki agrees…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_curve
Let’s get back to you perverting the definition of curvilinear translation, where any line segment you draw on the body must maintain the same orientation.
That doesn’t work for the Moon, therefor since the Moon is not moving as a curvilinear translation, nor a linear translation, then it must be rotating.
And your tangent lines are rotating, so what you have attached them to is also rotating.
That works for any three points on a body, you can draw three parallel lines, no matter what the body is doing, the three lines will remain parallel.
That proves nothing.
binny…”[Newton]Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed points in 9.56 hours, Mars in 24.39 hours. Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23.56 hours, the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours 43′.
***
It’s clear what Newton is saying vis a vis revolution, Revolution refers to an orbit and each body does revolve in it orbit relative to the stars in said times.
The Moon is the outlier in that statement. The other bodies do rotate about their axes but none of them keep the same face pointed at Sun, the central body. The Moon does not revolve about the Sun. It’s clear from that obvious point that Newton was using the word ‘revolves’ to indicate orbital motion and not in relation to a rotation about a local axis.
However, we must not confuse revolution with rotation. The Moon revolves about the Earth and while it is revolving, its orientation is changing wrt the stars, if they are the fixed points. The Moon does change orientation wrt the stars at a rate of 27 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes.
Some people are confusing that change of orientation through 360 degrees with rotation about a local axis.
As I said before, I think a lot is lost in the translation from old English, to old Latin, back to modern English. I say that because Newton was clear in Principia that the Earth moves with a linear velocity and the motion is curvilinear.
” Its clear what Newton is saying vis a vis revolution, Revolution refers to an orbit and each body does revolve in it orbit relative to the stars in said times. ”
Now we definitely see here that Robertson has reached the highest possible level of ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.
Now, thanks Robertson, we all know that for example, Earth orbits around the Sun within 23.56 hours.
*
On the same page of his Principia, Newton wrote:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit
Translation:
” For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth ”
*
Now we all know that there is no way at all to get him to reasoning instead of ‘robertsoning’.
He will certainly invent something new to distort what Newton wrote above.
*
From now on, apart from a final statement about Mayer’s work, I’ll leave this meaningless discussion in the hands of people like Norman, bobdroege etc, who are patient enough to endlessly reply Robertson’s idiocies like:
” As I said before, I think a lot is lost in the translation from old English, to old Latin, back to modern English. ”
This is the most impolite statement with regard to persons like Newton I have ever read.
bob d…”No it wouldnt, as it is rotating just exactly as fast as the string.
The far side of the ball moves farther each revolution than the near side, since their vector velocity would thus move them farther apart with each revolution, the ball has to spin”.
***
Bob…you have outdone yourself with stupidity. How does the ball rotate while under tension from the string?
Come on, admit it, you are the janitor at the nuclear plant.
Don’t call me stupid when you can’t understand basic eighth science.
The ball is rotating under tension from the string because the string is rotating.
I no longer work at the Nuclear Power Plant, now I make antimatter.
That’s even more stupid.
Gordon,
Yes, you are stupid, if you don’t know it’s possible to make anti-matter.
Also I can change one element into another, that’s just what I do.
So, you should be wealthy by now, changing lead into gold.
Might be easier to change mercury or platinum to gold since they are right next door on the periodic table. I can see a similarity between platinum and gold but how does one explain the difference between mercury and gold.
Why is mercury a liquid? Hint: electrons and electron bonds.
I told you, electrons rule the universe. Without the little beggars everything would fall apart and there would be no light.
Gordo might appreciate:
> the speed of the plane is not what keeps it flying
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea
willard cherry-picks an answer to suit his warped sense of reality. Here’s another response…
“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”.
Same answer as I got from a pilot a while back. I asked him if he had to adjust for altitude due to the Earth’s curvature. He said no.
As long as the pilot makes sure his air speed is enough to keep him at constant altitude, gravity does the rest. If he is over the North Pole and sitting uprights he is still sitting upright when he gets to the South Pole.
Come on, Gordo. All the answers more or less tell the same story, e.g.:
For some reason this made me think of you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1357345
Quand l’adulte montre la lune du doigt, l’enfant regarde le doigt.
No one could better describe the ‘ball-on-a-string’.
…which you agree is not rotating on its own axis.
… as viewed from the center of the orbit.
No, Bindidon never specified location of observation. He has simply agreed, many times in the past, that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. Since I’m always visualizing the motion as though I’m located outside the orbit, I’ve always assumed Bindidon does the same.
You are wrong, DREMT, as noted correctly by Clint R.
How could Clint R have noted the unspoken thoughts of Bindidon? Bindidon has stated the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, and has not specified location of observation.
Is Ball4 trying to misrepresent my words, AGAIN?
As Clint R pointed out, accurately stating the observation reveals the viewers location.
So if anybody says that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, and clarifies that their location of observation was outside the orbit, you will simply tell them that their location of observation was inside the orbit…and so your trolling continues. Oblivious to the difference between rotation about an external axis and curvilinear translation in a circle…
Go with Madhavi DREMT or remain wrong otherwise. Clint R can get viewing motion correct, but DREMT still shows no sign of understanding.
According to Madhavi, curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is motion as per Fig. 2(a), and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is motion as per Fig. 2(b). This proves you wrong, and me right.
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
No DREMT, listen and learn from Clint R “inside of it orbit” & Madhavi 2(b) since Madhavi 2(a) is irrelevant to ball on string.
Not irrelevant, Ball4, because the motion of the ball on a string can be described in two ways, as observed from outside of its orbit:
1) Curvilinear translation in a circle, plus rotation about an internal axis. So that is motion like Fig. 2(a) plus rotation about an internal axis.
2) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. So that is simply motion like Fig. 2(b).
The only way you could be correct is if curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion, motion like Fig. 2(a) or the MOTR. We know they are not, since Fig. 2(b) exists, and Madhavi specifically mentions not to get the two motions confused, which is the mistake you are making.
dremt…I think the definition given for curvilinear translation in some text books is myopic. The example they give in the pdf you posted is a restricted version of motion. They show a blob with a line on it and when the blob moves, they claim the line has to move in parallel to it orginal position. That’s an unreasonable restriction to place on curvilinear motion.
Translation is not restricted to such motion. Translation means simply that a particle moves from point A to point B. If it moves along a straight line, it is called rectilinear translation. If it moves along a curved path it is curvilinear translation.
Expanding the point to a rigid body is no different. A rigid body is a collection of points moving together. If the body is uniform, like a disk or a sphere, its motion is represented by a COG at the centre of the object.
If I have a circular disk located with its COG at 0,0 on the x-y plane, and I move it along the x-axis to 5,0, it’s COG has translated in a straight line, therefore the body has performed rectilinear translation. It is a natural outcome of that motion that all points on the disk move parallel to the x-axis, hence to each other.
If that same disk with its COG at 0,0 now moves along a circle with radius = 5 and centred at 5,0, the COG is now performing curvilinear translation. All rigid bodies are defined based on the motion of their centre of gravity. If the body is rotating about the COG at the same time, that is a different matter, but it does not affect the fact that the body is translating.
It surprises me that the textbook to which you linked does not go into that re rigid bodies. As I pointed out to Norman a while back, many preliminary textbooks tend to dumb things down for beginner students. I have found that such dumbing down can mislead students into a false understanding.
This is where you have to look into the problem deeper. How does the body move, how is it propelled, and how does it move along the circle?
Suppose the circle is a monorail track and the body is monorail car. Suppose the x-y plane is horizontal and the circle of track lies on the horizontal plane. When the car moves, it is restricted to move along the circular track, therefore all parts of the car must move in parallel at any instant along the track.
If you track the car with a radial line from the centre of the circle through the car, all points on the car will complete one revolution of the track in the same time. That’s the second requirement of translation that all points must move with the same velocity. It should be speed, not velocity, since we are talking about the length of the track divided by the time it takes to orbit it and not the instantaneous linear veleocitis of each particle in the body.
Spinners argue that the outside of the car moves faster than the inside of the car but that has nothing to do with it. In order for all points on the car to complete a revolution in the same time, the outside points must move faster than the inside points. Otherwise, the car would fall apart.
Gordon, if describing motion like the MOTL, or Fig. 2(b), as “curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis” helps you get across to some people the concept that how a ball on a string moves can be described as one single motion, regardless of reference frame, then carry on, by all means. I have found that describing motion like the MOTL, or Fig. 2(b), as “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, has helped me get across that concept to a couple of people who have gone on to be quite regular commenters in the moon discussion. So it has been useful to me to go with the textbook descriptions, and keep “curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis” as motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. There has been less pushback that way…
…then again, maybe Clint R is right, and you can’t really apply kinematics to orbital motion in any case…
…at the end of the day, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. That is what we’re ultimately trying to get across to people. I just want to go about it whichever way is most efficient to get as many people to understand as possible, without getting them “lost in reference frames” along the way. I think the rotation route is simplest, because most people can understand the idea of an object being swung around an external axis, without rotating on its own internal axis. So that’s what I go with.
dremt…”I have found that describing motion like the MOTL, or Fig. 2(b), as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, has helped me get across that concept to a couple of people who have gone on to be quite regular commenters in the moon discussion. So it has been useful to me to go with the textbook descriptions, and keep curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis as motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. There has been less pushback that way”
***
I have no dispute with you and I get your point re the KISS principle. However, I have no interest in what the spinners think. My interest is purely in the science. I studied this stuff in engineering physics classes and I know that rotation about a local axis requires an angular velocity about that axis. MOTL proves there is no such angular velocity about the Moon’s axis.
Can you see my point? This is an academic argument for me and I have no interest in converting spinners who lack the ability to see the truth. As you have seen, they have more of an interest in perverting science than understanding it.
This perversion goes all the way to the top. I have pointed out several times that EE profs and books teach that electrical current flows from positive to negative. They are doing it to maintain a paradigm formed circa 1925. They don’t care that it is wrong. Meantime, technical/technology colleges teach the opposite.
I agree the MOTL correctly displays rotation about an external axis with no local rotation. However, the real, general definition of curvilinear translation agrees with that too.
I described the MOTL orbit using curvilinear translation a while back. If you can recall, I suggested using Irfanview to break the gif into separate jpeg images. With individual images you can follow a dark spot on the Moon around the orbit every so many degrees and confirm that tangential lines perpendicular to a radial line, drawn at the near side, the COG, and the far side, all run parallel to each other.
What we have is the Moon rotating around Earth’s centre (presuming circular orbit) on a radial line with 3 perpendicular lines turning in parallel to each other. Since the Moon’s COG is the middle perpendicular line and the other two are moving parallel to it, it’s impossible for the Moon to be rotating about the COG.
Where our theories differ slightly is in the real action of the Moon. It’s not rotating about the Earth due to an attachment due to gravity. It has its own linear momentum and acts as an independent body. All gravity does is redirect that linear momentum every instant into an orbital path.
