Home/BlogWith the approaching El Nino superimposed upon a long-term warming trend, many high temperature records were established in September, 2023.
(Now updated with the usual tabular values).
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2023 was +0.90 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is above the August 2023 anomaly of +0.70 deg. C, and establishes a new monthly high temperature record since satellite temperature monitoring began in December, 1978.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Regional High Temperature Records for September, 2023
From our global gridpoint dataset generated every month, there are 27 regional averages we routinely monitor. So many of these regions saw record high temperature anomaly values (departures from seasonal norms) in September, 2023 that it’s easier to just list all of the regions and show how September ranked out of the 538 month satellite record:
Globe: #1
Global land: #1
Global ocean: #1
N. Hemisphere: #2
N. Hemisphere land: #1
N. Hemisphere ocean: #4
S. Hemisphere: #1
S. Hemisphere land: #1
S. Hemisphere ocean: #1
Tropics: #6
Tropical land: #2
Tropical ocean: #8
N. Extratropics: #2
N. Extratropical land: #1
N. Extratropical ocean: #4
S. Extratropics: #1
S. Extratropical land: #1
S. Extratropical ocean: #1
Arctic: #11
Arctic land: 7th
Arctic ocean: 65th
Antarctic: 15th
Antarctic land: 26th
Antarctic ocean: 14th
USA48: 144th
USA49: 148th
Australia: 12th
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 21 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.07 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.49 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.23 | +0.74 | +0.03 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.18 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.47 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.51 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.25 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.05 | +0.16 | +0.94 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
Lower troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Middle troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
That’s quite the spike!
This is not going to be a good look on the UAH monthly chart WUWT recently added to its side-bar. Oh dear.
Anthony Watts is going to get backlash if he keeps the chart posted on the WUWT site.
I’ve noticed there has been an uptick in UAH-bashing over there recently.
What is their “logic”?
It usually boils down to 3 main points. 1) UAH performs adjustments. 2) The uncertainty on the monthly anomalies is so high they are effectively useless. 3) UAH is showing warming.
Why don’t we have more satellite taking temperature.
Musk is launching 50 at a time.
Maybe add some mass to them to measure global temperature??
“What is their logic?”
It mainly comes from a few commentators obsessed with measurement uncertainty, and convinced they can show that all global averages have enormous uncertainties, including UAH.
The logic, I suspect, is be able to say it’s impossible to tell if temperatures are warming or not, and therefore we should assume they are not warming.
“The logic, I suspect, is be able to say its impossible to tell if temperatures are warming or not, and therefore we should assume they are not warming.”
No one is claiming that CO2 rises global temperature for 3 months-
and because CO2 levels cycle up and down, in the last 3 months measured CO2 levels have been lowering.
So, one can rule out CO2 levels as cause. And can rule out global warming in general, a few months isn’t global average temperature.
“No one is claiming that CO2 rises global temperature for 3 months”
Indeed. But these arguments have been going on since long before the current spike. The argument is always that it’s impossible to tell if the trend is up or down over the last 40 years or so.
“and because CO2 levels cycle up and down, in the last 3 months measured CO2 levels have been lowering.”
Which is irrelevant to anything. Seasonal changes, or year to year changes don’t affect temperatures – it’s the long term increase that is expected to caused a long term increase.
“And can rule out global warming in general, a few months isnt global average temperature.”
But over 500 months with a significant warming trend is.
There’s nothing wrong with warming. Warming is a good thing. Cooling is a bad thing. We can feed people during warm periods. Assuming the warming is due to humans is unscientific propaganda. This appears to look like a step-change. Curious to see where this settles out.
–And can rule out global warming in general, a few months isnt global average temperature.
But over 500 months with a significant warming trend is.–
There has been warming after the Little Ice Age.
And obviously we in a big Ice Age, or also called Icehouse global climate for last 33.9 million years,
Which is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which the last of 5 known ice ages lasting for more than millions on years.
Also in last few million, it’s said we are in Ice Age or it’s been the coldest period of the last 33.9 million years.
And in Holocene, the Sahara desert was mostly grassland with forests
and humans living there, or Sahara desert has increasing become more of the desert it is today, or last 5000 years.
And sea levels were 1 to 2 meter higher, than they are now.
Or we have gone past our interglacial period’s thermal maximum, which all past interglacials have had. And past interglacial thermal maximums were much warmer than Holocene interglacial period, which follow Glacial Maximum which was the coldest Glacial Maximum that we know about.
The average global air temperature is about 15 C.
It could have been about 13 C
15 C air temperature is cold air temperature.
13 C is a colder air temperature.
A 10 C global air temperature is about a cold as Earth has
ever been.
10 C is cold air temperature.
The average air temperature of China is about 8 C.
Bellman –
> The logic, I suspect, is be able to say its impossible to tell if temperatures are warming or not,
We can’t tell if temperatures are warming, and there’s no such thing as “flobal” temperatures…
…but don’t forget, we can tell that global warming has “paused.”
If you get my drift.
Where?
Take a look at the UAH update repost that just appeared on WUWT.
I did see one person cast doubt on the satellite, but I think it’s a stretch to say that they’ll take it down. Not all skeptics think the same after all. For example, compare Steve Goddard to Roy Spencer.
Walter
It’s a bit too early for this thread at WUWT.
Wait a while till the uncertainty mafia (Tillman, Gorman, Monte Carlo…) invades it.
Be patient Walter. The UAH bashing usually picks up stream 2-3 days after the UAH post appears on WUWT.
The blogosphere in general is already starting to light up though. Here is one example. There are others.
https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1708874554498560426
Take a look at Gavin’s tweets.
In Xitter, the X should be pronounced like the Greek letter.
According to the UAH sidebar, “Satellite UAH Version 6 (data updated by 3rd of the month)”
It’s already the 4th and they carried the September update report 2 days ago. Hmmn.
Holy Moley!!!
Dr. Roy can’t wiggle out of this one!
Wanna bet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So, what’s the margin of error in this number?
Christy et al. 2003 state +/- 0.20 C.
Is that at 95% confidence?
Yes…95% CI. Keep in mind that it is for older version. My own type A evaluation of uncertainty using UAH, RSS, and STAR through 2022 is +/- 0.15 C (2-sigma).
The last time we had a 1 deg c spike in such a short time was 1998. I wonder if this will also collapse to the start point the same way it did for that one.
Pretty much the argument that a cooling trend had started in 2016 is dead now. Ill admit I was wrong. That being said, I still see plenty of divergences in the data no new arctic ice min this year. 2012 still holding. The warming is still not producing hot summer days in my neck of the woods. We have the longest streak going ever of no 91 deg F days. I nervously watch the Beaufort gyre as it continues to not discharge against my predictions and I wonder why. Magnetic field? The longer this goes the more epic it will be when it does finally discharge.
Well, the anthropogenic my-neck-of-the-woods warming theory is still looking pretty iffy, Scott, but the anthropogenic global warming theory is looking pretty strong.
I agree. But I really am curious as to what’s causing this, and what’s to come after. This heat has to be coming from somewhere.
It is the Earth Energy Imbalance superimposed on the upswing of the ENSO cycle. According to CERES the EEI is currently +1.46 W/m2 and +1.97 W/m2 for 36m and 12m respectively. And the ONI is currently 0.5 and 0.2 for 5m and 4m lagged respectively.
The EEI is pure nonsense. People that believe in that also believe ice cubes can boil water.
So in other words, it’s really warm because it’s really warm. Doesn’t say much about why it’s warm. The answer is unlikely to be simplistic.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/08/14/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/
The “cause” is due to the combination of forcings from Hunga-Tonga and El Niño.
“The cause is due to the combination of forcings from Hunga Tonga and El Nio.”
Drs Spencer and Christy said in last month’s UAH report that “At this point, it appears [Hunga Tonga’s] influence will be minor, perhaps a few hundredths of degree.”
So no, this is probably not due to Hunga Tonga.
The original thoughts on H-T were that there would be radiative warming. That would, indeed, be insignificant.
The HTE involves disrupting the Polar Vortex, which as can be seen in the UAH data, is very significant.
Trol-ling guy Clint R is once more kidding us with his HTE syndrome.
I repeat for him:
Here is a path in the atmospheric forest where he can walk and look for these rare, amazing HTE flowers:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZU3ylEfpQjZ-o4Gz1NKDxa0nGdYKnFEd/view
Nothing real to see wrt HTE, Clint R.
Neither in LS let alone in LT.
Bindi, you don’t have a very good grasp of science. You can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
In my neck of the woods I would have loved some global warming this spring/summer but it has been a very wet season with what feels to me like the coolest summer in over a decade
According to the Irish Met Office, Summer 2023 provisionally 5th warmest ever, and 2nd warmest in the last decade.
Scott R
” The last time we had a 1 deg c spike in such a short time was 1998. ”
Unlike Water I don’t agree because I have all the data on disk.
Here is the descending sort of UAH LT’s anomaly series wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
2023 9 0.90
2016 2 0.70
2023 8 0.69
2023 7 0.64
2016 3 0.64
1998 4 0.62
2016 4 0.61
2020 2 0.60
1998 5 0.52
1998 2 0.49
Of course you would be right if we still had the old reference period (1981-2010). The difference for the September months being 0.17 C, that would then give 1.07 C above the baseline.
*
” Pretty much the argument that a cooling trend had started in 2016 is dead now. Ill admit I was wrong. ”
Nice. Very few people admit being wrong on this blog. You reveal the difference between fair skep-ticism and pseudo-skep-tical attitudes.
*
” That being said, I still see plenty of divergences in the data no new arctic ice min this year. 2012 still holding. ”
Correct. But you’re just a little impatient.
Please understand that we just escaped from the 4th strongest La Nina since measurement begin in 1871.
Look at the daily Arctic sea ice extent picture (2023, Sep 30):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
and compare there the black line to the green (2022) vs. red (2021) lines.
*
” We have the longest streak going ever of no 91 deg F days. ”
Didn’t you tell that all the time? Are you the one who lives in Michigan?
Northern CONUS is cooling since years, Scott R.
Do you really think that ‘what is good for Uncle Sam is good for the Globe’ ?
Europe is warming.
Maybe you don’t believe what this chart below shows?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view
Then… do the same job yourself.
Bindidon,
A lot of people have suggested that CONUS is an outlier country from the overall global trend. Tom Abbott from WUWT suggests the opposite using older data. Do you have surface data for Europe going back to the 1800’s? And is it as accurate as can be in your view?
Tom Abbott also isn’t telling you that his charts are contaminated with the time-of-observation bias, instrument package change bias, station relocation bias, etc.
He also doesn’t tell you that the net effect of all adjustments to correct for these bias (and others) actually lowers the overall global warming trend relative to the raw data.
It does seem that some skeptics throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Understandable as there was no conus warming until they started using divining rods to estimate the TOB and other adjustments since the network was never originally designed to measure climate temperature and they neglected to document the effects of such changes or interview surviving station managers.
Now if they had done that before AGW became a political issue perhaps we could attribute a high level of credibility to the results. With disinformation campaigns arising from Russia and China on a whole plethora of political/economic issues along with their associated countries. Seems the best use of the surface stations is to tell local residents what the weather is. . .as they were originally designed to do.
Walter
” Do you have surface data for Europe going back to the 1800s? ”
Makes as much sense as looking for sea level measuring tide gauges with data starting around 1800: there are only a few of them, and all are located in Europe, the US and Australia.
That’s why all people collecting measurement data start with ~ 1900.
*
Abbott is a manipulator who shows old graphs made out few stations with old processing techniques.
Bindidon what I’m saying is the only proxy I see for a 1 deg C spike in the UAH in less than a year is 1998. I predict a surprising collapse will follow this in the same way that happened in 1998. We will not stay at these temperatures.
Yes I live in Michigan, which is a good proxy for the north Atlantic. We had a cool summer for sure. Couldn’t get above 90. This is highly unusual for us. It HAS happened before, so you can’t really say that increase in GHG caused it to get colder here… otherwise how do you explain it happening in the past? Clearly a cycle. We had 39 days at 90 or above in 1988. Since then, we haven’t come close to that. Why? I wonder how much of the warming trend is influenced by heat island. Perhaps Dr Spencer should make a detrended UAH that adjusts the temp down for the ever-expanding heat island.
Anyways… congrats my infamous climate change sparring partner on being right about the trend still being your friend. Perhaps this is the next peak we will argue about for the next 7 -12 years. lol
Glad to hear someone else mention the Beaufort gyre. The temperature spike is odd considering the lower sunspot numbers.
Still, warmer allows us to feed more people. Russia had a boost in wheat production that offsets much of Ukraine’s deficit.
Thanks for all the work.
”Pretty much the argument that a cooling trend had started in 2016 is dead now. ”
Looking at icecore data there is a regular multi-centennial variation of about a mean amplitude of 2c. Since its only 150 years since the end of the LIA we could be in for a couple hundred years more of a natural warming phase and of course there is the ~1C ENSO cycle on top of that.
A lot of science needs to be done to begin to get a handle on predicting anything except to expect those shifts seen regularly in the longterm data.
“The last time we had a 1 deg c spike in such a short time was 1998. I wonder if this will also collapse to the start point the same way it did for that one.”
1998 was indeed a spike in the satellite record which exaggerates ENSO compared to the surface instruments. But whether UAH or GISTEMP, the trend is steady up.
1998 was the first time the UAH smoothed line rose above the current baseline in 20 years of measurements. The next 16 years, the line spent about half the time over the baseline. In the last nine years it hasn’t dropped below that baseline at all and we are looking at the third time in eight years that the 1998 spike will be exceeded. In 20 years, the peak of the 1998 spike will be the new baseline.
The corresponding 4 and 5 month lagged ONI values are 0.5 and 0.2. We are only just now seeing the El Nino response. I would not eliminate the possibility of a value exceeding 1.0 C in the next 12 months.
More interesting question is whether we will see 1.5 degree anomaly within next 6 months.
It is unlikely.
More unlikely than the anomalies of the couple of previous months? I would guess the peak value hits somewhere between 1.3-1.5 Celsius, but that’s just a guess. We’ll see.
I certainly wouldn’t eliminate it as a possibility. But 1.5 C would require another 0.6 C bump. That’s a pretty big change. I will say that greater than 1.0 C or maybe even greater than 1.1 C would not be an unreasonable expectation at this point. If the same 0.45 C bump from the previous record were to occur in February then that takes us to 1.16 C.
I will say that greater than 1.0 C or maybe even greater than 1.1 C would not be an unreasonable expectation at this point.
The scale for the monthly chart had been from -0.7 to 0.9 C. Now it goes up to 1.1 C. Would be interesting if it had to get bumped up again.
Every other large spike due to an El Nino has occurred in the first 3 months of the year. Current ENSO values are well below those in 1997/8 2015/16 etc. Therefore I’m convinced this spike is mostly due to Hunga Tonga and the amount of water vapour it injected into the stratosphere. Since accurate records started this is the first major subsea volcanic eruption, and hence the first one to inject huge amounts of water vapour into the stratosphere. Therefore there’s nothing to compare it with, so it’s hard to know if the warming has peaked or how long these very high anomalies will last for. I wouldn’t bet against the temperature anomaly going 0.4-0.5 degrees higher over the next 6 months. The key question is when and how quickly they’ll start to decrease.
What is the mechanism by which increased water vapour in the stratosphere warms the surface?
Damn.
The 0.90 C value for 2023/09 breaks the all time record of 0.71 C set in 2016/02 by 0.19 C and breaks the September record of 0.45 C set in 2019/09.
The Monckton Pause reduces to 101 months on this update and is now on the verge of a quick collapse. If the next month comes in at 1.08 C or next 2 months at 0.68 C or next 3 months at 0.54 C then the pause ends entirely. Given that the El Nino response has only just started I would not eliminate the possibility that the Monckton Pause ends this by the end of the year.
Also of note is that the current annual record is 0.39 C set in 2016. If the last 3 months of 2023 average only 0.45 C then it will be a new record. My earlier prediction that 2023 would not likely exceed 2016 isn’t looking good.