I have no problem seeing that as rotation about an external axis but in reality it is a body moving in a straight line that is being redirected into an orbital path. You won’t find such a condition in our terrestrial environment.
> I have no dispute with you
C’mon, Gordo.
You and Graham do not read the same geometry book.
Either one of you is right.
The other would then be wrong.
Show us what you got!
It’s an interesting point that rectilinear translation, in a straight line along the Earth’s surface, will be understood to be rectilinear translation, even though there must be a slight curve due to the curvature of the Earth. So, say there was a road which somehow went all the way around the Earth’s equator. A car drives in a straight line, 100 yards down the road. All engineers agree that motion is rectilinear translation. The car drives 100 miles in a straight line, down the road. Most agree that is still rectilinear translation, though some might be mentioning the curvature of the Earth. The car drives 1000 miles in a straight line. Now more are mentioning the curvature of the Earth. The car circumnavigates the globe. Now everyone mentions the curvature of the Earth. Now, somehow, it was definitely not rectilinear translation all along…
…at what exact point along the road does the motion stop being rectilinear translation?
I can understand your point when considering the actual orbital motion of the moon. The trouble is we use these analogies for which rotation about an external axis is definitely the appropriate description for the motion. A ball on a string, a wooden horse on a carousel, the chalk circle on the carousel…these are all rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. It would make no sense to describe these as translational motion with no rotation about an internal axis. So then if you switch descriptions when you get to the actual orbital motion of the moon, you are just opening yourself up to attack from “Spinners”, who as we all know have no interest in understanding, and are just out to score points any way they can.
It is more than an interesting point, Graham.
It is a point that contradicts your position and makes Gordo a spinner,
…you are just opening yourself up to attack from “Spinners”, who as we all know have no interest in understanding, and are just out to score points any way they can (as Little Willy demonstrates, although technically he’s a “Non-Spinner”).
Gordo,
Have you ever noticed how Graham talks of spinners but never of spin? You need to make him understand that the concept of spin does not reduce to geometric concepts like translation, and that he needs to come up with a physical mechanism as to why the Moon stopped spinning.
I know you often try to play the physics guru here. Try your magic on him.
Tidal locking.
You might have a case DREMPTY,
If you could point me to where Madhavi says this
“(with no rotation about an internal axis)”
I don’t think she does.
She also says this
“Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion.”
And gives the example of a rotating wheel, which is a better analogy for the motion of the Moon than the ball on a string.
So the motion of the ball on a string or the Moon is not one single motion, it’s an example of general plane motion, or a combination of two motions.
per Madhavi.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1357451
DREMPTY,
Madhavi does not support your claim that the object is rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis.
Now you are lying.
Gordo,
Beware that tidal locking is also called a spin-orbit lock. You might wonder why. Here is why. A spin-orbit lock occurs when
> one of the objects reaches a state where there is no longer any net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit. In the case where a tidally locked body possesses synchronous rotation, the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, although there is some variability because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Notice the important bit: no net change in the Moon rotation rate. That should make Graham realize that this is a physics puzzle, not a geometric one. As our wannabe physics guru, that is an important point to remind him.
Also, pleaee make Graham understand that when he suggests that the Moon is in a spin-orbit lock, that makes him a spinner. Technically at least.
Fig. 2(b) has to be rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis), bob. If it were rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then that would make motion like in Fig. 2(a) or the MOTR rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis)…but we know that Fig. 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), and Madhavi warns not to conflate curvilinear translation with rotation. You are making the mistake Madhavi warns about.
There is also the transmographer, which proves me correct, as well as the diagram of rotation about an external axis that I linked to further upthread. You are just in denial, bob.
Great job, DREMT. Throw their own crap back in their faces.
When braindead bob says someone is “lying”, that means he knows he’s out of ammo.
And now you’ve got worthless willy trying to pretend he understand this!
Great job.
“In the case where a tidally locked body possesses synchronous rotation, the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
…which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means “just revolving, not rotating on its own axis”. Hence the tidal locking physical mechanism can explain how the moon has stopped spinning.
Gordo,
A word of caution –
When you will teach him some physics, Graham may try to dodge the fact that a spin-orbit lock happens when one of the bodies has no net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit.
You might need to explain to him that if the Moon does not spin, he might need to appeal to something else than a spin-orbit lock, which, as the term suggests, is an interlocking of two rotation rates.
In other words, you would have to tell Graham that he needs to explain how the tides stopped the Moon from spinning completely.
Good luck!
Hence the tidal locking physical mechanism can explain how the moon has stopped spinning … as moon is observed from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R.
Good job Clint.
"Graham may try to dodge the fact that a spin-orbit lock happens when one of the bodies has no net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit."
So if the rotation rate remains at nil per orbit (which the "Spinners" would incorrectly label as once per orbit), then the moon is tidally locked at a 0:1 spin/orbit rate.
DREMPTY,
When accused of lying it’s best not to double down and add more lies.
“Fig. 2(b) has to be rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis)”
You know you are adding the “with no rotation about an internal axis”
Because you can’t show me where Madhavi says that.
So you are continuing to lie about that.
“If it were rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then that would make motion like in Fig. 2(a) or the MOTR rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis)but we know that Fig. 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), and Madhavi warns not to conflate curvilinear translation with rotation. You are making the mistake Madhavi warns about.”
No I am not making the mistake Madhavi warns about, because I am not claiming there is any rotation in fig 2a.
“There is also the transmographer, which proves me correct, as well as the diagram of rotation about an external axis that I linked to further upthread. You are just in denial, bob.”
No, you are lying about the transmographer because you don’t understand the math underneath the hood, there needs to be two equations to produce that graphic, because there are two rotations, one about the origin and one about the center of the body.
Yeah, keep on lying.
So which of the two motions, Fig. 2(a) or Fig. 2(b), shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit, bob?
Maybe you boneheads could tell me where the point O, as in Madhavi fig 2b, is with respect to the Moon.
Where is the Moon attached such that its motion is like fig 2b?
Sigh…OK, bob, so which of the two motions, MOTR or MOTL, shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit?
A question is not an answer, Graham.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
Since you agree with me that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit, Little Willy, one wonders what your problem is. bob argues that it cannot, you see. Perhaps you and him should discuss it.
Since you agree with Gordo that the orbit of the Moon could be described as a translation, Graham, it is an honour to welcome you amongst the team that holds that the Moon spins!
Perhaps you and him should discuss it.
Perhaps you should discuss this claim with Pup, Graham:
> Tidal locking is easily debunked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1354044
You and bob go first.
Three us, seventy one months of trolling, and our Moon Drsgon cranks cannot keep their story straight,
Graham disagrees with Pup and with Gordo on the single semantic issue he is willing to discuss.
The reason this goes on so long is because there are still people who don’t accept that the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. You could help with that, Little Willy, but you choose to troll me, instead.
DREMPTY
“SighOK, bob, so which of the two motions, MOTR or MOTL, shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit?”
Violation of sighing rule #1, you are only allowed to sigh when you are right.
And I thought you claimed reference frames don’t matter.
Yet here you are using a reference frame.
And again, the rotation about the external axis don’t matter, only rotation matters.
Try and figure out which Moon is rotating.
It’s not hard, just use your eyes.
It’s the one that does not stay pointing in the same direction.
OK, bob, since you won’t answer, I will just answer for you: you think that the MOTR is the one that is rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit. That is wrong, because “Spinners” would describe the motion of the MOTR as being curvilinear translation in a circle, with no rotation about an internal axis, and as Madhavi notes, you should not confuse curvilinear translation with rotation about an external axis. You are wrong, bob. A ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit. You are one of the only people left on this blog who still doesn’t get that.
Please stop putting words into the mouth of Bob, Graham, and please answer his question about point O.
He either thinks rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is like the MOTR, or he thinks it’s like the MOTL. Since he doesn’t agree with you and me that it’s like the MOTL, he must think it’s like the MOTR. Not putting words in his mouth, just working by process of elimination (and going by what he’s said before). I asked him the question first, he has dodged it twice now. The moon is obviously not physically attached to any point O by any rigid rod, Little Willy.
“According to Madhavi….This proves you wrong, and me right.”.
Madhavi also states:
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1).”
A reminder for those who invoke Madhavi to support their hypothesis that the Moon, in its elliptical orbit, is somehow rotating around the Earth or the barycenter…..
This proves them wrong.
For the 47th time.
As we know, trolls will ignore all such inconvenient facts.
I will stop commenting on the moon issue forever if both bobdroege and Ball4 will publicly acknowledge that I am right, and they are wrong, about how a ball on a string (note: a ball on a string, not the moon) can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit. That’s all I ask. I don’t even care about the moon any more. If anyone here can help get those two to admit that they were wrong, I swear I will never discuss the moon issue again. So, it’s up to you guys.
DREMPTY,
If you are going to use Madhavi as your source, you need to make sure you quote her correctly.
This is what you said she said:
“Madhavi notes, you should not confuse curvilinear translation with rotation about an external axis.”
This is what she actually said:
“Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
So you are again lying.
And by the way, I am ignoring any rotations about any external axes or orbits or revolutions, and just concentrating on which one is rotating on an internal axis, whether from inside the orbit or outside the orbit.
The Moon on the left is the one that is rotating about an internal axis, and the Moon on the right is not rotating.
And I will never admit I am wrong when I am right. The ball on a string is rotating on its own axis through the ball, because it does not point in the same directions as you revolve it around your hand.
So just the ball on a string, which is rotating on its axis, as proved by mathematics and the video of the astronaut letting the string go.
I’ve not been lying about a single thing, bob. Madhavi says "Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation", yes indeed. Now think about what that can mean. Could Madhavi mean "rotation about an internal axis should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation"? No. That would make no sense. There is no way you could confuse the two. Madhavi can only mean "rotation about an external axis should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation". You have to actually engage the brain, bob. Think about what has been drawn out in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b).
I know I’m right. Always have been, and always will be. As most of your fellow "Spinners" on here agree, the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit. They just lack the integrity to argue it out with you. Oh well.
The ball on a string cannot be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit since, being outside the orbit, one observes all faces of the ball as the ball spins once per orbit.
DREMT has always been wrong as shown in Madhavi 2D illustrations. Oh well.
You and bob are wrong, and I’m right (well, not just me, most of the "Spinners" on here bar you two agree with me, as well as the "Non-Spinners", of course).
DREMPTY,
Madhavi may have been talking about curvilinear translation alone something like a French curve, you remember those?
That would be curvilinear translation that is not a rotation.
DREMPTY,
You just admitted that you misquoted Madhavi.
We call that lying around these parts.
Think about what has been drawn out in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b). Try not to be desperate.
> He either thinks
I doubt the point O thinks, Graham.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Sure thing, but you are the one getting desperate.
Fig 2a is curvilinear translation.
Fig 2b is a rotation about a fixed point.
Here I will quote Madhavi
“Because each particle moves in a given plane, the rotation of a
body about a fixed axis is said to be a plane motion.”
and
” Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion.”
Since with the ball on a string, any line segment drawn through the ball does not point in the same direction as the ball is swung around, unlike any line segment drawn on the rectangle in fig2a,
and since the ball on a string is not fixed to a point on the ball,
the motion of the ball on a string can be described as general plane motion.
Which means it is a combination of two things, not one.
So it’s not orbital motion without axial rotation.
Sorry Charlie.
The ball on a string moves as per Fig. 2(b), bob. A rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis).
… only as viewed from “inside of it orbit.” as was previously explained.
DREMPTY,
You claim
“The ball on a string moves as per Fig. 2(b), bob. A rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis).”
2b is rotation about an internal axis, the axis goes through point O, which is part of the rotating object.
So you are saying that a ball on a string rotates around a point inside the ball!
That’s what I have been saying all along, the ball on a string is rotating about an axis through the ball.
I am glad we finally agree and the subject is settled.
No, bob. Point O is at the center of revolution. The ball on a string is rotating about its own “point O”, which is also at the center of revolution. The one single axis of rotation for the ball on a string does not go through the center of the ball itself (all “as observed from outside the orbit”, Ball4).
… so from outside the ball’s orbit all faces of the ball can be seen during each ball orbit thus the ball is observed spinning on its own axis from there (just like the Madhavi 2(b) 2D rectangle).
No, Ball4. What can be argued is that as observed from outside the orbit, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, which does not go through the center of the ball itself. Learning is pretty hard for you, huh?
The ball has rotation on its own axis ball radius r and orbits at radius R. Two axes of rotation observed outside as in Madhavi 2(b) 2D rectangle so DREMT remains wrong.
Paint a 1 on ball hemisphere toward center. Paint a 2 on ball hemisphere opposite center. Observe 1,2 per orbit from outside the ball’s orbit; observe only the 1 labeled hemisphere per orbit from “inside of it orbit” as previously correctly pointed out by Clint R.
You just do not understand rotation, Ball4. It is as I said in my previous comment. Learning is pretty hard for you, huh?
Study Madhavi illustrations 2(a) and 2(b) to learn what I wrote 9:53 pm is fully consistent with them. I know that is pretty hard for DREMT but it can be done.
As observed from outside the orbit, there is only one axis of rotation for the rectangle in Fig. 2(b), located at point O. I refer you to my previous comments, which settle the issue. I’m right, you’re wrong. The message “I’m right, you’re wrong” will now be repeated, until you stop responding to me.
DREMT is right, there is only one axis of rotation for the rectangle in Fig. 2(b), located at point O as observed from point O “inside of it orbit”.
I said “as observed from outside the orbit…” you relentless, tedious troll.
I’m right, you’re wrong.
DREMTPY,
“No, bob. Point O is at the center of revolution.”
No, Madhavi says it’s a rotation, not a revolution.
You can’t even read the caption of the figure.
You are lying again.
“I know Im right. Always have been, and always will be.”
But not about the main argument that has polluted this blog for 5 years, that the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
“Revolution” is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”, bob.
Point O is part of the body DREMPTY.
Point O is external to the main body of the rectangle. Same as your hand twirling the ball on a string is external to the ball itself. As observed from outside the orbit, it can be argued that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation – at your hand.
Yet from outside of the orbit, all 1,2 faces of the ball are observed so the ball is rotating on its own axis, DREMT remains wrong, there are r and R radii of rotation observed from outside the orbit.
I’m right, you’re wrong, Ball4.
But it’s connected to the main rectangle.
It’s just an example of a rotation, not what you are trying to make it to win your internet points.
Points denied.
…and the ball on a string is connected to your hand, via you holding the string. The point is, as observed from outside the orbit, it can be argued that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation – at your hand. I win the points, and the argument that we have had over several years, bob. As painful as that is for you to admit: I was right, and you were wrong.
Yes you win your internet points, spend them wisely.
But fig 2b and the ball on a string are not equivalent.
And the ball on a string and the orbit of the Moon are also not equivalent.
"But fig 2b and the ball on a string are not equivalent."
Of course they are.
"And the ball on a string and the orbit of the Moon are also not equivalent."
There are certainly differences, yes.
I thought the ball and the string were two different objects, Graham.
Please advise.
…and you can think of the rectangle and the rod connecting it to point O as being two separate objects if you like.
I certainly *could*, Graham, but why would I do that?
Or any mechanical engineer, for that matter.
Look at the diagram, and the dotted lines. They trace out the path of the rectangle, not the path of the rectangle plus rod.
Not that any of this remotely matters, or changes anything.
Sorry…the black curved lines, not dotted lines.
Ah, I see. If the rectangle and the rod is taken as a whole, then I’m not sure how the ball-on-string and fig 2b are equivalent.
The rectangle-with-a-rod has one attachment, and the ball-on-string has two.
Also, how does any of this relate to a spin-orbit lock, again?
There are not two axes of rotation in Fig. 2(b). Which is all that matters.
I thought you said that the ball on string and the rectangle with rod were equivalent, Graham.
They are, in the sense that there are not two axes of rotation in Fig. 2(b), and there are not two axes of rotation with the ball on a string. Which is all that matters.
> There are not two axes of rotation with the ball on a string
Only if you spin it very fast, Graham.
Or if the chord is not cut.
Only if.
Not the same thing as with a rectangle-with-a-rod.
Which means you can’t simply count axes of rotation to think of the problem in terms of physics.
Only if you spin the rectangle very fast, Little Willy.
Or if the rod is not broken.
Only if.
There, that’s just as nonsensical as your response to me.
> Only if you spin the rectangle very fast
No, Graham. You can move it as slow as the hour hand of a clock.
This is a rigid body.
Of course if you spin it really really really fast you might break it.
There is no meaningful difference between the rectangle and the ball on a string, Little Willy. Obviously the ball on a string is always taken to be revolving, so that the string is taut. You are just desperate, beyond anything I have ever seen. Please stop trolling.
Indeed there is a meaningful difference, Graham:
https://physics.appstate.edu/catalog/1-mechanics/1d-motion-two-dimensions/ball-string
Equilibrium speed. Weight. So many concepts you very seldom use!
You trying to make no sense makes no difference whatsoever to that fact.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And so Graham reveals once again that he’s not here to discuss a problem of physics, but to troll by misreading geometry definitions.
He soldiers on.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How about a lazy Susan, Graham:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFkqOBq94Gk
#4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon is so obsessed with Moon that he’s probably got the words to this hit song memorized:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
” Bindidon is so obsessed with Moon … ”
Utterly wrong, as usual.
Any intelligent commenter immediately understands that not Moon’s motions are for me of interest, but solely the trial to defend Science (be it historical or contemporary) against the anti-science endlessly propagated on this blog by a few Ignoramuses (because it lacks any moderation).
Sorry Bin, but you’re wrong. You’re obsessed with defending your cult.
If you were really interested in science, you would realize you have NOTHING. You don’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That means you don’t even understand how gravity affects an orbiting body.
And, you reject reality. Did I mention that you can’t learn?
Put it all together and you’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Pseudomod
” … which you agree is not rotating on its own axis. ”
Stop kidding all the people with that evident nonsense.
*
I’ve often enough stated that I don’t care at all about all these stoopid ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins and MOTL/MOTR idiocies because they are NOT AT ALL representative of a discussion about the rotation of the Moon.
Why do you dissimulate that all the time, Pseudomod?
*
If you want to discuss the rotation of the Moon in a scientific way, then manage to learn how e.g. MATLAB works, and use their differential equation solver
https://de.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/ode45.html
which helps you in numerically describing
– Moon’s orbit around Earth;
– Moon’s rotation around its polar axis.
All you need is to search for the differential motion equations, formulated by numerous scientists since centuries.
MATLAB has a wonderful display component which you can use to integrally represent Moon’s complex orbit and rotation motions.
*
I’m not sure, however, that you would have any interest in doing such job.
Not so much because you very probably wouldn’t be able to; much more because you ideologically reject the result you would obtain.
…and still, you have stated plenty of times now that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. That might not be important to you, but it is important to many here.
Poor Bin. He tried to hide behind his ancient astrologers. But that failed.
Now, he’s trying to hide behind “differential equations”, that he can’t even begin to understand.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string has him beat. That’s why he has to ignore/discredit/deny it. He doesn’t realize that the simple analogy came from Newton’s work.
Newton realized, from his newly developed calculus, that every molecule of Earth would have a “string” tied to every molecule of an orbiting body. That’s how gravity works. So as the orbiting body tried to pass Earth, due to its linear velocity, all of the “strings” would hold the body and steer it in its orbit. The result of all the “strings” would be one “string” between each of the centers of mass. Hence, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string indicates “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
If the orbiting body is not rotating about its axis (no axial rotation), then one side always faces the inside of its orbit, one side always faces the direction of travel, one side always faces the direction it just came from, and one side always faces outward. Just like Moon.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit” (Clint R terms).
Great job Clint.
Thanks, but I really can’t take any credit for other’s work.
It was your own work Clint! Great job.
Ball4’s trolling again.
Not quite curiously, the Pseudomod never asks those to stop trolling whose trolling perfectly fits his own narrative.
I rarely ask you to stop trolling, Bindidon.
That doesn’t contradict what I wrote above at all.
Just making my own observation.
Asking is not observing, Graham.
Please do *us* the commenters of this blog a favour and learn the difference.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
” … and still, you have stated plenty of times now that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. ”
1. This is a pure lie.
I mentioned that only once. YOU repeated that ad nauseam.
2. I repeat
Ive often enough stated that I dont care at all about all these stoopid ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins and MOTL/MOTR idiocies because they are NOT AT ALL representative of a discussion about the rotation of the Moon.
Why do you dissimulate that all the time, Pseudomod?
*
If you want to discuss the rotation of the Moon in a scientific way, then manage to learn how e.g. MATLAB works, and use their differential equation solver.
But… you’ll never want.
Newton’s Principia, Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, 3rd edition 1726, before he died:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth
No one can erase what Newton wrote.
No, Bindidon, you definitely mentioned it more than once. Please stop falsely accusing me of lying.
Feel free to show us the places.
There is no “us”, Bindidon. How would I find the examples now, amidst a mass of multiple-thousand-comment discussions? You have certainly said it more than once, because after the original time you said it, I called on you at least a couple of times to reiterate it, which you did, because various people didn’t believe it.
Show it to me and Binny, Graham.
Now that you got your *us*, if you give Binny his cite I might give you the one where Pup agrees with B4.
And if you do it with a smile I might even toss in a quote or two from Gordo disagreeing with you about geometry.