I mean to post this below.
I think 2024 will be even warmer.
That is definitely a possibility.
I think 2023 will be hard to beat.
More leftist propaganda. The UAH data is 40 years old. So, an all-time record of 40 years.
I have not seen anything from Dr. Spencer or Dr. Christy that leads me to believe that they are leftists.
No, you describing it as an all-time high is propaganda. It is a 40-year UAH high. In the Grand Scheme, an insignificant blip.
I’m describing it as an all-time because it is an all-time. There is literally no other month in their dataset that is higher than 2023/09. And it’s their dataset. It’s not my fault that it only goes back to 1978/12. If you think the 0.90 C record is somehow leftist propaganda then take that up with Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy.
Yes, it is an all-time high in the UAH dataset. That is correct. That isn’t what you said. 40 years is one hundred millionth of the Earth’s history.
This is what I said.
“The 0.90 C value for 2023/09 breaks the all time record of 0.71 C set in 2016/02 by 0.19 C and breaks the September record of 0.45 C set in 2019/09.”
Obviously this in reference to UAH. I’m posting on Dr. Spencer’s blog and citing actual UAH values.
I’ll repeat again…if you think any part of this leftists or even political then take it up with Dr. Spencer. I’m not going to be baited into any further political discussion.
The HTE can clearly be seen in the UAH graph.
Yet, the cult ignores it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
You are lying, as usual.
Nothing in UAH’s LS and LT records show anything near to any HTE effect:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZU3ylEfpQjZ-o4Gz1NKDxa0nGdYKnFEd/view
Bindi, when your cult says I’m lying, it increases my credibility.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
Graphic needs updating — a good job for you….
Try to get indicted, say for all your frauds. It will enhance your credibility even more.
Who posts a bar chart lacking text explaing what the bars mean should refrain from posting on a science blog.
Bindidon you are showing the wrong effect.
The effect we are looking for comes a few years after a major eruption after the aerosols have combined with ozone and destroyed the ozone. The UN Environmental Program claims saving the ozone forestalled a half degree of surface warming not stratospheric warming.
So now we have three different “H-T effect” posited:
(1) water vapour
(2) polar vortex
(3) ozone
It’s a real smorgasbord.
There’s a fourth one also, Ant.
(4) Aerosols
See if you can arrange all four in order of ability to cool. This is a good learning exercise.
Yes aerosols. The institutions being heavily funded to study AGW want5 to call aerosols cooling. But near as I can tell we really don’t know if they are warming or cooling or neither. . . and of course the H2SO4 aerosol destroys ozone which results in warming without any dispute. Even the UN Environmental Program proclaims this as fact.
“we really don’t know if (aerosols) are warming or cooling or neither”
Bill, you guessed correctly in the satellite era! Aerosols warming atm. near surface and equally cooling atm. in upper regions trends for 2002/09-2020/03 measured out either way with 95% confidence: 0.01 +/- 0.04 W/m^2/decade
And you believe CAGW statistical confidence levels?
bdgwx says:
The Monckton Pause reduces to 101 months on this update and is now on the verge of a quick collapse. If the next month comes in at 1.08 C or next 2 months at 0.68 C or next 3 months at 0.54 C then the pause ends entirely. Given that the El Nino response has only just started I would not eliminate the possibility that the Monckton Pause ends this by the end of the year.
——————–
Not technically correct. We will only know if a climate pause ended after it has ended for a climate length period of time. One cannot speak of climate in terms of temporary non-climate excursions. If you accept that you can then one can also say that global warming ended about a decade ago and then restarted without and reduction of CO2.
This is a common rule even for short term events like recessions have to be a certain length then they stop until another starts. the last time in terms of climate length periods that global warming stopped was in 1944 and we didn’t really know it for a almost a couple of decades. . .even though CO2 kept increasing.
“We will only know if a climate pause ended after it has ended for a climate length period of time.”
Presumably this applies equally to the start of pauses. It cannot be said to have started until it has been ongoing for a climate length period of time.
So what is a “climate length period of time” for global temperatures, Bill? Based on the ECS lag-time? Say, 30 years? Or less? Or more?
If I look at the noise in the ice core data that hasn’t been accounted for it looks like something on the order of 4 or 500 hundred years.
The need to come up with a far longer period of time came about not that long ago when Trenberth was calling it a travesty. Thats when they started recording the on-going imbalance in his budgets. . .standing at about .9c which for Trenberth would have been at least about 30 years of banked but unrealized warming. My recollection of its justification was deep ocean heat exchange. Thats an issue they didn’t want to open as the temperature of the deep ocean remains unknown as a global mean.
Wow. Was expecting this to be a record September, and possibly edge out the record anomaly – but this is pretty insane.
This is 0.45C warmer than the previous warmest September set in 2019, and is 0.63C warmer than September 1998.
Of the 10 warmest Septembers, 6 have occurred in the last 8 years.
1 2023 0.90
2 2019 0.45
3 2020 0.41
4 2017 0.40
5 2016 0.30
6 1998 0.27
7 2021 0.26
8 2022 0.25
9 2010 0.19
10 2009 0.10
For the first 9 months of 2023 the average anomaly is 0.38C. This is only 0.01C below the all time annual record of 2016. The next 3 months need to average around 0.43C for 2023 to be warmer than 2016, which would be quite remarkable given how cold the first few months were.
Not “cold”. Still above the 1981-2010 average.
“With the approaching El Nino superimposed upon a long-term warming trend”
Compare to September 2015, the same month in the last major El Nino cycle: The anomaly ~ 0.1 C.
This September it is 0.9 C.
Quite strange indeed.
I was half expecting something like this, though waveringly. Even though UAH is generally below the land-based record, I have noticed that for the absolute warmest months the satellite record tends to outstrip the surface record (when adjusted to the same baseline).
The average for the first 9 months of 2023 is now +0.378.
The average for 2016 was 0.389.
We need to average +0.43 for Oct-Dec to beat the annual record.
Remembering that the ENSO season is actually considered to be July-June:
First three months of 2023-24: +0.74
First three months of 2015-16: +0.08
The 0.90 C value for 2023/09 breaks the all time record of 0.71 C set in 2016/02 by 0.19 C and breaks the September record of 0.45 C set in 2019/09.
The Monckton Pause reduces to 101 months on this update and is now on the verge of a quick collapse. If the next month comes in at 1.08 C or next 2 months at 0.68 C or next 3 months at 0.54 C then the pause ends entirely. Given that the El Nino response has only just started I would not eliminate the possibility that the Monckton Pause ends this by the end of the year.
Also of note is that the current annual record is 0.391 C set in 2016. If the last 3 months of 2023 average only 0.45 C then it will be a new record if rounding to 2 decimal places. My earlier prediction that 2023 would not likely exceed 2016 isn’t looking good.
Doh. I didn’t mean to reply to you directly.
So, here you go again, this time with your reference to the Monkton Pause. What do you think this indicates?
The Monckton pause could end as soon as this year.
Which we all know is a statistically pointless thing.
I see the Pause That Regresses.
Dr Spencer – your links to the data are not working.
Working now.
No September data though.
Yeah. It usually takes 1-2 weeks for the data files to update.
Dr. Spencer, I miss the spread sheet, usually at the top, showing results by geographical regions. Any chance of restoring it?
Thanks mucho.
I’ll add the table of monthly values when I get a chance.
Dr. Spencer (Roy),
How does your USA data compare to the USCRN data from 2005?
Can you show a graph of that? Would be interesting.
Thanks,
Well, that was decisive.
Dr. Spencer,
Tried to post this the other day but it did not show up.
Can you show a graph that compares the UAH data for continental USA to the USCRN data since 2005?
Thanks!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1541027
“Until the PV catches up, we will see higher UAH Global anomalies. Expect September to be above 0.70C. 0.80C???
History in the making, and we get to witness it!”
Clint R guessed the closest- and the second time in a row.
Rather than just measure global air temperature- the satellite measure should be tool for doing climate science- what is causing spikes in temperature {up or down}?
Yes gb, the HTE became evident months ago.
Thanks for mentioning it.
No it didn’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542077
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
You can post anonymous graphs as long as you want, tro-ll Clint R:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542088
Now Bindi can’t understand the simple bar chart. Yet he hangs around UAH data constantly.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint,
Blinny is a paid propagandist, as are most leftists who post on this site. They know or care nothing about science.
Tee hee hee, that must be the explanation.
Cuz they can’t possibly be posting facts!
Maybe Stephen can explain Clint’s mysterious chart. What it is, and what is its purpose?
Anybody couldve guessed based on the various daily reanalysis and OISST observations available through September.
Anybody speculating about the mechanism but claiming they KNOW what the mechanism is, aint doing science.
Somebody should do a correlation study for the effects of volcanoes on ozone since we know from the UN Environmental Program that ozone loss affects surface temperatures.
Currently ozone is being depleted in the stratosphere with this September hitting a decadal low.
Here are comparisons of the ozone hole in last temp record/El Nino combinations.
September 1997 https://tinyurl.com/bddz6v5t
September 2015 https://tinyurl.com/ydv5ud84
September 2023 https://tinyurl.com/9z3hfufh
Like this?
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/volcanoes-and-climate/
Thats a start but it is in dire need of expansion and updating.
Also there seems to be a disconnect on the actual stratospheric processes. Author claims sulphuric acid is the mechanism of cooling but significantly it may mostly be due to fine ash.
Sulphur dioxide is also a culprit that does convert to sulphuric acid after finding some of the rare water in the stratosphere to kick off the conversion.
Then the sulphuric acid performs like CFCs in destroying ozone a process that according to the chart you posted created maximum ozone depletion 2 years after the Pinatubo eruption. Since we seem to be in a time of high volcanic activity it certainly seems it may well be a major contributor to ozone depletion and global warming.
Of course thats not any kind of news that the institutions we currently fund to study all this stuff wants to hear anything about.
Bill, what is the mechanism by which ozone loss affects surface temperature?
Ozone captures UV light way up in the atmosphere, thus it doesn’t reach the ground. Volcanoes spew SO2 into stratosphere where it blocks sunlight and then when it interacts with water up there it becomes sulphuric acid which interacts with and destroys ozone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5206531/#:~:text=Sulfuric%20acid%2C%20H2SO,O5%20to%20HNO3.
”Sulfuric acid, H2SO4, can accelerate ozone loss by forming aqueous aerosol that catalyzes reactions such as HCl + ClONO2 → Cl2 + HNO3, shifting halogens from reservoir species to reactive compounds and altering the NOx budget via hydrolysis of N2O5 to HNO3. Previous studies found that injection of sufficient SO2 or particulate sulfate to produce −2 W⋅m−2 of radiative forcinga useful benchmark for SRMreduced average column ozone by 1 to 13%”
About 10% of sunlight is Ultraviolet and the ozone absorbs about 99% of uvc, 90% of uvb, and 50% of uva. what reaches the surface is about 95% uva and 5% uvb.
this has huge surface warming implications as about 26.8 watts of the uvb and uvc is received by the moon.
https://tinyurl.com/mr3uvhm6
ozone column has fluctuated according to the link by PhilJ looks to be maybe as much as 5watts/m2. However it does appear that ENSO is equally as much fluctuation.
Certainly it rates a detailed and up to date analysis as to how much of recent warming since 1980 could be attributed to the two climate influences.
Ok.
Total global ozone has been flat or recovering since the mid 1990s.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/6843/2022/
So it can’t be responsible for any warming trend since then.
One would no doubt be making a huge mistake to attribute 100% of climate change to one or two processes. Seems likely there are numerous drivers of climate.
I mean we see 1C mean global excursions just from ENSO events. We need to see how HTE plays out. The peak warming may well occur in the next few months. Right now the ozone hole appears about as big as it was in 2000. There seems to be a real paucity of up to date data available on global ozone which really seems odd after the UN Environmental Program recently proclaimed they had saved us from .5C additional global warming via the Montreal Protocol.
“One would no doubt be making a huge mistake to attribute 100% of climate change to one or two processes.”
Of course.
And its certainly not adequate to just guess what the various processes are either. there is so much we don’t understand.
barry says:
”Total global ozone has been flat or recovering since the mid 1990s. So it cant be responsible for any warming trend since then.”
thats not true Barry. When I started studying this area back around 2006 the mainstream theory was that the delay to warming to completely occur after a perturbation was 7 to 10 years which was the time it takes for the mixing portion of the ocean to mix.
Since then with the pause and all now there is this semi-permanent imbalance and a lot of discussion about uncertainties about deep ocean turnover, which can take hundreds of years. . .if not longer.
Which obviously would never be realized as it would only take about about 30 years to remove half the co2 increases of the last 150 years. But they don’t want to do that, they just want to make sure that Leonardo DiCaprio can continue to cruise his yacht in the Mediterranean and 99% of the masses can live without energy. . .which is the inevitable outcome of austerity measures taken all the way.
“When I started studying this area back around 2006 the mainstream theory was that the delay to warming to completely occur after a perturbation was 7 to 10 years which was the time it takes for the mixing portion of the ocean to mix.”
Either your education or your memory is deficient.
The response to perturbation starts fairly immediately – water vapour response is 10 days, for example. The lag refers to the time it takes for most of the response to the perturbation to occur, which is several decades based on oceanic thermal lag (25-50yrs).
This was the mainstream view in 2005.
Having cleared that up, and remembering that we’re talking about direct solar radiation being the perturbation, there has been little change in global ozone since 1995 while the Earth has warmed. We can strike that as the cause.
You opined just above that we need a rapid enquiry into the effect of volcanoes on ozone depletion, implying that the HT eruption might be responsible for the current jump in temps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542268
Apparently you forgot about your 7-year lag?
You mean via the 3rd grader model things start up immediately. Yeah I got that. But the 3rd grader model doesn’t work.
And another model has yet to have been offered other than a mathematical model that doesn’t have an reference to a physical experiment or model as to the specific physics that causes ”forcing”.
Further its obvious that’s not the case for the warming the UN recognizes as arising from ozone variation.
We can see from the ozone graphics that peak ozone depletion from Pinatubo occurred about 2 to 3 years after the eruption.
And thats just the beginning.
Over 90% of solar radiation is absorbed by water and that UV radiation extends deeper into the ocean than longer frequency radiation. 90% of UV is absorbed somewhere before 50 to 70 meters but ocean mixing is very slow at depth. the 7 to 10 year figure dealt with the time to warm the ocean mixing zone by surface IR radiation.
Thus for ozone the full effect may not be felt for a decade or more. That is lot different than an infrared model where 90% is absorbed within a few millimeters.
But none of that goes to the point I was making. Since the year 2000 science in the infrared model began recognizing about .6C being in the so called bank (.2c direct delayed warming times 3 for feedbacks). But feedbacks in the ocean would be expected to be greater than 3, perhaps 4 as water makes up most of the feedbacks in the ecowarrior models. So perhaps about 1.2C is being delayed. For some reason the public is treated like a mushroom farm and details are really hard to obtain.
The UN hasn’t provided a model for its claim of .5C warming savings either. So its impossible to know if they considered feedbacks. Maybe if they were all on the same page say they saved 2c warming. but there is no way to tell.
I realize that for the ecowarrior elitists all this is like herding cats and its difficult to keep everybody on message.
You said you knew the “mainstream” view of the lag to input in the climate system, and you said 7 years. That’s just not the case, not in 2006, not now.
Now you’re trying to argue that the mainstream view is wrong. You can’t keep your head straight on what you’re saying.
Which is why you ‘forgot’ about your vaunted 7-year lag from perturbation from feedback starting when implying the HT explosion may have caused recent warm temps from ozone depletion.
You’re all over the place, Bill. So keen to be right you can’t be consistent.
Barry I said: the delay to warming to ”completely occur” after a perturbation was 7 to 10 years. I didn’t say it took 7 to 10 years to start. Perhaps I should have said ECS instead maybe that wouldn’t have confused you.
And the water has to actually warm before you get full impact.
You are wrong that it starts immediately as the ocean is not a still place. Mixing is happens to a few feet during a typical day. The quick mixing depth is approximately the swell height. And obviously that varies from day to day and even year to year.