I have seen and remember the quote Ball4 regularly trolls about. Clint R said nothing that I wouldn’t have agreed with, and I definitely disagree with Ball4 – Ball4 just endlessly twists and misrepresents Clint R’s words because Ball4’s a boring, relentless troll. You support Ball4 because you are a boring, relentless troll yourself.
Then refrain from telling US things like
” … and still, you have stated plenty of times now that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. “
So I am guilty of lying until proven innocent!?
I quote Clint R verbatim unlike DREMT.
Well you are a limey, isn’t that the case in your legal system?
No, Ball4, you quote-mine Clint R.
No quote mining, DREMT, as I omit nothing essential from Clint’s comment & do not distort Clint’s original meaning. Clint R’s original comment is available to all interests on this site for verification.
…and the fact that Clint R himself said on this same site that you were misrepresenting him counts for nothing, I suppose?
Not misrepresenting unless Clint R writes that his long ago comment “inside of it orbit” & “outside of its orbit” was wrong which Clint R hasn’t yet done. Clint R has actually in these post comments repeated the same intent.
DREMT is just dancing for entertainment and fishing around catching nothing.
Link to and quote the full comment.
The reason Ball4 has to constantly make things up, including perverting my words, is that he has NOTHING. He’s the cult idiot that STILL hasn’t provided his bogus “real 255K surface”.
He just makes things up, then disappears for awhile, only to return and make up more nonsense. He’s another perfect example of a “braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll”.
Nothing? No. I have quoting verbatim Clint R on location of observation “inside of it orbit” and “outside of its orbit”, Madhavi on distinguishing “rotation” on own axes, and DREMT’s need to learn relativity that all motion is relative.
It is Clint R that usually has nothing except evident great laughing stock obviously wrong physics, name calling, and ad. hom.s.
Oh, and Clint R admits can’t even understand the location of the planetary measured 255K surface! Even though explained many times with links to the data. Pity.
Let’s just settle this right now…
…Clint R: do you think that the moon rotates on its own axis as observed from outside of the orbit?
(See what I mean about Ball4?)
If one understands orbital motion, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis from ANY viewpoint. That’s the advantage of the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. If the ball were actually rotating on its axis, while being swung in a circle, the string would wrap around the ball.
I’ve learned to keep the discussion ONLY on the ball-on-a-string. Trying other ways to explain “orbital motion without axial rotation”, only opens up new ways for the cult to pervert reality. When they claim the ball is not rotating, it shows how willing they are to pervert and distort.
Ball4 is an anonymous troll that gets a thrill out of attempting to pervert reality. That’s why he hides behind cover, taking shots at others. He’s a coward, long worshipped by his cult.
Clint now: “Moon is NOT rotating about its axis from ANY viewpoint.”
Clint previously: “So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.”
L.O.L.
“If one understands orbital motion, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis from ANY viewpoint”.
Perfectly clear, Clint R. Thank you.
So, Ball4 has been relentlessly misrepresenting Clint R for the past…what, a year? I’m not even sure how long it’s been. In any case, people have been banned from this site for less.
Ball4 is a disgrace.
No Clint misrepresentation at all DREMT. I quoted Clint R verbatim.
It’s now certainly obvious that Clint R can’t keep stories straight being an entertainer not physics knowledgeable. Clint would rather just call commenters names & change screennames after being banned, twice.
> I have seen and remembered
Then it should not be that hard to find it back for *us*, Graham.
Research and report.
“So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit”
Explain how this simple statement of fact equates to Clint R saying that the moon rotates on its own axis as observed from outside of the orbit? You can’t…because it doesn’t. You misrepresented Clint R, repeatedly, for months, Ball4.
See how the trolls operate. Now come the false accusations.
When they’re exposed, they get desperate.
Clint R correctly explained some time ago DREMT, no need for me to repeat. Remember, the internet never forgets
And DREMT, recall again, I quoted Clint R verbatim. You need to argue with Clint R, not me. But beware if you do so, entertainer Clint will start to call DREMT names.
The internet will indeed never forget that you just failed to provide an explanation, Ball4, then insinuated that Clint R previously argued the moon rotates on its own axis as observed from outside the orbit, which I know he never did.
Like Willard quoted DREMT on Clint’s previous explanation: > I have seen and remembered
DREMT is just frightened to debate Clint’s explanation & words I quoted verbatim because DREMT would then get called names and suffer ad. hom.s from the entertainment specialist who can’t keep his stories straight aka Clint R.
I don’t need to debate this:
“So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit”
because I agree with it. It does not mean the moon rotates on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit. The fact you think it does just reveals your ignorance of the “Non-Spinner” position.
Not sure about the Internet, Graham, but *I* sure will not forget that hand waving to spin-orbit lock does not amount to an explanation of why the Moon would stop from spinning, Graham.
More so that the spin-orbit lock, ad usually understood, explains why it did not.
Well, you are pretty thick.
The society of astrophysicists must be quite thick too, Graham, for they hold that the spin-orbit lock makes the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits the Earth.
Go right ahead, revolutionize physics. Eboy will be impressed.
“for they hold that the spin-orbit lock makes the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits the Earth.”
Which from the “Non-Spinner” perspective translates to:
“…makes the moon not spin whilst it orbits the Earth”
Worthless willy, why don’t you get one of your “society of astrophysics” to come on here and we’ll teach him about orbital motion. He may not understand any of it.
It’s like the PhD physicist that comes here sometimes but doesn’t know how to find the energy of a photon. And, there’s one that believes two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can heat it to 325K!
So much for your lame “appeal to authority”.
Other than your incessant trolling, you’ve got NOTHING.
Translation is no explanation, Graham.
I agree. The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
The “tidal locking” nonsense is part of the Moon nonsense. “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
The fact that Moon is NOT rotating means that is was never rotating.
Graham and Pup, please coordinate your non-responses better.
Willard, please stop trolling.
In a manner of speaking
I just want to say
That I could never forget the way
You told me everything
By saying nothing
Little Willy
Is a troll
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[PUP] “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
And?
Perfectly clear, Graham. Thank you.
What is? That we disagree? Yes. So what?
[GRAHAM] If anyone here can help get those two to admit that they were wrong, I swear I will never discuss the moon issue again. So, it’s up to you guys.
[ALSO GRAHAM] What is clear? That we disagree? Yes. So what?
Willard, if you weren’t such a worthless troll you would stick with the subject you presented.
Where is even ONE of the “society of astrophysicists” you mentioned? Just get one to come here and explain how gravity can torque Moon.
That would be fun.
(There might be some other questions too.)
The topic of this sub-thread is Binny’s challenge to Graham that he quotes and cites him, Pup.
Do keep up.
I told you, Little Willy. You argue it out with bob first, about the ball on a string, and then I will argue with Clint R about tidal locking.
That’s a lame answer, worthless willy. Especially since I’m responding to your comment on this sub-thread!
You can’t stand by your own comments, huh?
Just like a worthless troll.
Please stop conflating the actual topic with your riddle du jour, Pup.
If you could explain to Graham why he is wrong about the spin-orbit lock, that’d be great.
Yet another lame answer from worthless willy.
You cant stand by your own comments. Get one of your “astrophysicists” here to explain how gravity can torque Moon. Or, tell us yourself, in your own words.
You can’t do it. You’re just a worthless troll.
If I answer your silly question, Pup, will you stop commenting for 90 days?
Your riddles are riddled with so much ridiculous red herrings that it would only be good riddance!
Gosh, where did you ever get that idea, worthless willy?
Not only are you ignorant of science, you’re a copy-cat. And, you can’t stand by your own comments. That’s why you’re such a worthless troll.
Here you go!
“Get one of your astrophysicists here to explain how gravity can torque Moon. Or, tell us yourself, in your own words.”
A torque on the Moon results when the center of gravity is not lined up with the center of mass.
This happens every orbit when the Moon librates because the rate of rotation and the rate of revolution don’t always match because the orbit is elliptical.
That’s funny, bob. If you’re going to be braindead, you might as well be funny too.
Did you ever say who helped you with the vectors problem?
“Did you ever say who helped you with the vectors problem?”
I could but I won’t.
Do you want to compare ACT and SAT math scores?
Do you not understand how the Earth exerts a torque on the Moon.
Perhaps we could start with Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
Next Pup will tell us that the tidal torque CANNOT decelerate the Earth spin.
And Graham will wash his hands over that nonsense.
Yeah, there’s a lot of science you have to claim is wrong, if you start off claiming the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
The three stooges have climbed a whole hill of stupid.
You don’t have to "deny" tidal locking in order to think the moon does not rotate on its own axis, bob.
DREMT, you must have missed the debunking of the tidal locking nonsense:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
Worthless willard and bob have worked themselves into another corner this morning. Neither can produce any correct physics to show how Earth can produce a torque on Moon. Braindead bob would be unable to provide a free-body diagram of his “theory”.
All they’ve got is trolling and word salad, as usual.
It doesn’t need to be debunked, though, in order to think the moon does not rotate on its own axis. That’s the point I’m making to bob. If we accept tidal locking theory as being correct, for the sake of argument, then if the moon was at one point rotating on its own axis, that’s the explanation for what slowed its rotation to zero times per orbit. The tidal locking mechanism is the "braking" that slowed the moon’s axial rotation to nil. The consensus viewpoint is that the moon’s axial rotation was "locked" at a rate of once per orbit…but, seen from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, "once per orbit" is zero times per orbit.
The alternative view (if not believing in tidal locking theory) is to think that all "tidally-locked" moons never rotated on their own axes at some point in the dim and distant past. I find that harder to believe than believing in tidal locking theory. Each to their own. I do accept that it’s a "belief", though..
That’s perfectly logical, DREMT.
I’m interested in the fact that their nonsense is all linked, and each part is anti-science. So, it’s fun to keep the cult off balance by debunking each part separately.
The fun increases when they try to make up more nonsense to cover their nonsense!
Clint R thinks that because objects on the Moon fall at the same rate, even though the forces on them are different debunks anything.
I have already explained how a torque on the Moon can result from the force of gravity.
Repeated explanations are 50 bucks.
Also available for fifty bucks are simple experiments that can be performed in you own kitchen that will show how gravity can provide a torque on an object.
DREMPTY,
“You dont have to “deny” tidal locking in order to think the moon does not rotate on its own axis, bob.”
Yeah, you do, because tidal locking is the case where the rotation period equals the orbital period.
If the rotation rate is zero, then the orbital period is zero, where does the Moon go then?
By the way, you are still refusing to define what you think rotation about an internal means.
We are waiting.
“Yeah, you do, because tidal locking is the case where the rotation period equals the orbital period…”
…which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means zero axial rotations per orbit.
One is zero and one is 27 days.
Which are equal,
Yeah, Right.
[NIKOLA] It is not a matter of *definition* as some would have it.
[GRAHAM] which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means
Not really a deep thinker, are you bob?
Do you have anything else than the ad hominem, the ad misericordiam, and the ad nauseam, Graham?
If bob genuinely cannot work out for himself how tidal locking can function from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, then let him admit that. Then I’ll decide if I can be bothered to waste further hours of my life in babysitting him on the subject. Really, anybody who claims to be able to understand the “Non-Spinner” position, should get it. It’s not difficult.
If Graham cannot grasp that Bob, as someone who studied physics for real, can see through Dragon Cranks smokescreens, then perhaps he should try for another 72 months of trolling,
It’s not difficult. In fact, I have already explained it to the point most people would understand.
… where DREMT goes wrong, cg of Madhavi rectangle 2(a) illustrates one axis of cg rotation and as Madhavi then illustrates DREMT hasn’t yet comprehended there are 2 axes of rectangle cg rotation in 2(b) “rotation” as viewed from “outside of its orbit”.
You are off-topic, and behind the times, Ball4. I think you might be the only commenter left now who doesn’t accept that, as observed from outside the orbit, the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. Good luck.
Nah,
I’m still with Ball4, the ball on a string is still rotating on its own axis no matter where it is viewed from.
Then, if the Moon is not rotating, then there is no tidal locking.
If you want to define tidal locking as something different from the orbital period matching the rotational period, then
DENIED!
Do you think Graham will ever find out that a frame of reference is not a perspective but a metric, Bob?
“I’m still with Ball4, the ball on a string is still rotating on its own axis no matter where it is viewed from.”
Humorously, that’s not actually what Ball4 thinks. He would argue that as observed from inside the orbit, it is not rotating on its own axis, and as observed from outside the orbit, it is. You’re both wrong, just in different ways. Oh well.
“If you want to define tidal locking as something different from the orbital period matching the rotational period, then
DENIED!”
Just scroll up to my 10:26 AM comment to Clint R, give it a read, and try to understand.
Good 10:26 AM comment, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1353847
DREMPTY,
It appears that you do not understand what tidal locking means.
It means the orbital period matches the axial rotation period.
If you claim that the axial rotation period of the Moon is zero, and you think tidal locking is valid, that draws the conclusion that you also believe the orbital period is zero.
We have a contradiction to observed evidence here and a failure to communicate.
You have it all wrong bud.
And just read my 10:56 comment is what assholes do.
DREMPTY,
Here is you youtube as requested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
"If you claim that the axial rotation period of the Moon is zero, and you think tidal locking is valid, that draws the conclusion that you also believe the orbital period is zero."
Lol.
Yes DREMPTY,
That’s your position.
No, bob. The tidal locking mechanism, according to the consensus viewpoint, brings the rotation rate down to a rate of once per orbit (or, up to a rate of once per orbit). So, from the "Non-Spinner" viewpoint, it brings the rotation rate down to a rate of zero times per orbit (or, up to a rate of zero times per orbit – a negative rate of spin being spin that is in the opposite direction to the direction of the orbital motion).
> from the “Non-Spinner” viewpoint
I thought it was a perspective, Graham:
https://youtu.be/keW4QqRGVN4
Pure trolling, Little Willy.
No U, dearest.
You are supposed to realize that I notice when you get into hermeneutics.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
As usual, you are dreadfully confused.
This time you are confusing the mechanism whereby a body becomes tidally locked with the condition of being tidally locked.
The condition of being tidally locked is where the orbital period matches the rotational period.
If the rotational period is zero, then to be tidally locked, the orbital period must also be zero.
Oh wait, every time I look at the Moon, daytime or nighttime, it’s just hanging there, so it must not be moving, so its orbital period must be zero.
Oh snap!
I am not confused at all, bob. Downthread you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1359200
Thag,
Now you are losing your grammar skills.
Better hold on to them, you have no science skills for backup.
Unless you want to be in a farside cartoon.
DREMT 9:45 am writes incorrectly: “Humorously, that’s not actually what Ball4 thinks.” since bob means ball inertially rotating on own axis no matter where viewed which is thus way beyond DREMT’s comprehension.
Obviously DREMT must have paranormal skills to write what Ball4 thinks. bob is accounting for the moons accelerated frame which is not in DREMT’s skill set.
Ball4, the basics of rotation will always be beyond you. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the ball on a string can be described as having only one axis of rotation, which does not go through the ball itself.
That’s wrong DREMT, as Madhavi shows & writes “rotation” in 2(b) (& not 2(a)) there are r and R radii thru the two axes of rotation of the rectangle illustrated in 2(b). 2(a) only one axis of cg rotation.
You’ve been told this for over 3 years by various more competent commenters – so we know past any doubt it’s way beyond DREMT’s comprehension; DREMT just doesn’t have the skill set to understand motion & relativity.
You are wrong, and I am right, Ball4. You can keep repeating yourself for the rest of your life, if you like, it will not make you correct. There are not two axes of rotation in Fig. 2(b). Not “wrt an inertial reference frame”, not “as observed from outside the orbit”, not under any circumstances. You are delusional.
Yep, such assertions are worthless; Madhavi illustrations are way past DREMT’s comprehension.
You are delusional.
“You are wrong, and I am right, Ball4.”
Oh, that’s the rule by which we are playing.
Napoleon is already taken, would you like Henry VIII, Joan of Arc, Stalin, or Caudillo Francisco Franco?
How about “Chart Master,” Bob?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
So, you should be wealthy by now, changing lead into gold.
Might be easier to change mercury or platinum to gold since they are right next door on the periodic table. I can see a similarity between platinum and gold but how does one explain the difference between mercury and gold.
Why is mercury a liquid? Hint: electrons and electron bonds.
I told you, electrons rule the universe. Without the little critters everything would fall apart and there would be no light.
Gordon —Changing the subject. You are no better than the Bufoons atIPCC. They claim because CO2 is increasing that is the cause of global warming. You state because co2 is so little it cant cause global warming. Neither provide any proof.
Here you go, Dennis:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
Most obliged.
Print out your IPCC nonsense and put it in your toilet in case you run out of TP.
Give me a mechanism according to which the Moon acts like a plane or a ball-on-string and I will see what I can do, Gordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I provided plenty of proof, Dennis. It’s called the Ideal Gas Law.
We can treat the atmosphere as a constant volume in a couple of ways but I won’t go into that to keep this brief. With nR and V constant, we have…
P = (nR/V)T
That makes P directly proportional to T or vice-versa. We kick in Dalton’s law of partial pressures which is part of the IGL. That means, in a mixed gas like the atmosphere the total pressure is the sum of the partial pressures.
We can see right away that CO2 at 0.04% does not account for any significant pressure in the atmosphere relative to nitrogen and oxygen. Since T is directly proportional to P it means CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere any more than its mass percent, which is itself proportional to the partial pressure at about 0.04%.
The nonsense about a trace gas like CO2 absorbing about 5% of surface radiation and transferring it’s tiny amount of heating from that 5% to N2 and O2 is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated in science.
Another point, heat transfer can only take place from hot to cold, by its own means. With N2/O2 gathering heat via conduction directly from the surface, why should CO2 being heated by radiation from the same surface, at the same temperature, be warmer than N2/O2?
Alarmist science is fabricated and perverted.
Gordon, IGL is an equation of energy state. IGL doesn’t inform on how the energy state changes. Your energy state change conclusions based on IGL are unfounded and obviously physically wrong.
Yet another red-herring argument from Ball4.
Gordon’s meaning is clear: Gordon has no evidence or physics to support his position.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
” I provided plenty of proof, Dennis. Its called the Ideal Gas Law. ”
This is the same kind of ‘proof’ as what Robertson misrepresents and distorts when talking about the lunar spin: RUBBISH.
Yet another red-herring argument from Ball4.
Yet another empty ad hom insult from Binny. The meaning is clear, he has no physics to rebut my argument.
As you know, if you continue to insult scientists whose results you dislike, with ‘cheating SOB’ or similar, or manipulate what e.g. Newton wrote, you will be the target of even more ad homs.
Stop whining, Robertson.
willard…”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”.
***
Weight is the effect of gravity on the plane’s mass. The lift of the wings is dependent on the thrust of the motors. So, if you keep the thrust high enough to cause lift under the wings you will maintain altitude in a normalized atmosphere.
That keeps you flying in a straight line. However, the force attracting the plane toward the Earth follows the curvature of the Earth, which drops about 5 metres per 8000 metres of horizontal distance. It can only move the pane vertically downward about 9.8 metres every second but that has been countered by the lift on the wings.
Note that if you trim the air surfaces and the motor thrust to maintain altitude, the plane will very happily follow the surface at the same altitude right around the Earth. Down is always relative to gravity not the position on the Earth.
If the curvature of the Earth falls off as the plane tries to fly straight, gravity will bend its path naturally into a constant altitude, just as it does the Moon and satellites.
Remember, if you have trimmed the air surfaces and the motors to maintain a constant altitude, that altitude will be maintained as the Earth curves. An altimeter doesn’t care if the Earth curves.
Come on, Gordo.
If planes travel in a straight line, so does the ball-on-string.
One point where your favorite analogy breaks down is that the Moon does not fly though an atmosphere. It has no wings. So there is still no mechanism in your story to make the Moon behaves like a plane or a ball-on-string.
Think about one.
Witless Willard,
You obviously have no clue why Sir Isaac Newton’s hypothetical cannonball had to be fired at an altitude at which there was no atmosphere!
By the way, “straight line” may not mean what you think it means.
Think about it, if you can muster sufficient neurons at one time.
Give it a try. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
You obviously have nothing to say.
Cheers.
Wonky Willy,
So you say, dummy, so you say.
You really have no idea, do you.
Right here, Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1358347
Geez, Witless Willy,
You never stop trying with the pointless exercise of providing pointless links, do you? How would I know it’s pointless? Think about it!
Wriggle away all you like.
Still convinced that gravity doesn’t operate in the absence of an atmosphere?
Donkey.
Mike,
Everything is there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1358347
Enjoy!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Good to see we have here some experts on Aerodynamix
Did you not claim to be a pilot? How about chipping in?
Good idea, Gordo:
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[PUP] “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
Which is your favorite version of the Moon Dragon crank credo?
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
How love in silence becomes Graham’s reprimand.
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
Graham still does not get why Gordo’s distraction about the “airliner” was to evade Bob’s question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1351437
But then we all know that Graham would rather spend another 71 months trolling about the true meaning of rotation instead of doing some physics.
#2
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
“Weight is the effect of gravity on the plane’s mass.”
At least Gordo tries.
Worthless willy, in your own words, how does gravity torque Moon?
You can’t answer because you don’t even understand your own cult’s nonsense.
how does gravity torque Moon?
Moon has Grail measured mascons.
Willard…”How come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?”