Heat absorbed (not from cold objects obviously though) will begin the warming. But we are talking very small fractions of a watt/m2 over the course of one day and you will find few days at sea where the swells aren’t an average of 4 feet. So that tiny fraction of a watt has to warm more than a cubic meter of water. Have you ever tried to heat a cubic meter of water?
But so far nobody has described how a cold object will warm the water in the first place dude! So the discussion is only theoretical and in regards to a purely theoretically incomplete model.
“Perhaps I should have said ECS instead maybe that wouldn’t have confused you.”
I knew you were talking about ECS, and the lagged response to that estimate is 30-40 years. Not 7.
I see that you meant full response over 7 years. Ok. But that was definitely not what you described as the “mainstream view” in 2006.
But even if you were right, how do you square that with what you wrote?
“We need to see how HTE plays out. The peak warming may well occur in the next few months. Right now the ozone hole appears about as big as it was in 2000.”
HTE was last year, not 7 years ago. What has happened to your 7-year lag in this comment?
it was 7-10 years in 2007. since subsequently the scientists determined it must be a lot longer because co2 was not producing enough warming to satisfy them.
and that delay is an ocean effect, not a land effect.
in the previous two record months the land perturbation has been about 2.6 to 1 over the ocean perturbation. this one is 4 to 1 meaning this is a relatively high frequency. enso is likely a cloud killer that filters low frequency light and this event is an ozone killer. you can see the ozone hole getting a lot worse. to my eye its worse than in 2000 which was the worst on record.
Solar wind
speed: 388.7 km/sec
density: 1.30 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Oct 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 136
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.52×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
48-hr change: +1.5%
Weekly Highlights and 27-Day Forecast
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
02 October – 28 October 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low with a chance for M-class flare
activity throughout the period.
…”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar Cycle Progression
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar wind
speed: 435.2 km/sec
density: 2.65 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.43×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.1% Low
I got tropical storm, Lidia forecasted to become hurricane:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Tropical storm Lidia is no longer forecasted to become a hurricane.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Spot numbers are 3447 thru 3455. Nine spots.
Just the number 3447 can be seen or spot got to farside.
And 3448 is 2+ days from going to farside.
But it seem 3448 could disappear before reaching farside {it’s been slowing shrinking, now is small}.
But not much growth or fading going on within last day.
3454 and 3455 are newest and just came farside and small it terms disappearing or growing bigger, I think they both will grow a bit.
And I don’t see any spot coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 444.5 km/sec
density: 8.99 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 151
“The magnetic field of sunspot AR3450 has decayed since yesterday. It no longer poses a significant threat for strong solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.30×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
4351 and 4352 are biggest and most of sunspot number, they seem to have chance fading a bit {say 50% chance} otherwise don’t see coming and spots aren’t going to farside. Yesterday was 150, today 151, so about 150 or less seems likely in 24 hours.
I am quite interested in what Oct 6, has.
I will mention that, https://www.spaceweather.com/
has window at top right, which allows one look at past days.
And I think I am getting better at my guesses.
My guesses are not connected to Valentina Zharkova other than I using
her theory as general road map.
Which doesn’t allow guessing solar activity in the next week or even a month time periods.
Now, spot 4356, appeared odd to me- or does look like other fast growing spots which “appear” on nearside. So curious about what look like on 6th. What significant to me is -2.2% neutron counts. And I will note again the thermosphere has been rapidly getting closer to 19.00.
So I have guessing when it goes past 19 and guessing about spotless day happening within a week or two.
Or I guess there was good chance for a spotless day {during solar Max- which is rare. And it seems possible within week, but it could “blow up” as guess- though spot 4356 will going farside in about 4 day and it’s mostly a guess starting in about 4 days. Or spot existing or spot which will grow or appear on other half of sun, which allows spotless day or not. And furthest spot was 3457, which seems likely to fade.
Of course possible 6th erupts into 200+ sunspot number {or does it on 7th, 8th, etc}. Though mostly likely bounce around like has been for months and at best drops to say around a 60 sunspot day.
Anyhow my guess was reasonable chance in first 2 weeks of Oct and what happen in next couple day- is related to that guess.
Solar wind
speed: 394.9 km/sec
density: 4.11 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.30×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
It appears the picture of sun hasn’t changed in last
day. So spots might came from farside or more spots
grew on nearside, but 3448 should be leaving to the farside
side.
It seems many believe old spots {old big and active spots} are coming in next few days as they return to nearside.
And haven’t seen this happen, it appears large spots start as small spots on nearside and grow on nearside- and fade on nearside.
So, at some point I will get a update picture of sun and see what happened.
So, they updated the picture of sun.
They added number spot to the 3451 and 3452 “mass of sunspots”, and number is 3458. And small spot came from farside, numbered 3457.
So tomorrow the 3448 “could leave nearside” but it’s still here.
Now, what about this region 3451, 3452, and 3458. It has roughly added 3 to 4 spots and biggest spot has not changed much.
It seems likely in coming days, it going to change more, but couldn’t
give a guess of how.
But in terms all other spots, other than 3457 which thought might fade, and it didn’t, it grew little bit.
3459 is four small spots, which appear to me, has tendency to grow bigger.
So 3457 and 3459 puts dent in guess of spotless day within a week. And other dent is everyone seems to guess the old big spots are coming to nearside. So, spotless in first 2 weeks Oct, seems more unlikely:
Solar wind
speed: 413.2 km/sec
density: 3.46 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
Well did get the Thermosphere below 19.00×10^10 W but faster than
I guesed the second time, it would. But we will be graze by some sun flare, soon
Though maybe the grazing already occurred- and lowered it somehow.
Anyways in terms guessing when get spotless day, we probably more likely in second half of Oct and before this the Moon is suppose to block our sun for a bit-
that should fun
That’s an impressive jump in the anomaly… and a good starting point for the next Monckton Pause.
This is certainly a very dramatic result. I think it proves that the current state of climate science is severely limited. Humans do not have the ability to understand let alone model all of the various dynamics in the atmosphere. This is just one more data point that does not have a definitive explanation. As many have commented for the last two months, next month will be really interesting.
tim…the thing to keep in mind is that we are still talking a fraction of a degree change per month.
“Humans do not have the ability to understand let alone model all of the various dynamics in the atmosphere.”
Uhhhh…??
How is the model for predicting cloud behavior working for you Nate? Thunderstorm frequency and intensity? Ocean current cycles? Need I go on?
It is presumptuous to say ‘humans do not have the ability’.
Clearly we already understand all the dynamics well enough to successfully predict the weather, everywhere on Earth for ~ 10 days.
Nate, I admire your persistence to maintain the narrative, but you are way off on this one. Was there a three-day weather forecast that NYC was going to be flooded by record rainfall? Did they even predict it that morning?
Individually, most of the processes in the atmosphere and things such as ocean effects are understood. How they work in detail, and how they work in combination with each other, is a huge unknown. The climate models do not form a “consensus” despite the reliance on that word consensus in the narrative.
There are boundaries and trends such as jet stream movement and weather fronts that are well understood and predictable for a few days or maybe even a week, but chaos rules the weather within those boundaries. Fluid mechanics can predict turbulence, but it is still a random process. Climate involves many more uncertainties than that, and some unknowns. On topic, there is nothing to explain the current surge in temperature, and no way to know how long it will last or what will happen a year from now. Stay tuned!
> Was there a three-day weather forecast
What’s the operative word there, Tim?
“humans do not have the ability”
I can imagine someone saying this about weather prediction in the 1960’s.
“How they work in detail, and how they work in combination with each other, is a huge unknown.”
I don’t know where you get such an opinion from? Obviously to successfully predict the weather worldwide, we certainly do need to understand how all the processes work together.
” but chaos rules the weather within those boundaries. Fluid mechanics can predict turbulence, but it is still a random process. Climate involves many more uncertainties than that, and some unknowns.:
Many here push this same misleading narrative.
Chaos indeed rules weather, and thus after 10 days weather prediction becomes difficult.
But predicting global warming, or seasonal hemispheric warming, are different problems, not limited in the same way by chaos.
My example is a pot of water put on the stove to heat up. Its warming can easily be modeled and predicted, and yet inside the pot there will be lots of localized chaos that is unpredictable.
“On topic, there is nothing to explain the current surge in temperature, and no way to know how long it will last or what will happen a year from now.”
A warming blip with no ready made consensus explanation? And so what? There is no reason to assume it will remain a mystery forever.
And there are already some proposed explanations (e.g. aerosol reductions).
You are starting to sound a bit like Swenson or Bill, constantly moaning that science doesnt know anything at all.
Nate, I have been fair and honest with you. For that effort, I get a huge insult on top of a rather silly strawman. If that really is your craft, then so be it. I thought you were smart enough to understand the difference between basic science and system complexity, but I may be wrong. You made the comment, so now you are stuck with it.
Comparing me to other people you don’t like is a losing argument. It does not upset me, and has zero effect on my sense of what things I understand such as the basic science, and what things remain unsolved such as the effect of clouds and thunderstorm dynamics. They can forecast when thunderstorms are likely to occur, but not precisely how strong. They can predict the path of hurricanes with remarkable accuracy, but predicting hurricane strength as it moves is more difficult.
If you are going to use the pan of water to describe the atmosphere, then I have to point out that you have fallen into the narrative of many who frequent this site (no names), who believe that conduction and convection are the primary heat transfer processes in the atmosphere.
Nate, you stepped in it. Time to clean your shoes, and have fun with your argument about that pan of water.
“that effort, I get a huge insult”
Really? Where was that?
Lots from your end.
Nate, you have the compliments when I correctly explain the greenhouse effect (radiant heat transfer effect) because it works for your narrative, but then I get this when I also correctly expose some of the weaknesses in the narrative:
“that effort, I get a huge insult
Really? Where was that?”
This is more than an insult, it is an attempt to downplay my very valid criticism of your claim that climate science has all of the answers.
“You are starting to sound a bit like Swenson or Bill, constantly moaning that science doesnt know anything at all.”
Do you still want to explain what is going on with that pot of water that explains climate science?
Perhaps you didnt mean it to sound so arrogant, but when you say stuff like this
“humans do not have the ability”
It sounds to me VERY MUCH like stuff Swenson says all the time when he declares that science doesnt know this or that or really anything.
People here say, well weather cannot be predicted more than 2 weeks, because of chaos, so how can we possibly predict climate years from now.
“Nate, you stepped in it. Time to clean your shoes, and have fun with your argument about that pan of water.”
The pot of water is a real world example clearly illustrating why that is naive. Some Earth variables are strongly affected by chaos, such as local weather, but others will not be.
And I notice that you belittled it without actually rebutting it.
“”you have fallen into the narrative of many who frequent this site (no names), who believe that conduction and convection are the primary heat transfer processes in the atmosphere.”
Bizarre. Where have I ever said any such thing?
Nate says:
”You are starting to sound a bit like Swenson or Bill, constantly moaning that science doesnt know anything at all.”
Nate is definitely the guy that builds strawmen at the drop of a hat to make a really ignorant point.
How about Nate you give a reference to where anybody in here actually said anything to close to your bogus claim. Until then you will be seen as just another liar. Namely a liar willing to make up any lie at all to aid you in promoting your political agenda.
Never mind, Bill. Forget I mentioned it, just like you forget all your posts. I have no interest in another endless pointless tit for tat with you.
Yep I guess you lose all those so you want to pick on somebody else. I get it.
Sure Bill, think whatever you want.
Yes indeed Nate you are a liar.
You make up strawmen and when called on it you dodge.
Bill, good to air out your feelings toward me. Feel better now?
So far Nate you haven’t provided a defense of your made-up strawman. Its not a matter of my feelings, its a matter of you being a liar.
Ok Bill, now kindly go and bait somebody who cares.
Nate sit and spin on your thumb. You are one baiting people with your made up strawmen.
And you brought me into it with your lies. . .again.
So live with it.
Bill, are you here to debate the science? Or are you just here on a grievance parade, endlessly spewing ad-homs at people you disagree with?
It is your choice, but if the latter, than no one will engage with you anymore.
Nate I am here to talk science and not argue with a liar. And that’s not an ad hom until you prove a basis for the strawman you used to avoid talking or debating science above.
Either do that or wear the mantle.
Evidently you dont want to discuss science with me.
building phony strawmen isn’t science nate.
Clearly, continuing your grievance parade is your priority.
nate continues his lies and ad hominem attacks. he never had any interest in science. he just thinks of himself in being in on the grift.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545399
HumansDeniers do not have the ability to understand let alone model all of the various dynamics in the atmosphere.I fixed it for you.
You got something right, Ark!
Your cult of science-deniers can’t understand anything about the issues here. You fervently cling to your false religion that involves ice cubes boiling water, passenger jets flying backward, and “square orbits”!!!
Do you ever contribute anything, or just make inane comments?
Yes. You?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
A powerful typhoon reaching the stratosphere is approaching Taiwan.
Ah, Oh!
KOINU is expected to weaken as it approaches the southern tip of Taiwan:
https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/jtwc.html
https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/products/wp1423.gif
Winter will be warm in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/R0r4w6C/gfs-npole-sat-t2min-d1-1.png
WHAT?? Will someone pinch me please.
Ha, me too. The first time I’ve seen that person use the word “warm”!
Probably predicted cold not so long ago, too…
He claimed earlier in the year that an El Nino was impossible this year.
And this is the first year in eight that he hasn’t predicted La Nina.
Usually El Nino brings record snow and cold to Vancouver Island.
1998 the snow in the mountains didn’t melt till end September.
Wet and cold.
It will be interesting to obtain next week the September data for RATPC’s 13 pressure levels, and to compare them to the surface stations, as well as UAH’s LT and LS layers.
Ooops, I mean the RATPAC radiosondes of course.
India’s private space sector skyrockets
By Mathieu RABECHAULT
Paris (AFP) Oct 1, 2023
–When Indian entrepreneur Awais Ahmed founded his satellite startup in Bangalore in 2019, his country was still a year away from opening the space industry to the private sector.
“When we started, there was absolutely no support, no momentum,” said Ahmed, who was 21 when he founded Pixxel, a company deploying a constellation of Earth imaging satellites.
Since then, the private space sector has taken off in India, joining a rapidly growing global market.
There are now 190 Indian space start-ups, twice as many as a year earlier, with private investments jumping by 77 percent between 2021 and 2022, according to Deloitte consultancy.
“A lot of Indian investors were not willing to look at space technology, because it was too much of a risk earlier,” Ahmed said in an interview with AFP.
“Now you can see more and more companies raising more investment in India, and more and more companies have started coming up now,” he added.
Pixxel makes hyperspectral imaging satellites — technology that captures a wide spectrum of light to provide details that are invisible to ordinary cameras.
The company says it is on a mission to build “a health monitor for the planet”: it can track climate risks such as floods, wildfires or methane leaks.
Pixxel had initially sought to use rockets from the state-run Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
“I remember having a conversation with with someone in ISRO. We were trying to book a launch and they said, ‘Look, we don’t even have a procedure to launch an Indian satellite. But if you were a foreign company, then basically there’s a process’, which didn’t make sense when we started,” Ahmed said.
Pixxel ended up having to hire US rocket firm SpaceX to launch its first two satellites.–
…
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Indias_private_space_sector_skyrockets_999.html
Scientists prove that antimatter falls at the same rate as matter
by Cheryl Pierce
West Lafayette IN (SPX) Oct 01, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scientists_prove_that_antimatter_falls_at_the_same_rate_as_matter_999.html
“… Einstein’s theory of relativity is still being studied, applied and proven a multitude of ways today. For instance, the Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus (ALPHA) project based at CERN published in Nature today about the science of antimatter with the goal of discovering if gravity affects matter and antimatter in the same way. Spoiler alert: it does!”
–…”These experiments are incredibly difficult. ALPHA is the only experiment that has been able to measure properties of antihydrogen. Not once but many times.”–
–Record-breaking launch of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites
by Charles Briggs
Space Coast FL (SPX) Sep 30, 2023
SpaceX pushed back the launch time from the original T-0 of 6:49 p.m. EDT (2249 UTC Sep. 30) more than three hours later due to the weather condition. At 10:00 p.m. EDT (0200 UTC Sep. 30), a Falcon 9 rocket launched 22 of SpaceX’s “V2 Mini” internet satellites for its Starlink communications network from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) in Florida.
Compared to its earlier Starlink spacecraft, SpaceX’s V2 Mini satellites are more powerful. The company claims that the new satellites have increased broadband capacity and are equipped with Hall thruster electric propulsion systems, which produce more than twice as much thrust as those used on earlier models.
This marks the 70th launch for SpaceX in 2023. Starlink Group 6-19 brings the total number of launched Starlink satellites to 5,200, with more than 4,849 Starlink satellites currently in orbit.—
…
“With tonight’s mission, SpaceX has achieved one of their goals, they have now launched 10 times in September, it’s the most flights SpaceX has conducted in a single month. At the beginning of the month, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, aimed to launch 10 missions for the remaining months of 2023 and 12 launches per month in 2024.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Record_breaking_launch_of_SpaceXs_Starlink_satellites_999.html
Hmm, winter weather might make it hard- but then again, there aren’t Hurricanes.
Avoiding the weather.
So, for ocean settlements, I thought you might move a settlement to avoid the path of a hurricane.
But with rocket launches, and cheap breakwaters and cheap pipelaunchers, one could just make more of them, separated enough, to avoid weather {and/or maybe, move them}.
The Crusade Against Carbon Dioxide
https://youtu.be/v2nhssPW77I?t=2155
What has changed about the trend in CO2 over the past 1 year to explain such a rapid change in temperarure? Absolutely nothing, and I’m 100% certain temperarues will soon start to fall even though CO2 continues higher. If climate alarmists understood science, quantum mechanics, logic and common sense, they would understand that such a sharp and rapid increase in temperatures can’t be caused by CO2. That temperature spike rules out CO2 as the cause because the quanturm mechanics and trend in CO2 hasn’t changed…but the behavior of temperature has. That is how real science is done, but the alarmists will claim the record high temperarure is due to CO2. They lie.
Agreed.
The CO2 explanation is based on fraudulent science. Although UAH shows this spike for September, it has cooled off dramatically here in the Vancouver, Canada area the past 2 weeks. It’s currently 11C at 11pm local time and a few weeks ago it would still be in the 25C range this time of night.
One would think with that much warming, even though it’s still less than 1C, we’d have a warmer climate here, but we don’t. People are turning on their furnaces to mediate the sudden chill, and Autumn just began. I am not looking forward to a sudden blast of Arctic air, which could reach us in another month.
What’s causing the sudden chill? The Earth is hurtling through space at an incredible speed and due to the Earth’s tilt, the Sun is now appearing a lot further south in the sky. At it’s current angle it feels quite pleasant and not the burning flame that sent us scurrying for shelter a month ago. So, a few degrees change in incident angle makes a huge difference to us at 49.5 degrees north.
> it has cooled off dramatically here in the Vancouver, Canada area the past 2 weeks.
C’mon, Bordo.
That’s weather.
wee willy demonstrates his lack of comprehension. I just pointed out its the Earth orbit and tilt causing the cooling. No amount of CO2 will ever overcome that cooling each year.
Yea, Bordo.
The axis of Earth tilted, so Vancouver has cooled off this past few weeks.
In a month where many records of warming have been shattered, no less.
it’s the Earth orbit and tilt causing the *local* cooling
Southern hemisphere is moving toward summer. There, it’s the Earth orbit and tilt causing the *local* warming
So now let’s combine that and think globally. Global warming is global for a reason. CO2 can surely overcome global temperature variations between both seasons. Look at the graph above.
This is the usual ridiculous STRAWMAN. That all T variation needs to come from CO2.
Of course, science already knows it does not.
You still have to admit it’s hard to find CO2 as the culprit here.
CO2, like all polyatomic molecules, impedes the transmission of energy carried in the IR spectrum. Energy that would have otherwise escaped to space gets thermalized and remitted in all directions only 50% of which has an escape vector now. How could CO2 not have some influence?
bdgwx, don’t feel bad. This nonsense is believed by an entire cult.
N2 and O2 are also polyatomic molecules. But, they reflect all CO2 15μ photons back to Earth. But, as with the emitted photons from CO2, they can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. That would mean you cold boil water with ice cubes.
Jeez Clint R,
You can’t even get one correct sentence in that post.
Polyatomic molecules are made up of three or more atoms.
N2 and O2 do not reflect all 15u photons back to earth.
Photons carry energy, even 15u photons, and they add that energy to the surface of the Earth when absoxbed, thus warming it.
Go back to school, try and get your money back.
See bdgwx? The cult believes in that nonsense so much they constantly stalk me so they can insult and falsely accuse.
** “Poly” means many. A diatomic molecule is a special case of polyatomic.
** N2 and O2 reflect ALL of the 15μ photons that impact them.
** Even if low energy photons were absorbed, that does NOT mean they could raise temperature. (See the brinks-in-a-box analogy.)
bob is just another cultist that stalks me. I don’t waste time with such types that sacrifice science and reality for semantics. bob had his one shot, and he blew it.
Clint insults all of us regularly, here saying we are cult members, then whines about being the victim of insults!
Clint R,
Stop making stuff up.
Polyatomic molecules means molecules with three or more atoms, ask the next chemist you meet on the internet.
Oh snap
Impact is not one of the ways radiation interacts with matter, sorry charlie.
We are adding only radiation, not matter so your brinks in a box analogy goes with the ball on a string, in the circular file.
I don’t stalk you.
bob is just another cultist that stalks me. I don’t waste time with such types that sacrifice science and reality for semantics. bob had his one shot, and he blew it.
** N2 and O2 reflect ALL of the 15μ photons that impact them.
Oh dear, the cultist posts hymn #4
“N2 and O2 are also polyatomic molecules. But, they reflect all CO2 15μ photons back to Earth. ”
Facts and reality were OK for Clint before, but now he has clearly decided they are not for him!
“Culprit?”
The straw man argument pretends that anyone claims the recent spike in monthly global temperature anomalies is a result of CO2.
Weather is not climate. The straw man here conflates them.
CO2IsLife
” If climate alarmists understood science, quantum mechanics, logic and common sense, they would understand that such a sharp and rapid increase in temperatures cant be caused by CO2. ”
If YOU (1) would understand science AND (2) would be a honest person, you would never post such a du~mb, ignorant, irrelevant, boring stuff.
Not a single scientist worthy of the name would ever claim that ‘such a sharp and rapid increase in temperatures’ could be caused by CO2.
NOT ONE!
This is your useless, clueless, reckless strawman invention, not even worth the pixels it displays on my monitor.
CO2 is no more than one of probably a hundred of factors that affect temperature, precipitation, etc. etc. etc.
Bindy,
1) CO2 is 400ppm, true or false?
2) CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere, true or false?
3) CO2 abrorbs 15 Micron LWIR as its main contribution to climate change, true or false?
4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?
Do you honestly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy of -80 C could possibly impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules, yes or no?
Quantum mechanics and common sense rules out CO2 being the cause of any atmoshieric warming near the surface unless you can warm coffee by adding ice.
CO2isLife, although N2 and O2 are the numerically dominant earthen atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to air at current emissivity and optical depth (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively smaller amounts of certain infrared-active gases.
That’s why they are called IR-active.
Ball4, not sure I’m following your message. Yes, CO2 is not transparent to IF. It absorbs 15 micron LWIR. That is well established. Problem is, 15 mircon has an energy level attached to it. A blackbody of -80 emits 15 microns LWIR. Am I not correct in that statement? If you are saying I’m wrong, please use Spectralcalc to demonstrate where I’m wrong.
CO2isLife, as we’ve told you repeatedly blackbodies emit at all frequencies regardless of temperature. And a blackbody at 0 C emits MORE 15um radiation than one at -80 C. Burn that into your brain. And BTW…CO2 is not a blackbody emitter.
“A blackbody of -80 emits 15 microns LWIR.”
… and also theoretically would emit radiation of non-zero intensity at every other frequency, ref. Planck’s ideal law.
CO2isLife: “… unless you can warm coffee by adding ice.”
This is not an analogy for the earth & atm. system as ice is not being added to the system (ref. the water cycle). Absorbed radiation from added ice already in the system can warm hot coffee over same temperature coffee not exposed to the icy radiation, ref. that experimentally demonstrated by Dr. Spencer.
Also, if your hot coffee in contact with dry ice being replaced by same mass of water ice, the system will warm. Similar to a warmer than space atm. being added to the earthen system.
bdgwx, I don’t think you understand how ignorant your comment truly is. A black body emits a large spectum which contains a large amount of energy. CO2 emits only a small band of wavelenghs between 13 and 18 microns FAR LESS THAN A BLACK BODY WOULD EXIST. My comments about the energy of a black body of -80C OVERESTIMATES the energy CO2 gives off. CO2 couldn’t warm anything if it were a black body, and certainly can’t warm anything when it is only a small fraction of a black body.
Burn that into your brain
The level of your ignorance is almost imeasurable.
“4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?”
False.
“Do you honestly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy of -80 C could possibly impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules, yes or no?”
False premise. Energy of -80C makes no sense.
One of every 2500 molecules is CO2, and that is more than enough to make the atmosphere 100% OPAQUE @ and around 15 microns. Thus IR @ those wavelengths will be 100% abs.orbed by the atmosphere.
Nate says: False.
Really? Please use spectralcalc to prove me wrong. I trust a calculator far more than your uninformed opinion. The computer agrees with me, just what evidence do you have?
“False premise. Energy of -80C makes no sense.”
See Spectralcal Blackbody Calculator. I guess the computer and math make no sense, nor does a Planck Curve.
Every wavelength is emitted at every T according to Planck.
“molecules with the energy of -80 C” is meaningless gibberish.
You need to learn and then use real physics. Why keep ignoring optics?
By optics I refer to this:
“One of every 2500 molecules is CO2, and that is more than enough to make the atmosphere 100% OPAQUE @ and around 15 microns. Thus IR @ those wavelengths will be 100% abs.orbed by the atmosphere.”
4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?
Trivially false, as 15 microns is just a measurement, don’t be sloppy.
But 15 micron IR is associated with all blackbodies.
bobdroege says: But 15 micron IR is associated with all blackbodies.
OMG!!! You guys are making my head explode. Do you not undertand the spectrum of a CO2 molecule? It is a highly descrete band between 13 and 18 microns. It is a small fraction of a black body. This is the radiative property of CO2. If you warm 100% CO2, it will emit a spectrum associated with its kenetic energy but that has absolutly noting to do with the GHG effect. If you take a sample of a gas and warm it with or without CO2 you will get the same specrrum. That has nothing to do with CO2 and outgoing LWIR. You people are conflating issues. That is relevant is CO2’s interaction with outgoing LWIR of 13 to 18 microns. That is the issue relevant to CO2 causing global warming and climate change. You people don’t seem to understand the basics.
Yeah, CO2 as a gas does not emit like a blackbody.
So what’s your point.
Put your brain matter back in your skull.
“4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?”
Yes, but CO2 does not act as a blackbody, for the umpteenth time.
CO2isLife is referring to WDL, when he mentions -80C.
This is WAY over the head of cult members.
Yeah we know that.
But CO2 is not acting as a blackbody in the atmosphere, you should know that.
But apparently that is over your head.
OMG!!! CO2 absorbs and emits a discret band of IR between 13 and 18 microns. Yes, it is not a full black body Plank curve. The point is that CO2 emits LESS ENERGY THAN A BLACK BODY. My comment about -80C OVERSTATES the possible energy CO2 contitutes to the system. CO2 emits a small fraction of a black body. WHat is so hard to understand about that? My comments about CO2 are OVERSTATEMENTS. Your comments about the blackbody MAKES MY CASE.
Yeah, but if it was acting as a blackbody it would be a much larger effect.
It’s only a 1 or 2 percent change in temperature that has me worried.
Ah yes, a trace gas can’t have any significant effect.
But wait, skeptic B tells me that absorp.tion in the 15 uM band is saturated near the surface, and no more infrared can be absorbed by CO2.
Trace gas one day, all-sky obliterator of IR the next.
whatever argument is convenient at the time.
barry
I think you misunderstand the ‘no GHE’ cult.
The pseudo-skeptical guys & dolls say there are so few CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that once they ‘all’ ‘trapped’ (huhu) a 15 mu photon, no further 15 mu photon can get trapped, and CO2 then is ‘saturated’.
Ah well ah well.
Does anyone of them know that a CO2 molecule holds a photon’s energy for at best a millionth of a second before emitting a new photon and coming back to ground state, thus becoming able again to absorb another one?
I’m less and less sure they do.
This saturation myth is absolutely incredible.
The next myth of course isn’t far away: CO2 molecules absorb photons but lose their energy by collision with N2 or O2 molecules long before they can reemit a photon.
Ah well ah well.
N2 molecules are 0.3 nm thick, and the average distance between two gas molecules in the atmosphere is 3 nm.
That means: anyone can imagine how much photons are absorbed/emitted between two collisions.
Many ‘skeptics’ who propose this (who have come across the furfy – eg) actually think that all 15 um infrared radiation is absorbed near the surface, and that therefore there is no more 15 um to be absorbed above that level, and adding more CO2 can’t change anything.
Against ‘CO2 is an insignificant trace gas’ this is definitely 2 contradictory arguments.
Bindi and barry, your endless incoherent babble doesn’t hurt anything. Since it makes you feel smart, and no harm is done, feel free to continue.
After all, it’s this type of brain malfunction that produces such nonsense as “passenger jets flying backward”, “the atmosphere is a microwave oven”, “ice cubes can boil water”, and “Moon’s orbit is a square”.
This is the guy who moans about people insulting him. And whines that people need to post adult comments!
Is it possible the measurements are being affected by the aberrant level of high altitude water vapor.
I would guess the water vapor concentration was assumed static in the creation of the satellite measurement system.
The excess water vapor was injected into the stratosphere 21 months ago. If it could effect the measurements you would expect to have seen evidence of it back in 2022.
bdgwx, do you know how the HTE works? Can you explain it? Is it an instantaneous effect, or are there lags?
For what Baby El is proposing, yes, the effect should be instantaneous.
Have you called anyone a “lying dog” today, barry?
Notice the very ‘adult’ response there.
“Can you explain it?” Cuz, Clint certainly cannot.
You’re just trying to get me to use the “L-word”, tr0ll Nate.
You should know by now that I don’t compromise my standards, even for childish tr0lls.
No, it is just well known that you declare stuff, without ever sensibly explaining or offering evidence. It is why you have no credibility, none.
Spoken with all the credibility of an childish anonymous tr0ll.
You are anonymous, and a tr0ll, I am neither.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542436
” I would guess the water vapor concentration was assumed static in the creation of the satellite measurement system. ”
Oh very certainly not:
https://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/
mark shapiro..”Holy Moley!!!
Dr. Roy cant wiggle out of this one!”
***
Only an alarmist ijit would make such a gloating statement.
There have been nearly 528 months since the UAH record keeping began and one of those months shows a record temperature by a fraction of a degree. There have been 3 months out of the 528 with temperatures in this range and the alarmists are already doing cartwheels.
What can’t Roy wriggle out of?… your dumb alarmist claim that a trace gas is causing this warming?
Wouldn’t we love some warming the UK, wait for winter then the gas bills for the Net Zero fraud.