***
Even though I have explained this in detail in the past, Willard is still confused.
A vector must have magnitude and direction. Therefore, a velocity vector representing the Moon on a curved orbit must have magnitude and direction. At any instant, the velocity vector has both, but the next instant the direction has changed a smidgen. It changes because Earth’s gravitational field bends it toward the Earth.
However, at any one instant, the velocity of the Moon has constant magnitude. Ergo, at any point on the orbital path, the Moon has constant velocity but a different direction.
It is that change in orientation/direction of the velocity vector that spinners are mistaking for rotation about a local axis.
willard…”[GR]Weight is the effect of gravity on the planes mass.
At least Gordo tries”.
***
Willard still seems confused. If you stand on a bathroom scale it indicates your weight, not your mass. The number on the scale represents the force your mass is exerting on the scale platform due to gravitational force.
Take the same scale into space and stand on it. It will show your weight as 0 lbs or kilograms. You are then weightless, even though you have the same mass.
Mass is the amount of matter in a container. Nothing to do with weight till a force acts on it.
> is confused
The confusion is all yours, Gordo.
I quoted you to Graham, to show him that you at least try to provide an explanation of why the Moon does not spin in terms not only of geometry but of physics.
I offered no opinion on your quote.
Read properly. Then think.
Mike Flynn,
Cheers.
Little Willy is very unhappy with what I’m discussing on the moon issue. He clearly wants me to start talking about other aspects of it. What, exactly, is unclear. It seems to be the case that Gordon’s comments represent the sort of thing he wants me to talk about. However, from his responses to Gordon over the past few months, we can see that he has no interest in responding substantively to anything Gordon has to say. It’s always just cheap, quick, easy, snide remarks from Little Willy. So what, exactly, would be the point in me making Gordon-like comments? Little Willy offers no incentive to change the topic of discussion onto whatever it is he wants to hear.
Meanwhile, those “Spinners” that still cannot accept that the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis (as observed from outside the orbit) continue to disrupt progress. Little Willy could help with that, but he has no interest in doing anything positive or constructive.
I note Gordon is still evading the question.
Or he is incorrectly maintaining that the Moon has a constant speed as it orbits the Earth.
As it moves in an ellipse, it does speed up and slow down in accordance with Kepler’s laws as it sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
The Moon’s speed is faster when closer to Earth and slower when farther away.
Meanwhile, Graham will not try to settle his disagreement with Pup regarding spin-orbit lock, and he will not try to get Gordo back on his team regarding curvilinear translation.
Until then, etc.
Considering everything “Non-Spinners” have been subjected to over the last few years, it’s unreasonable to expect them to settle their differences before the “Spinners” do. Besides, I have at least spoken to Gordon about the curvilinear translation thing, and I once briefly questioned Clint R on tidal locking. You’ve done nothing, Little Willy.
The Moon Dragon cranks are three guys.
Graham holds that tidal-spin lock explains why the Moon does not spin. Pup rejects that explanation as nonsense.
Graham holds that the motion of the Moon can be described using a single, pure rotation. Gordo rejects that description and says the Moon moves in a straight line, i.e. it is a curvilinear translation.
For 72 months they have been trolling this site, and they can’t get the basics of their story straight.
First sentence is false. Second sentence is misleading; I hold that the tidal locking physical mechanism explains why the moon’s rotation slowed from whatever it was previously, until it stopped rotating on its own axis completely. This is actually only a minor point in the overall debate. Third sentence is partly false, Gordon does not think the moon travels in a straight line. It’s also partly misleading – both I and all "Non-Spinners" hold that the moon can be described as making one single motion – "orbiting". I use "rotation about an external axis" purely because it gets the idea across easier, in my opinion, than Gordon’s route. As a result of all the above, your fourth sentence is false.
Plus, of course, your entire comment is just a distraction from your refusal to cooperate in any positive or constructive way. You are just a lazy, pathetic, tedious, worthless troll, and this site would be a better place without you.
The first sentence is correct, the second sentence is accurate, and the third sentence is true.
Graham’s claim that the spin-orbit lock is only a “minor point” is more than false. Unless and until they provide a physical explanation as to how the Moon “stopped,” Moon Dragon cranks only power through word games.
For now he could try to convince Pup that the Moon stopped. As the captain of Team Moon Dragon, it is the least he could do.
"The first sentence is correct, the second sentence is accurate, and the third sentence is true."
Incorrect.
"Unless and until they provide a physical explanation as to how the Moon “stopped,” Moon Dragon cranks only power through word games."
The physical explanation is the tidal locking mechanism, Little Willy. Why are you so stupid? Think of the tidal locking mechanism as a "brake" on the moon’s axial rotation. If we accept that the moon was rotating on its own axis, at one point in time, that "braking", over a very long period, slowed the moon’s axial rotation until it stopped. The consensus viewpoint is that the moon’s axial rotation was "locked" at a rate of once per orbit…but, seen from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, "once per orbit" is zero times per orbit.
“Think of the tidal locking mechanism as a “brake” on the moon’s axial rotation.”
You’re the one who’s too damn dumb to realize that this “break” does not bring the Moon’s spin to a halt, Graham. The spin-orbit locking is not unlike an “American stop”:
https://youtu.be/2Z02LkRWsK0
Heck, you still cannot write “Moon” properly.
And you’re still trying to evade the fact that Pup rejects the idea that the Moon ever spun.
According to the consensus viewpoint, it brings the rotation rate down to a rate of once per orbit (or, up to a rate of once per orbit). So, from the "Non-Spinner" viewpoint, it brings the rotation rate down to a rate of zero times per orbit (or, up to a rate of zero times per orbit – a negative rate of spin being spin that is in the opposite direction to the direction of the orbital motion).
> So,
There’s no real inference there, Graham.
That spin-orbit locking brings the rotation rate down of the Moon to a rate of once per orbit makes physical sense.
That spin-orbit locking would bring the Moon spin to a halt makes no physical sense whatsoever.
Moon Dragon cranks owe the world more than a verbal defense as to what amounts a complete revision of the laws of physics.
It actually makes more physical sense that a “braking” mechanism would act to reduce spin rate to zero. For instance, brakes on your car cause your car to come to a stop, not to continue forwards at a set, exact speed.
You skipped over that bit, Graham:
Yeah, I watched the video. Do not understand your point, if you indeed have one. Elaborate, in your own words.
Of course Graham plays dumb:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=American%20stop
No, still have no idea what your point is.
Of course Graham still plays dumb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
No work and all trolling makes Moon Dragon Cranks dull boyz.
Complete the following sentence, in your own words:
“Tidal locking is like an “American Stop”, because…”
When you will go beyond paraphrasing improperly a Wiki page you barely understand, Graham, you might have better chances to boss people around. Meanwhile, have another cookie:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.10833.pdf
If only you showed any interest in a physical phenomenon over which you spent 72 months of trolling.
“The latter are configurations in which the period of the orbital motion of the Moon around the Earth and the period of the rotation of the Moon around its axis (supposed for simplicity to be perpendicular to the plane of the Moons orbit) are equal…”
…which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means an axial rotation rate of nil per orbit.
You could not explain your point. Oh well.
Worthless willy found another link he can’t understand.
The first sentence after Eq 1 begins: “The orbital angular velocities of the two bodies…”. The sentence does on to identify the nomenclature (symbols used). Yet, look at the Fig. 1. The same nomenclature is used for the angles, which are opposite congruent, but labeled as different values!
How many mistakes is that? Like the idiots here, they must believe if they make enough mistakes, it will turn out right!
Worthless willy has no clue about ANY of this. He just finds things he can’t understand and throws them against the wall. He reminds me so much of Norma, I should start calling hims “Norma2”.
And so once again Graham demonstrates that all he cares about is the meaning of words. When was the last time he discussed an equation? Here is one time where Pup ran away and Graham did not come to remind him of his fiduciary duty as Graham’s equation understander:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-749281
More than one year ago. Times fly, even if no work and all fun makes Dragon Cranks rather dull.
> The same nomenclature is used for the angles, which are opposite congruent, but labeled as different values!
BREAKING – Area Crank Discovers that Two Variables Can Haz the Same Value
Very Scientific comment, Pup!
Perhaps you could finally answer Tim’s puzzle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333425
You had almost four years to study it.
Yes, that was a fun exchange with Folkerts. His attempts to pervert physics are always a hoot.
The comments following get even better, starting here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-749299
#3
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
All fun and no work from Graham makes him a dull Dragon Crank:
[GRAHAM] What you are forgetting is that we do not need a torque about the ball’s internal axis for the cannonball to move as per the “moon on the left”. All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the moon on the left. So your point about the attachment point of the string on the tetherball falls flat on its face.
[TIM] What you are forgetting is that your explanation is wrong. You can’t see it because you lack any deep understanding of physics. But you simply are wrong. [Y]our appeal to your own authority for answers does not carry any weight.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-897033
That was eleven months ago.
I almost forgot how he misunderstood what is an appeal to authority.
I’m not embarrassed for putting an idea forward. If it was wrong, it was wrong. It’s not necessarily wrong just because Tim says so, however. Tim did acknowledge that there would be a torque about the external axis, from the force of the cannon. He just said it would not lead to rotation about the external axis. Seems odd given that the cannonball does follow a circular path around the external axis.
Any other random subject changes you would like to bring up out of nowhere, to cover for the collapse of your own argument?
Norma2, you linked to the wrong sub-thread.
But, I enjoyed Nate exhibiting that he didn’t know what torque was. That was another discussion I missed. Good to see it.
Had you read the thread I linked to to the end, Pup. Had you read.
Considering that Graham kept trolling this website for 72 months with Dragon Crank crap, I think Roy’s readers realize that he’s never really embarassed by anything.
Here’s something more sciencey for a change of pace:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9603135.pdf
I show this example for two reasons.
First, “the Moon should not rotate” is not the same claim as “the Moon does not rotate” and I told Graham that the object lesson of this thread was modalities.
Second, the argument does not involve any appeal to the concept of geometry as defined in some random online handbook.
I’m sure Graham would need a hand to read that paper. Perhaps Pup could help. If only Pup read.
"Any other random subject changes you would like to bring up out of nowhere, to cover for the collapse of your own argument?"
Apparently, yes! Little Willy is unbelievably transparent in his trolling.
I note that Graham is still evading Bob’s point:
Yet he still contends not only that the Moon has stopped from spinning, but that spin-orbit locking only slows down the Moon. Both claims which, even if incorrect, go against Pup’s rejection of the very idea of a spin-orbit lock.
Too much fun and not enough work makes Graham a dull troll.
bob’s point doesn’t even relate to tidal locking.
“Graham still does not get why Gordo’s distraction about the “airliner” was to evade Bob’s question.”
Other people’s discussions are not my responsibility, Little Willy.