September 2023, joint UK warmest with 2006. For England and Wales, the warmest September ever (UK Met Office)
That depends on where you live. For August 2023, you had, according to the Meteostat hourly temperature data
about -3 C below the 1951-2022 on average in the grid cell centred here (61.25N 1.25W):
https://www.google.com/maps/place/60%C2%B016'26.3%22N+1%C2%B013'59.9%22W/@60.27397,-1.2358823,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d60.27397!4d-1.233302?hl=en&entry=ttu
and
about +3 C above the 1951-2022 on average in the grid cell centred here (51.25N 1.25E):
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B013'49.5%22N+1%C2%B005'51.4%22E/@51.230417,1.0950347,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d51.230417!4d1.097615?hl=en&entry=ttu
Circulation blockage already evident in tropopause over Bering Sea. The Chukchi Sea will quickly freeze over. Winter in Alaska.
https://i.ibb.co/FYfRDN6/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
September 2023, joint UK warmest with 2006. For England and Wales, the warmest September ever (UK Met Office)
I think there was no shortage of rain in the UK in September and there will be more in October.
What happens when the zonal circulation is blocked?
In the northern hemisphere, stationary highs form, the long-term effect of which is very evident in the surface temperature of the oceans. However, in winter, these same highs will bring extreme cold. My advice is to stock up on fuel for the coming winter.
https://i.ibb.co/rdw9VTB/gfs-pacific-sat-sstanom-d1.png
We are already seeing a sharp drop in Pacific surface temperatures in high latitudes.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_pacific_current.png
Earth in our era is in a very long term continious warming period. This warming is caused by natural orbital forcing.
It is the continuation of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period). The LIA (Little Ice Age) was a phenomenical cold because of the intensive mitigation of sea ice. During the LIA period, Earth continued accumulating solar energy, Earth continued getting warmer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Search for ALL studies having analyzed the temperatures since the Medieval Warming Period (there are probably about 10 in between), download their data, build their average, and post a chart showing the result.
Then we’ll talk about this ‘very long term continuous warming period’.
*
You seem namely to confound the duration of the different Milankovich cycles
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
with that of the last millennium.
“You seem namely to confound the duration of the different Milankovich cycles
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
with that of the last millennium.”
–
Thank you, Bindidon, for a very important link.
[Arkady Ivanovich says:] July 30, 2023 at 12:27 PM We’re gonna need a bigger Y-axis
[Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.:] October 2nd, 2023 I already did it
I can only hope the heat exits to the pole past my house this winter.
I’m wondering if the warming is due to weakening magnetic field.
Weaker magnetic field would result in the higher energy wave-particles from the sun, normally absorbed by the magnetic field, impacting deeper into the atmosphere, perhaps even into the sea surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg
Discussion on how changing magnetic field is affecting climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idg6VMW_mhc&ab_channel=Suspicious0bservers
Gordon
Regarding your claim that global warming became climate change.
What does the CC in IPCC stand for?
When was the IPCC formed?
.
.
.
Word count on IPCC AR1 from 1991:
WG1: Global Warming 86, Climate Change 361
WG2: Global Warming 190, Climate Change 633
WG3: Global Warming 30, Climate Change 576
Totals: Global Warming 306 (16%), Climate Change 1570 (84%)
A ratio of more than five to one in favour of climate change.
.
.
.
Enough of your BS.
So the IPCC changed “global warming” to “climate change”.
Thanks for your research, Ant.
The terms “global warming” and “climate change” go back to at least Wally Broecker’s 1975 paper
“Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”, well before the formation of the IPCC.
Ant gets corrected, again.
Thanks, Mark B.
I’ve got both going back further than that actually.
Chamberlin was using “climatic change” back in 1897.
Mitchell was using “global warming” back in 1961.
“Last week, Yale University released a study showing that people are more likely to fear global warming and take part in a campaign to stop it than they are climate change. Yales report echoed research by George W. Bush pollster Frank Luntz, who had argued that the Bush White House should use climate change instead of global warming because it sounded less scary. ”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-rhetoric-around-climate-change-er-global-warming/
Personally I think of fossil fuel burning as the cause, global warming as the effect and climate change as the consequences.
E man May I suggest you do some homework on CO2. Particularly as it pertains to a b s o r p t i o n and emissivity in atmosphere.
Then have a look at how greenhouse gases reduce direct thermal radiation to space (aka GHE).
Then consider how the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t have any significant effect because all of the IR energy is a b s o r b e d.
Fossil fuel combustion is not the cause. Global warming is not the effect, and climate change is not the consequence.
Ken
” Then consider how the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere wont have any significant effect because all of the IR energy is a b s o r b e d. ”
Do you have any idea of how nonsensical your second sentence is?
By what is it absorbed? By H2O aka water vapor? Oh Noes…
Let us look at HITRAN’s 2020 data (under consideration of the gases’ atmospheric abundance, of course), using
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
in the 5-40 micron range (though in fact 5-20 would be broad enough because left to it there is only solar, and to the right of it Earth no longer emits with enough energy).
1. CO2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFU0veDw5zzFI9KfVGEVuRfdNtN_4I2V/view
2. H2O
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qHmIOXwN6DTxVfVlkc4Sn31DuX5qINFK/view
You see that H2O, the only gas that can compete with CO2 in the terrestrial IR emission range, does not absorb/emit anything relevant in the latter’s major region.
*
And by the way… please explain what you mean with ‘saturated’, when comparing the number of photons emitted by Earth and the tiny number of H2O / CO2 molecules lurking in the atmosphere :–)
*
Luckily for us all, nothing absorbs IR in Earth’s atmospheric window (7.5-12.5 micron).
Otherwise, we would not be on the planet.
Bindi, linking to things you don’t understand is the lame cult tactic Norman uses.
The point you idi0ts continually miss is that CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise Earth’s surface temperature of 288K. And, it doesn’t matter how many such photons there are.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
IR energy is a b s o r b e d by greenhouse gas molecules.
You can think of it like a sponge soaking up a pool of water.
Use a bigger and bigger sponge (more CO2) to soak up a pool of water (IR at CO2 a b s o r p t i o n frequencies) that does not get larger. Eventually all the water is soaked up by the sponge. Getting a larger sponge isn’t going to soak up more water than exists.
Saturated means no more IR to soak up by GHGs at any given moment in time. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not further reduce direct thermal radiation to space.
H2O vapor shares the a b s o r p t i o n spectrum with CO2. It matters where there is humidity: the water vapor combined with the CO2 soaks up the IR closer to the surface. In winter, water vapor gets frozen out.
Wiki has a good description of CO2 characteristics including quantum mechanics of a b s o r p t i o n and emissivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
“You can think of it like a sponge soaking up a pool of water.”
Ken 4:26 pm, no. The sponge analogy is faulty and has been known to be so for nearly two centuries. Atm. air is not some kind of sponge with a limited carrying capacity for water vapor because at normal atm. temperatures and pressures the average separation between air molecules is about 10 molecular diameters.
Consider what you must believe, or at least be perplexed about, if you uncritically accept that air is a sponge: at a relative humidity of 100% all pores in the air sponge are filled with water vapor. Therefore, gasoline, benzene, alcohol, and thousands of other volatile compounds cannot evaporate into air with 100% relative humidity because there is no room for the molecules of these compounds.
Ken, this statement is also physically wrong: “Then consider how the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere wont have any significant effect because all of the IR energy is a b s o r b e d.”
Here, Ken is assuming, incorrectly, that the atm. temperature profile does not change when adding more CO2 ppm. Thus, the rest of Ken’s 1:17 pm comment is unsupported.
Ken
” H2O vapor shares the a b s o r p t i o n spectrum with CO2. ”
NO it doesn’t, Ken.
Please stop robertsoning, and start reasoning instead.
H2O vapor shares the a b s o r p t i o n spectrum with CO2.
CO2 centered at: 2.7 4.3 and 15 μm
H2O vapor centered at: 71, 6.3, 2.7, 1.87 and 1.38 μm
The bandwith of H2O overlaps CO2 bandwidth. As shown in diagram:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=6351392_gr1.jpg
ken…the problem with your wiki link is that it does not go deep enough into quantum theory.
For example…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#/media/File:Co2_vibrations.svg
The drawings show two O atoms bonded to one C atom but it indicates nowhere that the bond lines between atoms are bonding electron orbits.
The bond energies change when the electrons in the bonds absorb heat or radiation. That alters the bond lengths causing vibration.
Ken,
Saturation turns out not to matter. As explained in this interesting paper:
https://tinyurl.com/29c4frej
Which one of the five are you ???
https://youtu.be/v2nhssPW77I?t=2170
Wow, what a revelation. Ent thinks fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Ent, what caused global warming before fossil fuel burning?
Could of had a lot of natural fossil fuel burning.
We have lot of coal naturally burning presently.
And lots forests with lots of wood which could have burnt down- US used to have huge forest fires.
About some tro-lls’ du-mb trials to make the Hunga Tonga 2022 eruption responsible for the recent warming
*
Especially the tro-ll Clint R, who together with a few friends in den-ial claims that the Moon doesn’t spin just because it shows always the same face to us (the trivial ‘ball-on-a-string’ model) endlessly repeats such pseudo-scientific nonsense.
*
But… even on Watts’ very skep-tic WUWT blog we can read:
” Readers may recall that we have reported on the massive amount of water vapor that has been injected into the stratosphere by the 2022 eruption of the Hunga-Tonga volcano.
A recent study said a 13% increase in stratospheric water mass and a 5-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load. ”
*
Bold is my emphasis, due to the fact that most people ignore (or deliberately dissimulate) the fact that even a submarine volcanic eruption still is… a volcanic eruption, and hence injects huge amounts of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere which is definitely known to have a cooling effect.
Watts’ head post refers to
Global perturbation of stratospheric water and aerosol burden by Hunga eruption
Sergey Khaikin & al. (2022)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JD031303
Caution: this is a preprint and was not validated by peer-review yet (what never disturbs Pseudo-skep-tics of course: they even post absolutely non-committing YouTube trash all the time).
*
From the abstract and the intro we read:
” The eruption of the submarine Hunga volcano in January 2022 was associated with a powerful blast that injected volcanic material to altitudes up to 58 km.
From a combination of various types of satellite and ground-based observations supported by transport modeling, we show evidence for an unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13% as compared to climatological levels, and a 5-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load, the highest in the last three decades.
Owing to the extreme injection altitude, the volcanic plume has circumnavigated the Earth in only one week and dispersed nearly pole-to-pole in three months.
The unique nature and magnitude of the global stratospheric perturbation by the Hunga eruption ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observation era, with a range of potential persistent repercussions for stratospheric composition and climate.
The main eruption of the Hunga submarine volcano (Tonga, 20.54°S, 175.38°W) on 15 January 2022 was likely the most explosive event of the modern observational era, with an estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 5.8 (Poli and Shapiro, 2022).
In the historical record, the Lamb wave triggered by the initial explosion is only comparable to that of the eruption of Mount Krakatoa in 1883 (Matoza et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2022). ”
*
However, the authors conveniently note:
” With that, the absolute magnitude of SAOD perturbation (embedded panel in Fig. 6C) by Hunga is at least a factor of 6 smaller than to the previous major eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 and factor of 3 smaller than that of El Chichon in 1982. ”
*
Perhaps we should be happy that so much water vapor was emitted along with the aerosols, as this likely counteracted the latter.
We had enough cooling in the past.
That’s a lot of blah-blah there, Bindi. Do you understand any of it?
For example, of the effects mentioned (water vapor, polar vortex, ozone, and aerosols), can you list them in order by warming ability?
After that, maybe you can provide a model of “orbital motion without spin”. Or do you go with Norman’s “square orbit”?
“the fact that even a submarine volcanic eruption still is a volcanic eruption, and hence injects huge amounts of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere which is definitely known to have a cooling effect”
My understanding is the sulfer aerosols are removed from the eruption by reaction with the sea water. Not nearly as much sulpher gets to the atmosphere as with a volcano blast that is entirely above water.
Hence we haven’t seen the temperature drop that was associated with Pinatubo.
Bindidon, Your link is to a JGR paper published in 2019. Did you post an incorrect link?
As usual, grammie clone apparently didn’t bother to read the paper, or he might have figured that out himself.
E. Swanson
Thank you.
It was a mistake of course, I pasted the link out of the wrong Firefox tab yesterday.
I meant this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00652-x
But as you correctly wrote: pseudo-skeptical people never read articles, they prefer to rely on their ‘gut feeling’.
Ken
I’m sad of trying to bypass this ‘Internal error’, and post my reply via a pdf:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ehj_CoUBegyZXL_1ETwLJZRaZU07Rmmk/view
“With that, the absolute magnitude of SAOD perturbation (embedded panel in Fig. 10c) by Hunga is at least a factor of 6 smaller than that of the previous major eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 and factor of 3 smaller than that of El Chichon in 1982”.
I think this supports my contention that the sulpher load is much smaller with HT than was Pinatubo.
Most of the discussion about sulphates suggest very rapid oxidization and sedimentation of SO2 because of the volume of water.
Upthread, Scott R enjoyed us once more with a
” Yes I live in Michigan, which is a good proxy for the north Atlantic. We had a cool summer for sure. Couldnt get above 90. This is highly unusual for us. ”
Yes, it might be ‘highly unusual for us’.
But that has nothing to do with the globe around Michigan, let alone Europe where I live, and not even the entire CONUS.
As I posted this link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view
I had overlooked that the Northern CONUS time series was missing in the chart (now updated).
*
By ‘Northern CONUS’ I mean the average of the temperatures measured by the weather stations in WA, OR, MT, ID, WY, ND, SD, MN, WI and MI.
We can see that the average temperature anomalies there have declined sharply since 2016 compared to the 1981-2010 average.
I forgot to mention something for these all time better-knowers claiming everywhere that ‘The 1930s were warmer than today’:
1936 2 -8.92 (C)
1937 1 -7.88
1979 1 -7.05
1930 1 -6.99
1983 12 -5.99
1916 1 -5.97
1929 1 -5.89
1929 2 -5.87
1950 1 -5.78
1989 2 -5.72
This the top 10 of the ascending sort of North CONUS’ time series.
And should that not be enough:
1936 2 48.75 -108.75 -19.53 (C)
1936 2 48.75 -106.25 -19.51
1903 2 41.25 -108.75 -19.28
1936 2 48.75 -111.25 -19.19
1936 2 48.75 -103.75 -18.92
1950 1 48.75 -111.25 -18.23
1930 1 48.75 -88.75 -17.67
1916 1 48.75 -111.25 -17.31
1936 2 46.25 -103.75 -17.15
1936 2 46.25 -101.25 -16.87
This the top 10 of the ascending sort of North CONUS’ time series, distributed over a 2.5 degree grid.
The grid cell centred at ‘48.75 -108.75’ is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B045'00.0%22N+108%C2%B045'00.0%22W/@48.75,-110.9916024,752313m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.75!4d-108.75?hl=en&entry=ttu
Only US stations were collected, that’s evident.
No, the numbers are of course not absolute temperatures, but anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 :–)
I have a question for people who track these results. Has there every been any other time when there was an increase (or decrease) of 0.7 deg. in just 5 months?
Tim S
” Has there every been any other time when there was an increase (or decrease) of 0.7 deg. in just 5 months? ”
No.
Here is the top 10 of a descending sort of all 5 month differences:
2023 9 0.72
1998 4 0.66
2016 2 0.61
1998 2 0.60
1983 3 0.57
2023 7 0.56
2023 8 0.49
2010 1 0.43
2009 11 0.43
2023 6 0.42
However, I wouldn’t say ‘2023 9’ beats the rest that much.
At the other end of the sort, you see this:
1991 11 -0.58
1989 1 -0.47
1989 2 -0.47
1999 1 -0.47
1996 1 -0.45
1998 11 -0.45
1999 3 -0.45
2004 7 -0.45
2004 8 -0.45
2008 1 -0.44
What might be of some interest is that 2023 appears three times in the top 10.
Should read: four times.
No. But 1998 and 2016 weren’t far off at 0.66 and 0.62 respectively though.