Goalposts movers will goalposts-move:
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[ALSO GRAHAM] If we accept tidal locking theory as being correct, for the sake of argument
Do you have any mode besides “attack”, Little Willy?
I accept tidal locking theory. My “for the sake of argument” was for Clint R’s benefit, since I know that he doesn’t. There is really no shifting of goalposts.
Subject-changers will subject-change.
Yes, you do.
No U
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[PUP] “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
Bored, are we?
No rush, Graham.
One day you’ll tell us if gravity can or cannot “produce a torque on Moon,” as Pup puts it.
It’s the reason you’re in that sub-thread, no?
bob d …”I note Gordon is still evading the question.
Or he is incorrectly maintaining that the Moon has a constant speed as it orbits the Earth”.
***
replied August 31, 2022 at 10:41 PM
WillardHow come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?
***
Even though I have explained this in detail in the past, Willard is still confused.
A vector must have magnitude and direction. Therefore, a velocity vector representing the Moon on a curved orbit must have magnitude and direction. At any instant, the velocity vector has both, but the next instant the direction has changed a smidgen. It changes because Earths gravitational field bends it toward the Earth.
However, at any one instant, the velocity of the Moon has constant magnitude. Ergo, at any point on the orbital path, the Moon has constant velocity but a different direction.
It is that change in orientation/direction of the velocity vector that spinners are mistaking for rotation about a local axis.
> At any instant, the velocity vector has both, but the next instant the direction has changed a smidgen.
C’mon, Gordo. We all know that the velocity vector is a tangent to the path of motion. Check figure 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion#Uniform_circular_motion
Bob’s question is related to the angular rate, which can only be constant in a circle.
“No rush, Graham.
One day you’ll tell us if gravity can or cannot “produce a torque on Moon,” as Pup puts it.”
I already said I accept tidal locking theory. So you should know the answer to that question already, if you understand tidal locking theory. God, you are thick.
No, Graham. I do not know the answer already. Perhaps you should spell it out.
Who do you think you are kidding but yourself here?
In return, you could try to spin the spin-orbit lock theory the Moon Drsgon crank way once again, and say how it is all a matter of perspective.
Looks like we will have to add Henry Cavendish to the list of scientists being thrown under the bus by our lovely crew of posters who never passed a high school science course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Yes Virginia, gravity can produce torque.
The idea of tidal locking theory is that gravity can produce a small torque on the moon, acting over geological timescales, due to the formation of “tidal bulges” on the moon which act like “handles” that Earth’s gravity can act on.
Yes, Graham. That’s the usual perspective. At least if you replace a “can” with a “does.”
(Remember, kids – the theme of this thread is MODALITIES!)
Is that the Moon Dragon crank perspective too? If it is not, you still have to clarify which perspective you accept. If you accept both, you still have to say how you manage the incompatibility.
It is as if you did not realize that I knew your tricks.
Now Little Willy pretends he understood all along! Hilarious.
Every time you respond that way you warrant me to pay due diligence to what you say, and more importantly in this case what you don’t, Graham.
And then you complain that you are the victim here.
Lol.
Search for “perspective” on this page, punk.
Let me explain it to you at a level you might be able to understand, Little Willy. I will do the same for bob soon, too, as he will no doubt continue to be confused:
1) Tidal locking mechanism make moon move like MOTL.
2) "Spinner" think MOTL rotate on own axis once per orbit.
3) "Non-Spinner" think MOTL not rotate on own axis.
4) So "Spinner" think tidal locking make moon rotate on own axis once per orbit.
5) "Non-Spinner" think tidal locking make moon not rotate on own axis.
On a separate, but related matter:
1) Some "Non-Spinner" think tidal locking mechanism not work.
2) Some "Non-Spinner" think tidal locking mechanism do work.
3) First "Non-Spinner" think moon always move like MOTL.
4) Second "Non-Spinner" think moon move different to MOTL in past, then over time settle at moving like MOTL, because tidal locking mechanism change moon over time.
Graham,
Allow me to clarify my request:
I want physics, not geometry.
Physics involves concepts like angular momentum and torque, and equations,
At least Gordo tries.
When will you?
Physics is here:
1) Tidal locking mechanism make moon move like MOTL.
It is the same physics for either “Spinners” or “Non-Spinners”.
You emphasized the incorrect bit, Graham:
Tidal locking mechanism make moon move like MOTL.
That part *should* contain physics.
As it is, it does not.
You need to take some time, stop responding to me, and go and learn about tidal locking, Little Willy. Then you will understand why the tidal locking mechanism results in the moon moving like the MOTL.
Dear Graham,
“Make move like” is not exactly a physical predicate.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
No need to try again, I succeeded a long time ago.
Only if by succeeding you mean turning physics into geometry, Graham.
A matter of perspective, or viewpoint if you prefer.
No, the tidal locking mechanism definitely involves physics. Sorry.
I thought you were talking about a rectangle, Graham.
Please advise.
I advise you to please stop trolling.
In return, dear Graham, I advise that you clarify “make Moon move like” in terms of physics, not just geometry.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon
Thank you! I do appreciate your response. My science training is a long time ago so will take the time to understand what you have provided. If the case you present is so water tight why is it not accepted by all those monkey see monkey do scientists
dennis
” If the case you present is so water tight why is it not accepted by all those monkey see monkey do scientists ” ?
Good question.
I think you’re the kind of person who takes a longer time to sort the wheat from the chaff, which is why they end up being the best at it.
dennis…”If the case you present is so water tight why is it not accepted by all those monkey see monkey do scientists…”
***
The problem seems to have emanated from climate modelers who are programming their models with bad science. Not only that, they are using only radiative transfer because model differential equations are much better suited to radiation analysis. Therefore the focus has been on radiation rather than conduction and convection wrt heat transfer.
Radiation is not a good means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures yet these models and the theory make it appear as if heat dissipation via radiative emission is the only heat dissipation occurring. In residential homes, until recently, heat loss due to radiation was completely ignored since it is insignificant. The R-rated insulation used in walls and ceilings is strictly for heat loss via conduction, which is by far the greatest means of heat lost.
R. W. Wood circa 1909 who was an expert in gas technology, including CO2, said he did not think CO2 could warm the atmosphere as claimed. He thought a better explanation was the majority gases N2/O2, gathering heat at the surface via conduction then convection carrying the heat vertically, Because N2/O2 cannot radiate the heat away. The heat will dissipate naturally, however, with altitude.
That fits better with the Ideal gas law where the majority gases, N2/O2, comprising 99% of the atmosphere, account for most of the heating.
If radiation was the end all and be all, when the Earth rotated away from the Sun, all surface heat would be radiated to space. That does not happen therefore some other mechanisms are storing heat and maintaining the Earth’s average temperature at about 15C.
During winter in the northernmost and southernmost parts of the hemispheres, heat is lost rapidly when the Sun no longer shines. In the most extreme locales of the hemispheres during winter, there is no sunlight and everything freezes. However, the Tropics are still receiving full solar energy and they heat the atmosphere and the oceans in the Tropics. That heat is spread poleward by ocean and atmospheric currents, according to Lindzen.
Where I live near Vancouver, Canada, our winter temperatures are mitigated by warm oceans currents from the more tropical regions. Same with western Europe. You won’t see any of that in unvalidated climate models that are entirely focused on heat dissipation via radiation.
What you will see is a fantasy warmig factor for CO2 of 9% to 25%, numbers drawn from a hat. You will also see an imaginary positive feedback in which GHGs magically warm the surface, a constadiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Gordon
Feeling pretty comfortable with your proof. How do you explain the 5% difference between input from space and output to space. What role would water vapor and clouds have?
Dennis…I’m not trying to go into the effect of clouds, I am looking at general principles. Water vapour is also a trace gas, accounting for 0.3% of the overall atmosphere. In the Tropics it is claimed to be around 4 or 5 % but N2/O2 is still 90%. When air is heated in the Tropics by the much hotter surface, the higher content of WV is likely a factor. I really don’t think it is nearly as important a factor as AGW alarmists claim.
I think clouds are very important but I have little or no understanding of how they work.
Don’t know where you get the 5% in 5% out from.
I am not trying to present an all-encompassing explanation for an energy budget. My basic interest is blowing holes in bad scientific theories and offering a simplistic alternative. As John Christy of UAH has explained, the atmosphere is far too complex to explain.
I am leaning toward a theory that the Sun has been heating the planet for several billion years. At the same time the hot inner core, which is as hot as the Sun’s surface, has been transferring heat to the surface. Whereas the warming effect is low compared to other heating sources, over a few billion years it has obviously been significantly warming the oceans.
We no longer have a situation where the Sun needs to heat the surface each day to a significant degree because the planet has retained past heating from the Sun. So, we are looking at a maintenance level of heat input and that is a far different case than a home with the furnace turned off in the Canadian prairies at -20C in winter and having to warm when the furnace is turned on.
Basically, some of the surface heating by the Sun these days is dissipated within the atmosphere as heated surface air rises. The IGL again. P is directly proportional to T, as P decreases with altitude, so does T. That is a natural dissipation, no need for it to be compensated by radiation to space.
This is not a contradiction of the conservation of energy. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and in this case of the molecules in air. Gravity packs the molecules closer together at the surface and that closeness leads to an increase in heat. T is proportional to P. As P is reduced with altitude, the molecules move farther apart and heat is reduced/dissipated naturally.
Of course, if that was the only mechanism, it would make no sense re energy in – energy out. Obviously, if energy is injected into the system energy must leave. The argument is over when and how much?
Trenberth/Kiehl tried to balance the energy budget using a very simplistic model. To balance it, they had to have as much energy being back-radiated by GHGs as what was leaving. They seemed oblivious to the fact that energy radiated from a cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface.
In other words, like other alarmists, they confused electromagnetic energy with heat. They balanced EM energies while ignoring heat.
I don’t pretend to understand the complexity of heat transfer in the atmosphere between the oceans, solid surfaces, and the atmosphere. Alarmists do pretend and that’s all it is, a pretension.
“They seemed oblivious to the fact that energy radiated from a cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface.”
That’s not a fact Gordon, that’s a wrong assertion since the earthen L&O natural surface is a measured as very near black body. Dr. Spencer has even posted experiments proving Gordon is wrong.
Ball4 you idiot,
Dr Spencer has not posted experiments proving that radiation from a colder atmosphere can result in a rise in temperature of a hotter object.
Your wishful thinking is not related to reality.
You might have noticed that the surface cools at night – or even during a solar eclipse!
You might even be aware that the surface has cooled from its initial molten state – regardless of how much atmosphere existed, or its composition!
You are obviously as delusional as the likes of Sagan, Hansen, Schmidt and Mann – to name a few people whose fantasies have been adopted as fact by otherwise rational people.
Ahhh … but the gaseous atm. has warmed in modern times, Mike.
Also to cure some of Swenson’s & Mike’s long held befuddlement, see Dr. Spencer’s posted experiments for some needed learning in: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Ball4 – master of misdirection and stupidity!
The atmosphere gets hotter during the day, and cools during the night. All gases get hotter when exposed to direct sunlight, and cool when the heat source is withdrawn. I’m surprised you didn’t know this.
You also wrote –
“Also to cure some of Swensons & Mikes long held befuddlement, see Dr. Spencers posted experiments for some needed learning in: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.”
You fool. Capitalising your word salad won’t convince anybody that you are not, in fact, confused.
In fact, the existence of the Earth’s atmosphere prevents around 35% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface! You might notice that nowhere does Dr Spencer claim that reducing the amount of energy reaching a body causes that body’s temperature to rise!
That bizarre conclusion is left to climate crackpots of your ilk.
Carry on fantasising.
Thanks for admitting the surface atm. really has warmed “gets hotter” contradicting your previous assertion of just “cooled”.
Thanks also for admitting the gaseous atm. absorbs radiation. Try to work with new found knowledge to understand how radiation from a colder atmosphere can result in a rise in temperature of a hotter object as Dr. Spencer experimentally proved.
Ball4 you nincompoop,
Learn to read. What gets hotter during the day, cools at night.
Your bizarre blathering about a colder atmosphere resulting in the rise of temperature of a hotter object is just the result of your deranged mind.
If you really believe that Dr Spencer said such a thing, you would quote him, but alas, you can’t, can you?
Oh dear, you really are a ninny, aren’t you?
I did quote Dr. Spencer. Just another bad day for Mike contradicting himself then missing an obvious quote.
At the time, I pointed out that Roy’s cooler body was interfering with the rate of heat dissipation in the hotter body.
I don’t recall what Roy said and I won’t get into a discussion trying to question what he said. However, Newton’s law of cooling makes it clear that a cooler environment can affect the rate of heat dissipation in a body. That could be interpreted by some as warming, even though its not. It’s the same argument as putting on a sweater causing your body temperature to rise.
The problem with that argument is obvious. The body produces it own energy internally and that energy is largely heat. If the surrounding air is cooler, the body will lose heat faster. Putting on a sweater interferes with that heat loss allowing the body to warm internally due to a lowered heat dissipation. The inert sweater has no means of raising body temperature.
Swannie inferred that in his experiment with the BP/GP. When his GP interfered with radiation from the BP, the temperature of the BP rose. That was not the lower temperature GP warming the hotter BP, it was the BP rising toward a natural temperature it would have had if all it’s radiation in a vacuum had been blocked.
” Basically, some of the surface heating by the Sun these days is dissipated within the atmosphere as heated surface air rises. The IGL again. P is directly proportional to T, as P decreases with altitude, so does T. That is a natural dissipation, no need for it to be compensated by radiation to space. ”
Robertson is not only in permanent denial of any evidence concerning viruses, lunar spin, Einstein, GPS, Earth/space energy balance, weather stations vs. lower troposphere, etc etc etc.
He is also one of these who never and never accept any contradiction, and hence always comes back with the same utter idiocies.
*
How is it possible to persistently distort the fact that Earth is in space a completely isolated system, that must give back to space ALL energy it obtains from space, i.e. from the Sun?
Is it not absolutely evident that regardless how much heat ‘dissipates’ within the local Earth system, all heat generated from outside by solar radiation MUST BE GIVEN BACK to outside in form of radiation, otherwise the planet becomes inhabitable?
*
How can people on this blog be so gullible as to swallow Robertson’s nonsense like it’s some kind of God-given truth?
> etc etc etc
A complete list might be nice, if only for Dennis’ sake.
Please do the job.
I’m already writing about his next lies concerning R.G. Wood :- )
Binny,
You wrote –
“How is it possible to persistently distort the fact that Earth is in space a completely isolated system, that must give back to space ALL energy it obtains from space, i.e. from the Sun?”
I agree – with the additional information that the Earth radiates a little of its primordial heat as well.
No Greenhouse Effect. The Earth has cooled since its creation, and will continue to do so. Any man made heat is ephemeral, and vanishes to space.
Climate cultists have some bizarre notion that heat can somehow be accumulated in a body, resulting in a rise in temperature, without the associated cooling which must inevitably take place when the heat source is removed.
An example is the cooling of the surface at night, in the absence of sunlight, when climate nutters claim that recorded temperatures should really be other than what they are!
At least you now accept that Baron Fourier was right, in saying that the Earth returns to space all the heat it received during the day, plus a little of that remaining from its creation. Of course, neither Baron Fourier nor such luminaries as Lord Kelvin were aware of radiogenic heating, so their calculations of the age of the Earth, based on measured cooling rates, were, to say the least, a little wide of the mark.
… as are Swenson’s atm. radiation comments.
Ball4,
Try naming someone who believes you . . .
Oh dear,
” At least you now accept that Baron Fourier was right, in saying that the Earth returns to space all the heat it received during the day, plus a little of that remaining from its creation. ”
Me, accepting your nonsensical blah blah?
What’s the matter with you, Flynnson?
Binny,
Don’t blame me if you don’t accept the truth as expressed by Baron Fourier. You might want to ignore the Fourier series, Fourier transforms, and Fourier’s law of conduction as being the ramblings of a deranged Frenchman, but it won’t change the fact that the surface of the Earth has indeed cooled, and all the surface which heats during the day, cools at night, carbon dioxide or no.
Feel free to address me as you wish. I suppose there might be someone out there who cares for your opinion. Your mother, perhaps?
You could always run blubbing to her, if nobody else seems to care.
Carry on.
Old FOurier may have been good at math but he sure sucked at thermodynamics.
In the days of Fourier, nothing was known about electromagnetic energy, in fact, very little was known about heat. In the days of Fourier, they thought heat was a substance called caloric.
Going back to the beginning, if all solar energy was immediately returned to space, the Earth would never have warmed. There is obviously more solar energy stored in the oceans, the surface, etc. than what is returned at any one instant.
Besides all that, most solar energy by far is received in the Tropics. As Lindzen has pointed out, the heat created rises in the atmosphere and is distributed poleward. However, heat in the oceans is also distributed poleward. There is no reason to radiate it away in real time unless there is a temperature differential between the atmosphere and the surface.
“That is a natural dissipation, no need for it to be compensated by radiation to space.
***
I am referring only to air heated at the surface that rises to higher altitudes. As it rises, its pressure drops naturally hence its temperature drops naturally.
Air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and according to common knowledge neither can radiate away heat. However, heat in air or any gas can be dissipated naturally in a constant volume system by reducing pressure. No radiation required. he atmosphere has a natural negative pressure gradient built in.
I am not suggesting in any way that radiation to space is not a function of cooling, I simply think the entire process of heating/cooling is far more complex than the simple heat budget and GHE/AGW theories.
Heating/cooling on Earth is a dynamic process that has being going on for several billion years. As Swenson has pointed out numerous times, internal heating must surely be involved in the long term.
bob d …”Do you not understand how the Earth exerts a torque on the Moon.
Perhaps we could start with Newtons law of universal gravitation”.
***
In Principia, Newton II is preceded by words to the effect…’If a force can move a mass…’.
However, if equal forces are applied to both side of the Moon, how can a torque be created? That like you using a torque on a bolt of 25 ft-lbs and me pushing in the opposite direction on the torque wrench lever with the same force you apply. Nothing gets torqued.
> if equal forces are applied to both side of the Moon
Big if, Gordo:
https://earthsky.org/space/moons-bulge-reveals-its-slow-retreat-from-earth/
Gullible Wee Willy.
Don’t you even read what you link to?
“Scientists have theorized that the moon, born hot, rotated fast after its formation and possessed an equatorial bulge much greater in size than it does today.”
Slightly contradictory, wouldn’t you say?
You are an idiot. Every particle of the Moon is falling towards the Earth at exactly the same rate – otherwise the Moon would have torn itself apart long ago!
Here – take a sphere, mount it any way you like, on any axis you choose, using the finest friction free unobtainium bearings. Now try to make it spin, using gravity.
Dimwitted doesn’t even come close to describing your mental acuity.
Feel free to respond by complaining about Mike Flynn.
I thought you said you did not click on links, Mike.
Also, you forgot to spell out the contradiction.
“Here take a sphere, mount it any way you like, on any axis you choose, using the finest friction free unobtainium bearings. Now try to make it spin, using gravity.”
That’s a simple high school physics experiment.
Been there done that, got a B.
Gordon, it is good form to always apply a counter torque when using a torque wrench to tighten a bolt.
Obviously, you have never used a torque wrench.
Gordon,
Obviously you just made a very funny statement.
willard is a glutton for punishment…a true masochist.
“Bobs question is related to the angular rate, which can only be constant in a circle”.
***
Angular rate, as you incorrectly call it, is the rate at which a radial line rotates through 360 degrees. The radial line is perpendicular to the velocity vector of a body moving along a circular path.
At any rate (no pun intended), if the radial line is rotating about 0,0 at a constant rate, it is called angular SPEED although velocity is often used. The radial line in this case has no direction and is simply a scalar quantity. It is the distance covered divided by the time taken to cover that distance. If the radial line changes velocity, it now has an angular acceleration.
It is important to distinguish between the radial velocity of a radial line and the instantaneous velocity of a point rotating on a circle. The point rotating along a circular path is a vector quantity, it has magnitude and direction.
This is where confusion arises with spinners. They claim the outside face of the Moon is moving faster than the inside face, which is true. However, the Moon being a rigid body, requires that all points along a radial line complete an orbit in the same time. That’s why the radial speed is used and not the individual tangential velocities of points on the Moon.
There is no such thing as a general velocity vector for a body following a curved path. The vector must be an instantaneous quantity because its direction changes instant by instant.
This is the egregious error committed by you spinners. You have mistaken the constantly changing direction of the Moon’s velocity vector for rotation about the Moon’s local axis. The velocity vector does rotate through 360 degrees wrt the stars but it is not rotating about the Moon’s local axis.
Meantime, a radial line tracking the motion of the Moon is measured in radians/second. Its speed can change during an orbital period but the Moon’s linear velocity cannot change because that would require the application of a force in the direction of the velocity vector.
Come on, Gordo.
> the orbital angular velocity is the rate of change of angle with respect to time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
Besides, you might need to return to basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBBVGRpQLw
thanks for this detailed article , i just have simple question , does amazon really accept paypal as method of payment ? i tried mant times to pay by paypal but i faild , my friend told me he paid by using paypal , i am really confused
thanks for this detailed article , i just have simple question , does amazon really accept paypal as method of payment ? i tried mant times to pay by paypal but i faild , my friend told me he paid by using paypal , i am really confused
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida
It’s an amazing and helpful source of information. I’m glad you shared this useful info with us. go here