The map shows that the warming of the troposphere has occurred in the tropics, where there must have been an increase in water evaporation. The temperature of the open ocean reaches a maximum of 31 C and cannot rise due to the limited pressure on Earth. At this temperature of the ocean surface there is strong convection and cloud formation. Warming in high latitudes must be caused by strong surface insolation and is seasonal.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/september2023/202309_Map.png
Striking as September’s global anomaly may be, it cannot be off-handedly attributed to ENSO or secular anthropogenic warming without far more comprehensive analysis of monthly variability of satellite data. But we don’t even have a full Gleissberg cycle of such data, let alone anything on a millenial scale. Nor can proxy data provide a highly coherent substitute. Thus we should acknowledge that rigorous climate science is very much in its infancy and allows only an “ooh” over a singular data point, instead of presumptuous pontifications of wanna-be gurus who dwell in the web.
aq…”Gordon…
Regarding your claim that global warming became climate change.
What does the CC in IPCC stand for?
When was the IPCC formed?”
***
The IPCC was formed around 1988 with only a mandate to find evidence of anthropogenic global warming, not anthropogenic climate change. The first co-chair was John Houghton, who was sponsored by UK PM Margaret Thatcher. He was a climate modeler and moved he IPCC in the direction of climate modeling and away from mainstream science.
The early focus of the IPCC was on global warming and the CO2 emissions they believed caused it. In the 3rd assessment, TAR, they stated that future climates cannot be predicted. They got around that by ‘projecting’ future climate scenarios using unvalidated climate models. They were forced to change prediction to projection when expert climate reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict.
The ‘climate’ in IPCC is not a reference to the convoluted interpretation of climate used by alarmists today but to a general set of parameters that includes weather and related outcomes of weather. Today, the phrase climate change is used in the same manner as global warming, as if there is a global temperture and a global climate.
That answers your question. It was the IPCC and their bosses in different countries who connived behind the scenes to shift the focus from global warming to global climate.
You see, people could not identify with the danger of a tiny increase in global warming but they could identify with rising sea levels, severe storms, etc. The IPCC has no evidence of anthropogenic warming nor have they evidence of catastrophic weather events. However, they are not interested in science but in selling the public on the need to have their governments pour endless money into a pot managed by the UN to help out poorer countries.
That has been the aim of the UN since the 1960s…a world government run and taxed by them. No one paid any attention to them till this anthropogenic pseudo-science was dropped in their lap.
So, “global warming” became “climate change” in 1988?
Is that what you’re saying, Gordon?
At the top of the page Roy includes a caption claiming thy are going to need a bigger graph. Actually, Roy, if you scrapped these anomalies and published the actual temperatures, you’d have plenty of room. This current blip would hardly appear on a real graph with and the entire range from 1979 – 2023 would be little more than a slightly curved straight line.
This is an old link but see Figure 5 to get an idea of UAH data plotted on a real temperature grid.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130614064436/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Looks pretty similar. Your link tincludes that nonsense graph of northern England? Good one.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/
And Wiltard links another propaganda site. Propagandists are busy little bees.
Oh, Troglodyte.
JFY:
https://mashable.com/article/carbon-dioxide-earth-co2
Next time you ask yourself “what caused global warming before fossil fuel burning,” think about that.
Willard,
Irrelevant nonsense. The Earth has cooled. The fact that CO2 levels have been vastly higher in the past did not stop the Earth cooling.
You are suffering from a mental deficiency, rejecting reality.
Think about that.
Wiltard is a paid propagandist. He doesn’t have to make any sense.
And Wiltard responds by linking more propaganda.
“paid propagandist.” Stephen doesnt require evidence..
Nate,
Yes, those propaganda sites are evidence. Did you go to school at the Soros School for Retards?
Nate,
Yes, those propaganda sites are evidence. Yesiree.
Troglodyte’s meds are kicking in.
People posting on a blog in support of science, and thus disagreeing with Stephen.
His conclusion: they must be paid propagandists!
“Next time you ask yourself what caused global warming before fossil fuel burning, think about that.”
The question makes more sense in the original Neanderthal:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/09/why-didnt-they-think-of-climate-week.html
A polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will now move over central Europe, bringing severe cooling and snow in the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/h1byPDb/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-04-080811.png
With warm oceans in the north and El Nino, will less energy be needed in the northern hemisphere? It may turn out to be just the opposite. The decline in solar activity and the eastern QBO foreshadow the rippling of the polar vortex in the upper troposphere. With warm oceans, this could mean stronger snowfall with strong fronts from the north.
Galactic radiation is slowly increasing.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Earlier, Nate displayed his intellectual level by writing –
“One of every 2500 molecules is CO2, and that is more than enough to make the atmosphere 100% OPAQUE @ and around 15 microns. Thus IR @ those wavelengths will be 100% abs.orbed by the atmosphere.”
Bananas absorb 100% of those wavelengths, too.
How amazing is that?
You might care to explain why the surface cools at night – CO2 and bananas notwithstanding. Otherwise, you just look like another mentally challenged cultist.
Off you go, now.
Speaking of ‘intellectual’,
Swenson thinks this is a profound statement:
“Bananas absorb 100% of those wavelengths, too.”
Notice that nothing follows from it. So it is a profound nothing.
IOW a standard Swenson post!
“ou might care to explain why the surface cools at night ”
And this has been explained to him at least 47 times, but he has never grasped the concept.
Which is that insulation doesnt PREVENT cooling. It only SLOWS cooling.
Thus his red herring complaint that the surface cools at night says NOTHING relevant to the GHE or anything at all.
If the atmosphere and its GHE are acting as insulation for the Earth’s surface (and they are), then all that can be expected is that the surface will cool more slowly at night than it would without the GHE.
And thus the surface will cool LESS overnight than it would otherwise.
But this is obviously too complicated for Swenson’s 5th grade intellect.
Nate says:
”If the atmosphere and its GHE are acting as insulation for the Earths surface (and they are), then all that can be expected is that the surface will cool more slowly at night than it would without the GHE.”
Yes the atmosphere as it is composed must be insulating.
But what you have done is bought into for political reasons of some kind, is the M&W narrative that cherry picks an insulating physics and sold it to the public via the 3rd grader radiation model.
Unfortunately, though the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work and has been demonstrated to not work.
You have already proven you don’t understand how this effect works having spent years in here defending the 3rd grader radiation model and never ever defending another physics model.
“Yes the atmosphere as it is composed must be insulating.”
Thanks for agreeing with me, and Swenson still doesent understand what insultation does and does not do. Perhaps you can explain it to him.
Well the caveat on that is if the mean global surface temperature is actually 288k versus 278.5k. It seems highly likely there is at least a few degrees of greenhouse effect.
But nobody so far has described the alleged mechanism in a physical model. Why is that?
False, it has certainly been described in a physical model many times. Ongoing denial of this will not change this fact.
There are many descriptions of physical GHE available online. One just needs to look!
Here is one simplified 2-layer physical model of the GHE, that even you could possibly understand.
https://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/2layer/
Click on the Physics tab for an explanation.
Pls tell us what, specifically, you think they are doing wrong.
No handwaving please.
well if you set emissivity at .5 and convective heat flux to .5 (according to engineering toolbox and all standard title 24 stuff) you come up with zero greenhouse effect, so the model may well be ok.
Its fun to play God and set convection to whatever you want, but lets get real, the convective flux is not whatever you want. It is what is measured. And if that is used, then obviously there will be a GHE.
the flux I used came from the Engineering Toolbox Nate. Thats what scientists have measured. If you think they measured something else provide a source for it.
“you come up with zero greenhouse effect”
That’s just you saying random stuff, without evidence, Bill.
The reality is that this is a physical model of the GHE, and it does produce a GHE. Your denial of it makes no difference.
So your claim that there are no physical models of the GHE, is debunked.
That’s all there is to it.
And just to to be clear, the model produces outgoing flux of ~ 240 W/m^2 at the TOA. And the surface is emitting a flux of ~ 390 W/m^2.
The difference of 150 W/m^2, is a GHE!
The model obviously produces one.
Nate says:
”Thats just you saying random stuff, without evidence, Bill.
The reality is that this is a physical model of the GHE, and it does produce a GHE. Your denial of it makes no difference.
So your claim that there are no physical models of the GHE, is debunked.”
The convective flux has always been treated as a constant in the Engineering Toolbox for common air and in Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The problem with mainstream science is they are just jumping to the conclusion that because there is a GHE the convective flux must be different.
Just like you just did in the above post.
Your assertions are not supported by the evidence. There is an obvious GHE in the model, of 150 W/m^2, as I explained above.
150 is much much more than 0.
Oh well!
Nate the only assertion is the Engineering Toolbox has a minimum constant for air that mixes the kinetic energy in the gas.
https://tinyurl.com/32a4vfc7
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html
So where are your sources Nate?
Also its clear you have no idea of the difference between a mathematical model and a physical model.
A physical model always has all the parameters set. A mathematical model allows you to input parameters. The model you provided is merely a crude mathematical model and my challenge was for a complete and detail physical model. The way you answered the question demonstrates you didn’t even understand the question.
“The model you provided is merely a crude mathematical model and my challenge was for a complete and detail physical model”
False. A physical model applies the laws of physics to a problem, and that is exactly what this model does!
Oh well!
And, it doesnt matter what numbers you put in for convection, the model is still producing a GHE. Which means there is a large difference between the TOA emission and the surface emission, 150 W/m^2.
You claimed there was no GHE, but this was a vacuous assertion, with nothing quantitative to back it up.
Oh well!
No Nate there is a difference between a physical model and a mathematical model. Both ideally only employ laws of physics.
However the model you show runs on that 3rd grader radiation model as show in the diagram. Thus its not operating on the laws of physics based on its output.
Further the difference between a physical model and a mathematical model is that the physical model shows a specific physical state, a mathematical model allows you to change parameters. . .perhaps they are using a mathematical model because they don’t know what the mean physical state is?
“Thus its not operating on the laws of physics based on its output.”
Yes it is. See the ‘physics’ tab that explains exactly what laws of it is using.
You dont understand the model, so you move the goal posts. And define ‘physical model’ to be whatever you need it to be.
Show us a legit source that defines ‘physical model’ as you do.
I know you won’t find one because you made it up!
You also claimed there was no GHE produced by the model, but this was a vacuous assertion, with nothing quantitative to back it up.
Because again, you made it up!
the model is obviously wrong as the only way to produce the earth’s temperature is to set convective heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere to zero. and when you set that to the correct number there is no greenhouse effect.
which explains at a minimum the results seen in experiments. so even if the 3rd grader model works in outer space it doesn’t matter.
You claimed there was no GHE produced by the model, but this was a false assertion, with nothing quantitative to back it up.
You claimed that the model wasn’t a ‘physical model’ but this was simply made up, because, as expected, you cannot provide any legitimate definition of ‘physical model’ that supports your claim.
Oh well! Now what?
” the only way to produce the earths temperature is to set convective heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere to zero. ”
Nope, this is you just saying more unsupported nonsense..
Again, you show nothing to back that up!
So, that is that. Nothing of substance left to discuss.
Repeat these false claims as often as you want. I will not respond until you show substance to back them up.
Good luck, Bill.
you use the defaults and surface temp is ~288k. add some convection and surface temps drop.
and i really don’t care if you want to remain ignorant nate.
From today’s blogosphere…
That’s a bit harsh. UAH has always been a professionally scientific product on a par with the other temperature datasets.
” UAH has always been a professionally scientific product… ”
Agreed!
” … on a par with the other temperature datasets. ”
Ah really?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/from:1979/plot/gistemp/mean:60/from:1979/offset:-0.613
“That’s a bit harsh.”
Which part?
Actually, there are several reasons to question the UAH products, particularly the LT.
It’s well known that the Antarctic data is flawed because of the high elevations over the ice covered continent. RSS excludes those areas and also other areas with high elevations, such as Greenland, in their computation. The Antarctic data is also impacted by the Ozone Hole, since the LT includes data into the Stratosphere. The RSS data continues to show greater warming than the UAH results.
Over the Arctic Ocean, the summer data may also be flawed because of the decline in sea-ice and the presence of melt ponds on the remaining sea-ice area. Open water appears colder than sea-ice to the instrument and as the Arctic melts, more open water is seen by the AMSU/MSU instruments. That could result in a spurious cooling influence on the data.
E. Swanson
Sorry, but… a closer look tells us different things.
1. In the Arctic, RSS 4.0 performs sounding in exactly the same latitude band as UAH 6.0:
https://i.postimg.cc/yN68Sm71/Screenshot-20231004-162340-RSS-V4-0-60-82-5-N.png
Thus, RSS’s evaluation of the area (0.46 C / decade compared to UAH’s 0.25) is due to their data processing method only. UAH5.6, with full 90N-90S coverage, stopped in 2017 with 0.35 C / decade.
*
2. In the Antarctic, it is true that RSS sounds only ‘down’ to 70S, whereas UAH does to 82.5S, like at the other Pole.
But a comparison of time series generated out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ul5lVRSgBMc9L7yEPGV43P8WQO4mBFKy/view
shows the following trends
– UAH: 0.02 C / decade
– RSS: 0.06 C / decade
i.e. is not worth terribly much discussion.
Bindidon, Your focus on the Antarctic does show a greater warming for RSS vs. UAH, but even the reduced range for RSS poleward of 60S is still heavily influenced by what happens over the Antarctic. RSS presents a data set called mid-latitude from 25S to 60S which exhibits a warming trend of 0.18C/decade, while UAH offers only a a range of 20S to 90S which exhibits a trend of 0.10C/decade. The UAH SoPol Ocean actually exhibits a slight negative trend thru August, while the sea-ice advance season has exhibited a remarkably small maximum coverage.
http://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/asina_S_iqr_timeseries.png [remove * from nsid*c ]
Over the Arctic, both data sets would experience the same influence from declining summer sea-ice, yet RSS still exhibits a strong trend of 0.46C/decade vs. UAH at 0.25C/decade. That difference might be due in part to greater surface influence in the UAH product compared with RSS.
Nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202310.gif
Palmowski
” Nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef. ”
What’s that for a nonsense? The graph you post stays in no relation with the Reef’s problems.
What about reading e.g. this:
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/australias-great-barrier-reef-off-unesco-danger-list-still-under-serious-threat-2023-08-01/
Alarmism really is a bad thing – but your stubborn anti-alarmism is even worse.
Blinny, my anti-alarmism is the world is being fed. Crop production is at an all-time high. This is a real all-time high and not a fake all-time high.
Stephen you are ignorantly promoting correlation = causation.
While ignoring all other possible causes, like increased usage of fertilizer, hybrid plants, mechanized farming, pesticides, etc.
Anderson
What a stoo~pid, shame~less, reck~less comparison.
Your brain moves toward the level of your 6.9L pickup…
It seems like this binary way of thinking in which it can only ever be a single factor modulating a response of some variable (whether it be temperature, crop yields, or whatever) is one of the biggest hurdles in these discussions.
SPA, do you understand that the UAH TLT temperature is not modulated by only a single thing? Do you understand that crop yields are not modulated by only a single thing?
If the answer is no (you don’t understand) to either questions then let’s have a discussion about that first. Let’s figure out why you think only a single agent can act on something at any given time.
If the answer is yes (you do understand) to both questions then let’s have a discussion about the details of how it all works as opposed to the endless discussions about absurd strawmen arguments that you are expecting us to defend.
Oh, I forgot, you propagandists are geniuses regarding everything. There have been monumental breakthroughs in crop production in the last few decades. I forgot about all of those. The ten percent increase in crop production does not correlate with the ten percent increase in CO2. Gotcha! Oh, but wait, the correlation with CO2 and temperature MUST mean CO2 causes temperature. And not the other way around. Gotcha!
If you geniuses can only figure out how to blame CO2 on crop production. Keep working at it. Soros will pay.
Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as “conservative” or “libertarian”, but which could be more accurately described as “bigoted narcissism”. His aggressive posturing often frightens off weaker, more timid Warriors. In pitched battle, however, Troglodyte easily loses control and his attack quickly degenerates into a rant. Just for the fun of it, Weenie, Issues. Pinko and Evil Clown will sometimes deliberately goad him into a towering rage.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
It’s a simple yes or no. Which is it? Yes or No?
Fascists!
Ironical, isn’t it that Soros adopts the very tactics that killed so many Jews? Of course, many of the Jews, like today, were Marxists.
SPA, when you’re ready to have an intelligent conversation I’ll be here. All you have to do is answer the simple yes/no question first. Take all the time you need. Call me a Nazi. Compare me to Hitler. Blame the Holocaust on me. Get whatever rants and ad-hominems you feel are necessary and then post back letting me know you’re ready for relevant discussion 1) about how it is possible for more than one thing to create a response in variable or if you understand that already then 2) about the details regarding how multiple agents acting in tandem can modulate crop yields or the global average temperature.
There’s no intelligent conversation with you or any of your ilk. You’re a propagandist, nothing more.
Stephen P Anderson
You make the claim you have a Chemistry and math background but your ranting and mindless posting does not indicate any signs of intellect left in that brain of yours. You have been indoctrinated into the bizarre Cult of Trumpism. It lashes out at anything that threatens its false cozy world of fantasy and endless lies.
I am sad you have become a right-wing nut rather than a thoughtful intellectual able to use intelligence and reason to attempt to find the truth in the climate change debate. You come here with ideas you did not think up on your own. I can watch any right-wing media and get their talking points.
Please get a grip and look in a mirror and ask yourself what happened to me. How did I lose my thinking ability and now I am just a mindless drone lashing out and attacking without any thought or reason. You think Berry’s ideas are good even though I have explained why they are very poorly reasoned through. You can’t think anymore because of your cult right-wing mentality.
I read above without surprise:
” At the top of the page Roy includes a caption claiming thy are going to need a bigger graph.
Actually, Roy, if you scrapped these anomalies and published the actual temperatures, you’d have plenty of room.
This current blip would hardly appear on a real graph with and the entire range from 1979 2023 would be little more than a slightly curved straight line. ”
Oh look: genius Robertson now starts teaching Roy Spencer how he should do the job.
For the igno~ramus de service, here is how the graph would look like with ‘actual’ temperatures:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view
computed out of anomalies and climatology, downloaded from
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
On this graph you see that in this year July 1998 was bypassed for the first time, by both July and August 2023.
Top 10 in the absolute values:
2023 7 266.057 (Kelvin)
2023 8 265.925
1998 7 265.797
2022 7 265.776
2020 7 265.724
2016 7 265.674
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.622
2021 7 265.619
2010 7 265.615
These differences are tiny, but the lowest september nonetheless was
1984 9 263.970
*
The trend in C/decade for absolute temperatures is now surprisingly higher than that for anomalies (digits after the dp intentional here):
0.1452 +- 0.028 versus 0.1378 +- 0.061
No alarmism here: just show the reality as it is, what has few to do with Robertson’s ‘knowhow’.
*
This graph will of course be discredited by the genius as ‘unsupported graph’. No problem for me.
I also posted a link to Ian Schumacher’s site in which he plots the UAH data to an absolute temperature scale. The UAH data appears as almost a flat line.
Binny spends a full post to express his angst against the obvious.
That
https://web.archive.org/web/20130630210914im_/http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/temp_range.png
shows us how uneducated and superficial you are.
Anyone can present things on a scale making them small or big, but of zero dot zero interest in the discussion.
You are du~mb, Robertson, and will keep du~mb, because you never learn anything.
The Greenland Ice Sheet evolves throughout the year as weather conditions change. Precipitation increases the mass of the ice sheet, whilst greater warmth leads to melting, which causes it to lose mass. The term surface mass balance is used to describe the isolated gain and loss of mass of the surface of the ice sheet excluding the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.
https://i.ibb.co/wstvsvw/SMB-curves-LA-EN-20231003.png
The cult meltdown continues.
Bindi is so distraught he can’t even link to the things he can’t understand! E. Swanson has to help him. It’s the blind leading the blind.
This HTE is a huge disappointment for the cult. They wanted so badly for it to be “proof” of their GHE nonsense. Instead, it blows holes in their beliefs.
The HTE amounted to a REAL “forcing”, in that it caused a significant rise in UAH results. That’s what a REAL forcing does — it raises temperatures. An El Niño does the same thing — it raises temperatures. CO2 can NOT raise temperature. The HTE and EN are REAL forcings. CO2 is NOT a forcing.
Also clearly obvious is Earth’s response to abnormal forcing. The Polar Vortex at the South Pole should be gone by now, but it is almost at its peak. Max wind speeds are about 290 mph. It ain’t going away until it gets things back to normal. The PV is having to deal with both the HTE and EN. So it is working overtime. The PV at the North Pole is now forming, to help.
Earth gets too hot, it knows how to cool itself. No need for alarm….
“The HTE amounted to a REAL forcing, in that it caused a significant rise in UAH results.”
Clints epic failure to understand correlation is not = causation continues.
Clint R
Your rambling rant about thing you do not understand (polar vortex) sounds extreme cultists. You call science a cult them ramble on in a confused stupor. I wonder if .
norman…when that polar vortex descends around November and bites your butt, you might not find it so cultish.
” E. Swanson has to help him. ”
Where did he help me, tr0ll Clint R, apart from correctly pointing to a link to the wrong article, which I gratefully replaced by the correct one?
Unlike you, of course, I have read the article. You didn’t because you wouldn’t understand anything of it.
You prefer to discredit the authors, as you discredited Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and ALL their successors.
You keep as usual at your simple, childish ‘ball-on-a-string’ level.
Please continue that way, we need you (to show what is anti-science, of course).
They’re throwing crap against the wall, as usual.
No science. No reality. Just desperation.
That’s why this is so much fun.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Climate Models Wrong on East Pacific We Dont Know Why This Cooling Is Happening
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/04/climate-models-wrong-on-east-pacific-we-dont-know-why-this-cooling-is-happening/
–WELL, OUR EXPERT CLASS FAILED AT THAT MISERABLY:
Overall, a clear pattern emerges: a marked and fairly widespread decline of public confidence in science since the pandemic. While, historically, Americans confidence in science has remained high relative to confidence in other institutions, this gap now appears to be narrowing.
The pandemic surely played a role, especially controversial policies such as school closures and masking young children. Theres little doubt the conduct of scientific, political and media elites contributed as well from policy mistakes like the botched rollout of diagnostic tests to mixed and misleading messaging on masking to the dishonesty of politicians who failed to follow their own rules to efforts within government, the media and the scientific community to suppress dissent.
…–
What failed miserably and has been failure from the start is the CIA.
This quaint British tradition doesn’t work in US.
End it, and declassify, everything.
Rather than focus on it’s corruption and incompetence.
You could just say, it’s outdated.
One might been able to make case for it, in 19th century.
But we are in 21 century, and we have thousands of satellites and will be getting tens of thousands of them.
And we have the Space Force.
How many people will take the new waxeen ???
https://youtu.be/4u1ha38o4Jk
It seems ironic that all the people I know who have been vaccinated have suffered from the alleged covid virus yet I have not been vaccinated and have not even had the flu.
The covid vaccine is based on the same fraudulent science upon which the covid tests are based. The same fraudulent science upon which HIV was based. Luc Montagnier, who got the Nobel for discovering HIV, later claimed it does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. Peter Duesberg claimed that years before Montagnier and Fauci ruined his career by ensuring he received no funding.
Fauci was one of the first ijits to develop the test for HIV that is now used for covid. He used the PCR method for DNA amplification to infer that he was amplifying HIV, which could not be seen on an electron microscope. The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, told Fauci that PCR could not amplify a virus that could not be seen on an EM.
When Fauci persisted, Mullis began openly calling him a liar, and Fauci did nothing about it.
Starlink has more than 3 million subscribers and SpaceX keeps launching starlink satellites
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/
Has 21 more launches this year with 8 of them being starlink satellite launches- and probably more will added, or produced satellites will be ready and rockets will be ready, only issue is does someone else want to add launch this year- usually scheduling has been done years ahead of time. But everyone is making satellites faster, now.
And lots of parties want global satellite network and SpaceX is lifting more 80% of mass to orbit, and Musk demanding very steeper targets of Falcons launch per month.
I like to think I have wild imagination- it didn’t imagine this many launches. Though I did say, it seems unreasonable to phase out the Falcon rocket- which Musk was saying over a year ago. Now he going to keep them for at least a few years. So I guess after getting to the point of launching hundreds per year??
Do we have to explore Mars, to save the world?
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/a-fertility-reckoning
“William Barton
October 4, 2023 at 10:52 AM
Marxism is like any other religion, and comes the Revolution women will be serving on their backs, as always. Members of the Nomenklatura are made. not born. I think Marxism is just the latest Abrahamic religion, bent on destroying the rational West, as Islam destroyed Persia, as Christianity felled the Greco-Roman world. Something God-awful happened in the Levantine Iron Dark Age after the Bronze Age Collapse, whose first fruit was the Tophet Cult. Rome tried to stop it by ploughing under Carthage, but didnt know the hits would keep on coming.”
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2023/10/04/the-coming-population-decline/#comments
Had to look up Tophet Cult.
But I already knew what was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tophet
BIDEN DOG BITES AGAIN…
https://www.drudgereport.com/
“EXCLUSIVE: President Joe Biden’s German Shepherd Commander is seen biting White House staffer, days before it bit Secret Service agent, in new photos”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12589937/Joe-Bidens-dog-Commander-bites-staffer-Dale-Haney.html
Nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef. The water is cool and there are no hurricanes.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_hs_v3.1_seel_current.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_seel_current.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
Another poor forecast.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
What poor forecast is that?
Nate
” Another poor forecast. ”
Strange allegation indeed.
It has become common practice on this blog to claim that presenting existing data is tantamount to making a forecast, as was the case e.g. here until a few months ago:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/had5.jpeg
But alas, what a pity!
After a long delay, wordpress.com says: ‘404 File not found.’
And the Honorable Chief Statistician Blindsley Hood (also nicknamed ‘RLH’) appears to have been absent for some time. Hopefully all is still well with him.
The forecast shows how a polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will bring cold air to Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/bbtGJkp/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
The commies are predicting the el Nino to peak soon and die off around Feb/Mar next year.
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92
barry
Thanks for this new source
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/download/ENSO/Indices_evolution/ENSOIndices_1_SEMAP_O12P12_202309.png
With January 24 at ~1.5 resp. April 24 at ~1.0, they get it somewhat similar for 3+4 to
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
This
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=67
is interesting as well, though showing only absolute temperatures.
*
U Maine’s Daily 2-meter Air Temperature web site (Climate Reanalyzer, using NCEP data) still is unbeatable
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/clim_frames/t2anom/world-wt/2023/t2anom_world-wt_2023_d276.png
Beijing Climate Centre doesn’t have much accompanying material at all, but it’s interesting to have a new (to us) forecaster.
Sept ’23 beat the previous record high temperature anomaly (Feb 2016) by 0.19 C.
There was only one time in UAH’s 45 years that a record warm temp had been beaten by that much. December 1987 beat June 1987 by 0.21 C.
Weather, Barry, just natural variation in weather.
Of course, that’s on top of re-warming from the Little Ice Age. When the planet cools over 400 years, even if it’s an average of 1C to 2C, tremendous amounts of ice accumulate globally, and it’s not that easy to get rid of it all and back to where we were before the LIA.
The planet won’t rewarm quickly, Akasofu claiming about 0.5C/century, and the reason is the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which keeps putting the ice back when some melts during brief nrctic and Antarctica summers.
“Weather, Barry, just natural variation in weather.”
Well of course it is.
But why don’t you correct people who actually make that error? Here you go.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542182
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
To post links to articles is easy:
Natural Climate Drivers Dominate in the Current Warming
Antero Ollila
https://tinyurl.com/bdezv8u9
*
Less easy is to scientifically contra~dict them.
Not one poster here is able to do the job.
Thus we lay(wo)men will have to wait for reactions to Miskolczi and Ollila, just like we will have to wait for the scientific contradiction to papers like
Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell
https://tinyurl.com/336sd37f
or
Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion
Jean-Louis Dufresne, Vincent Eymet, Cyril Crevoisier and Jean-Yves Grand~peix
https://tinyurl.com/ywphaecp
Wait and see.
binny…”Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell…”
***
A farcical attempt to replicate the atmosphere in a chamber at sea level in which gravity does not vary.
The other two links are so bad they are not worth a comment.
Binny,
How silly.
Your “experimenters” hold the “surface” at 11.4 C.
It doesn’t really matter, because they don’t actually manage to describe the supposed GHE anyway!
Just more wishful thinking – amateurish at that.
Harde & Schnell:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498111
and Miskolczi refutes your second paper.
“…refutes your second paper.”
I mean your second pro-AGW paper, i.e:
“Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion”
As expected: primitive, du-mb answers by arrogant ignoramuses.
Wow, Blinny provides a link to a paper by an actual Atmospheric Physicist, Harde, who knows actual physics. Incredible. Blinny, are you ready to stop this whole AGW nonsense?
Hermann was Professor for Laser-Engineering and Materials Science, Troglodyte.
Better luck next time!
Wingnut,
Do you understand he has a PhD in Physics and uses lasers to study atmospheric phenomena? That’s an Atmospheric Physicist. Genius!
Also, I am glad to see Blinny is recognizing a friend of Murray Salby (deceased) and Ed Berry. Salby had a PhD in Atmospheric Engineering and Ed Berry in Atmospheric Physics. All great scientists who debunked AGW. Thanks, Blinny!
Troglodyte,
Hermann himself said he started his climate science research in 2010.
He was at Hamburg U from 2001 to 1009.
Try again.
I don’t need to try again, Sock Puppet.
Producing a paper that Hermann published in atmospheric science between 2001 and 2010 would do, Troglodyte.
We both know you can’t.
1009
He may not be that old.
> As expected
Then that other one is on you, Binny.
One day you’ll learn.
I meant above all Flynnson and the clueless and timeless Robertson.
For the Pseudomod: the fact that Miskolczi refutes Dufresne’s work doesn’t wonder me at all, and doesn’t affect my opinion about Dufresne’s scientific level.
Your post re. Harde lacks a source, but the word ‘sophistry’ immediately gave me a feeling about it, and I was of course right:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/07/19/another-botched-experiment-the-tricks-of-pseudoscience/
Postma is a ground level anti-GHE boy, thanks. I have read enough of him.
*
Manifestly, you are so opinionated and so fixated on your anti-GHE position that you did not understand E. Swanson’s answer behind: your bad.
Vaughan Pratt and Roy Spencer got it right, no doubt.
And concerning Wood’s absolutely superficial 1909 pamphlet (which was clearly debunked by Abbot, as he made the experiment right years before, but ignored over a century): it is typical for you all pseudo-skep~tical boys that you don’t bother about why Wood’s ‘experiment’ was flawed from the beginning, namely that he covered both boxes with glass.
Wood was a very experienced scientist in puncto light and associated frequencies (UV and solar, very-near-IR) and thus thought it would be necessary to cover the salt-rock-box with glass in order to prevent the unwanted effect of solar IR, what brought per se the whole experiment ad absurdum.
*
Robertson’s endless trials to make a CO2 specialist out of Wood are afflicting.
Think what you want, Pseudomod: I know how you tick, see your incredibly unscientific attitude wrt the lunar spin.
*
Postma is a harsh skep~tic person, but a scientifically well educated one.
You and your friends-in-den~ial are merely pseudo-skep~tical guys who lack any REAL scientific education and technical skill, denigrating all scientists whose results do not match your egocentered gut feeling.
You wouldn’t even dare to post your lunar spin nonsense at WUWT! Watts would eject you within hours.
Get over it!
I am over it. In fact, I didn’t even mention it. You just did, though.
"Manifestly, you are so opinionated and so fixated on your anti-GHE position that you did not understand E. Swanson’s answer behind: your bad."
No, I understood it, I just disagreed with him. I think Postma is correct on that – if the experiment was to truly replicate the GHE, then there would be only one power supply. The fact that each plate has its own power supply completely undermines the result. That ain’t the GHE!
It’s meant to be: one powered plate, one passive plate…and the powered plate is meant to be warmed/insulated by the IR radiation from the passive plate. End of story. If they’d run it that way, they wouldn’t have got the result they wanted, though!
> I meant above all [Mike Flynn]
Mike Flynn does not link to papers.
Here’s the bit that kills your excuse, Binny:
Tu nous prends pour des cons ou quoi?
https://rclutz.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/
“ClimateTruth: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorp.tion at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorp.tion power as was predicted by the IPCC.
ClimateTruth: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorp.tion. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
“The theoretically constant equilibrium flux absorp.tion coefficient of the Earth’s atmosphere ne-gates the existence of the Arrhenius type greenhouse gas greenhouse effect. If there are no changes in the greenhouse effect, then there is no climate sensitivity to man-made increase of the atmospheric CO2. The excess optical thickness from increased CO2 will condense into water drop-lets and will rain out from the atmosphere without the IPCC or government permission. Alterna-tively, structural variations in the global wind and humidity field, or the cloud cover may easily restore the equilibrium flux optical thickness.”
This guy is theoretically sane, but…
but… unfortunately for Dr. Miskolczi’s predicted expectation premise the excess earthen optical thickness from increased CO2 didn’t condense into water drop-lets and so didn’t rain out from the atmosphere without the IPCC or government permission as measured by CERES in the satellite era.
So, too, neither did the humidity field, nor the cloud cover become measured to maintain equilibrium flux optical thickness in the satellite era.
“…the computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorp.tion. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”
Are you saying this didn’t occur, Ball4?
No DREMT, Dr. Miskolczi’s collection included sparse data previous to the current satellite era “the 61-year dataset” starting before 1950. This data included a climate length era where global temperatures declined.
Dr. Miskolczi simply wrongly extrapolated that data and it is now known with current measurements that his as stated predicted expectation premise did not materialize.
Strange that he’s written a new paper, then.
From the abstract:
“The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.”
No wonder Miskolczi couldn’t get it published in a reputable journal. Blog level rhetoric infects even the abstract. And the paper has similar woeful diversions, such as citing a court case on science. Dear God. At least he has some expertise in the subject he is writing about.
His science hasn’t changed since 2010. The 2023 paper STILL uses 61 radiosondes – presumably the same data as 13 years ago, as the dataset used for the enquiry still only goes up to 2008, apparently. Why would he not update to 2022, a 50% increase on the data? A mysterious omission. I skimmed the paper, but it seems he still holds the view that WV should be constant with increasing CO2. Perhaps the longer dataset exposes this belief to bne false?
No doubt there are good reasons to give this maverick view ascendance on the matter of the greenhouse effect, but what they might be remain a mystery..
61 years of radiosonde data, barry, to 2008. Not 61 radiosondes. Over that 61 years, he found the overall global average infrared optical thickness not to change, despite all the increases in CO2 over that time. Of course, maybe it stayed the same for 61 years, and then suddenly changed from 2008 onwards…
I stand corrected. However, it is still the same dataset from 15 years ago.
“Of course, maybe it stayed the same for 61 years, and then suddenly changed from 2008 onwards”
Or maybe the data is faulty but it gives him the answer he wants.
It is a signal omission that he hasn’t updated the data – 15 years of modern, more reliable sonde data that he had zero interest in using in his 2023 update. It’s freely available.
And he is quite the maverick in his view that water vapour should decrease with increased CO2. Not to mention that this theory is belied by observation.
“Or maybe the data is faulty but it gives him the answer he wants.“
Oh, barry.
Ah, you think the dataset is pristine – 70 year-old sonde data. Good to know exactly how skeptical you are, ‘skeptic’.
Pssst – that is one of the criticisms of his original paper. Sure looks to me he’s stuck with the data that helps him sell the narrative. Can you imagine why else he would forego updating 15 years of data in his 2023 paper?
I saw you correcting people upthread for not responding to the updated paper – the 2023 offering. But seems you’re not interested in applying the same attention to currency to the data he uses.
And why would you? You’re getting the narrative you like, too.
barry, the accusations you make of people you don’t like are extraordinary. If you want to know why he is still using that data, just email him and ask.
“global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact ”
An extraordinary and unfounded accusation.
“the blogosphere is flooded with academically illiterate comments from self-declared experts. As an example, it is worth reading the comments of A. Lacis (moderated by J. Curry at her Climate Etc. blog) on the Miskolczis article [17].The whole comment is just an ad hominem attack, probably motivated by the lack of his knowledge of basic radiative transfer concepts. There is a number of posts and comments on various websites like J. Curry, Science of Dooms and Real Climate etc. They dont deserve to be repeated in this journal.”
More extraordinary unfounded accusations.
Sorry, barry, it seems the stalker troll who obsesses over my every word and who knows I no longer respond to him or even read his comments is still active. I had hoped we could just have a discussion without interruption, but it appears that is impossible. Maybe if we wait another few days?
“even read his comments”
If this were true then my comments shouldn’t bother him. The charade continues.
Maybe if we wait another few days?
“Andrew A. Lacis
is a Physical Scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and teaches radiative transfer at Colombia University. He gained his PhD in Physics at the University of Iowa in 1970, and has acted as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator of several NASA and DOE projects. ”
But according to new faux authority figure Miskolczis,
he is “motivated by the lack of his knowledge of basic radiative transfer concepts.”
…if we wait another few days?
If my comments are actually stopping DREMT from posting more nonsense, that’s a good result.
…we wait another few days?
SPECIAL MESSAGE: For those following Miskolczis work, and his claims regarding Aa=Ed, if those two radiative fluxes (Aa and Ed) are not EXACTLY equal, then Miskolczi has found nothing that disagrees with current greenhouse theory. That they are NEARLY equal has been known for a long time (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997). Their near-equality is due to the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously trying to achieve radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earths surface. If those two quantities were more un-equal then they are in nature, then radiation-induced temperature changes in the atmosphere, and at the surface, would be much larger than we observe.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
"However, the blogosphere is flooded with academically illiterate comments from self-declared experts. As an example, it is worth reading the comments of A. Lacis (moderated by J. Curry at her Climate Etc. blog) on the Miskolczi’s article [17].The whole comment is just an ad hominem attack, probably motivated by the lack of his knowledge of basic radiative transfer concepts. There is a number of posts and comments on various websites like J. Curry, Science of Dooms and Real Climate etc. They don’t deserve to be repeated in this journal.
They do not sound very scientific. Let us have a closer look into the best rebuttal. In Spencer 2010 [59] he wrote an executive summary on my [27] E&E article. Spencer simply ignored the important fact that in the whole article I dealt with clear sky conditions only. Since the clear and all sky fluxes are not directly (and quantitatively) comparable, his numerical comparisons with the [39] radiative budget is totally meaningless. He is also, in my opinion, confused in a series of radiative transfer details: does not comprehend what anisotropy means and how to compute it (he called the spherical emissivity a fudge factor), what is the flux density form of the Kirchhoff-Planck relationship, what is the Virial theorem and how to apply it, what is directional and flux optical thickness.
If the blog comment above − without correct quantitative references to my well documented computational results − represent the matured opinion of the global warming community on the greenhouse science, then certainly the open scientific discussion must be improved on this topic.
One should remember that real science cannot ever be settled. Planetary climate science is not an exception; it will eventually make its progress with or without the ‘consensus’ of the politically oriented IPCC. The various hypotheses and approximations must be scientifically evaluated and eventually rejected, accepted or improved."
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/
"There is a number of posts and comments on various websites like J. Curry, Science of Dooms and Real Climate etc. They don’t deserve to be repeated in this journal."
It is not necessary for DREMT to understand the science in papers.
He is able judge their quality based on a simple criteria.
Are they claiming there is no GHE? Then they must be correct!
Are they claiming there is a GHE, (thousands of papers or textbooks) then they must be wrong!
Some of his earlier papers had serious mathematical errors. His previous paper was better in that respect. It presented quite correct calculations of the radiative heat transfer including results that were very close of proving his conclusions wrong, but he stopped just short of doing the last step that would have resulted in that.
The main problem of his theoretical part is that he makes calculations, whose results are dominated by the lower troposphere, but almost all the radiative forcing comes from the upper troposphere that does not enter properly in his calculation. That error persists here. The calculation that I mention in the previous paragraph looked at the upper troposphere, but he stopped short of calculating the forcing from that.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661881
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The importance of the line shape is large in calculations of Venus atmosphere as discussed here
http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mendrok/publications/takagi10_influence_jgr.pdf
I did calculations for 10000 ppm in the Earth atmosphere finding that the effect significant at that concentration. It’s not clear, whether the paper you referred used a model that’s intended to be used at high concentrations. If not, then the results may be significantly wrong.”
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661894
Little Willy…that’s a critique of a different paper, and not a Miskolczi paper, that David App.ell referred to [rolls eyes].
How long are you going to be linking to random comments today?
Everything Gaslighting Graham does not understand is random.
Gaslighting Graham does not understand a lot of things.
Little Willy should be embarrassed that he linked to the wrong comment. Somehow, he is not embarrassed.
Gaslighting Graham should be embarrassed not to realize why I quoted Pekka.
Since he does not know Pekka, he thinks that’s random.
No, I know who he is. Perhaps you should have quoted him discussing Miskolczi, or his work, rather than a paper by different authors.
Perhaps quoting Pekka saying that getting the proper tool for the job means something.
But then if Gaslighting Graham knew that perhaps he would not have cited Ferenc?
If you have a point, clearly state it. Rather than link to someone you like talking about a totally different paper.
And above Gaslighting Graham’s head the point goes…
His idiocy is not my problem anymore.
The discussion is closed.
Sure, maybe the point went over my head. You’d first have to prove that, by making clear what your point actually was. Otherwise, readers will likely just assume you’re full of crap, as usual.
Maybe after exploiting Binny’s bait, which was in response to his own bait, Gaslighting Graham is not owed anything for trying to revive another Sky Dragon zombie he obviously fails to understand.
Just a thought.
You never had a point, and simply linked to the wrong comment by mistake. Got it.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
False.
Pure contradiction.
Got it.
I don’t gaslight. I know that, so pure contradiction is all that’s required.
Second contradiction. So repetition.
Got it.
Have the last word, if your ego requires it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543272
“This is primary observational evidence that cannot be refuted by underspecified models.”
There is no primary observational evidence. Miskolczi just looks through old balloon databases to get sets of temperature/pressure readings. These are inputs to his computer program. But no radiative data is used.
If you think there is such evidence, please specify.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661825
This is adequately addressed in the responses at your link.
Gaslighting Graham handwaves again.
Got it.
You handwave to Stokes’ comment, I will handwave to the responses.
NO U.
Got it.
Little Willy is an obnoxious, hated failure who is obsessed with me to the point of driving himself insane. Got it.
Gaslighting is whining again.
Got it.
Winning, not whining.
Self-proclamation.
Got it.
Have the last word, if your ego requires it.
This is a terrible paper, as judged by every knowledgeable skeptic scientist, like Curry and Spencer.
Naturally the ignorant contrarian masses latch onto it as if it is the holy grail.
For any physical phenomenon we can easily develop approaches that have no power of telling, what the phenomenon really does. Miskolczi has taken this approach by writing yet another incoherent paper where inaccurate empirical observations and approximate properties of model calculations are put together claiming that the result is a new exact law of nature. He invents such new laws and then uses them to prove what he wants to prove.
No wonder that he had to go to this kind of journal to get it published.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661847
N.B: The paper I linked to is Miskolczi 2023. It’s a brand new paper. Only just been published. Nobody here has barely had a chance to read it…but they’re all piling on, certain that it’s "wrong", anyway. No, I’m not saying that it’s definitely "right", either. I just offered it up for discussion.
Oh well.
Miskolczi 2023 Fig. 11 uses the same data as in Miskolczi 2010. Strange, the data is not extended to present day & doesn’t use currently available all-sky data.
For discussion, DREMT could, in DREMT’s own words, discuss the basic reasoning behind Dr. Miskolczi’s reliance on clear-sky data Fig. 13 to draw conclusions about nature of climate when there is available all-sky CERES data.
Miskolczi is definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper.
Thank you.
(In all seriousness, if you wanted to know why Miskolczi did something, you could just email him and ask, rather than expecting me to speak for him).
PS. Here is the most interesting paper Binny posted:
https://tinyurl.com/ywphaecp
Gaslighting Graham ignores that paper. He is just looking for another fight. And we can predict he’ll excuse it with “BUT BINNY STARTED IT!”
I didn’t ignore the paper. Scroll up, re-read. Try again.
Handwaving.
Got it.
Not at all. Obviously that paper is refuted by Miskolczi, if Miskolczi is correct.
Repetition of the handwaving.
Baiting.
Got it.
Have the last word, if your ego requires it.
DREMT can read the title of the nice Binny paper, and see that it supports the GHE.
Thereby he can conclude it must be wrong. His work is easy.
Miskolczi is definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper (life’s too short for another twenty day back and forth with a bunch of sociopaths).
Is DREMT finally learning that his ridiculous posts only invite ridicule?
Seems unlikely.
…is definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper (life’s too short for another twenty day back and forth with a bunch of sociopaths).
“lifes too short for another twenty day back and forth”
Obviously not, since DREMT keeps coming back and restarting such discussions, repeating the same claims that have been debunked dozens of times, which again get debunked again, as happened here yesterday.
Then he plays the victim card again.
…definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper (life’s too short for another twenty day back and forth with a bunch of sociopaths).
By Denver Nicks
July 24, 2014 11:01 AM EDT
“Germans have a pretty high opinion of themselves when it comes to environmental stewardship, according to a recent TIME poll, but their pride might be a little premature.”
https://time.com/3028723/germany-climate-change-coal-poll/
Was it a little premature?
What country in last 10 years did the most to fight global warming?
And what country had the most inherent ability to do this, the most?
I think France had already built it’s nuclear reactor by 2014, so you can’t count that.
And Germany is cold and doesn’t get much sunlight, so other than making nuclear reactors, it was lacking inherent ability. And not surpisingly, it didn’t do anything to reduce global CO2 emission in last 10 years, and doesn’t have any plans to do anything significant in next 10 years- and Germany public is not happy about what their government has done in regards global warming.
One way to think of it, is Canada importing about 3 million people
in last 10 years. And since Canada is colder than all countries, 3 million people are living in a colder world.
The US is warmer, but has lower average temperature than many places
and it’s importing a lot more people.
Episode 2251 Scott Adams: We Have Entered The Demolition Phase. Creative Phase Follows. We’re Good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioJ5mTc5Mic
I haven’t listened to it yet, but Scott thinks Americans are good at
destroying stuff.
Maybe that will do something about global warming.
First Intuitive Machines lunar lander ready for launch
Jeff Foust October 3, 2023
https://spacenews.com/first-intuitive-machines-lunar-lander-ready-for-launch/
“HOUSTON Intuitive Machines first lunar lander is complete and ready to ship for a launch next month as executives say theyre cautiously optimistic about the prospects of a successful landing.
The company unveiled its completed Nova-C lander at its new headquarters here Oct. 3, a day after completing a pre-ship review that confirmed that the spacecraft is ready to be transported to the Kennedy Space Center for launch on a Falcon 9 on a mission designated IM-1.
That launch is scheduled for a six-day period that opens Nov. 16 from KSCs Launch Complex 39A. The lander will separate from the upper stage 32 minutes after launch and begin a five-day journey to the moon. A day after going into orbit around the moon, the spacecraft will attempt a landing at Malapert Crater, about 300 kilometers from the lunar south pole.”
So, around 80 degrees latitude or about 1/2 distance to south pole
as Indian lander. Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapert_(crater)
Or sunlight is 10 degrees lower in sky, and depending on terrain one can more {or much less} than 14 earth days, of daytime.
So a lot region is in having more night but have small region called
peaks of eternal light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light#Lunar_south_pole
Which parts of Malapert Mountain is part of.
To study atmosphere, NASA rockets will fly into October eclipses shadow
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/10/04/to-study-atmosphere-nasa-rockets-will-fly-into-october-eclipses-shadow/#more-64368
“A NASA sounding rocket mission will launch three rockets during the 2023 annular eclipse in October to study how the sudden drop in sunlight affects our upper atmosphere, says Phys.org.
On Oct. 14, 2023, viewers of an annular solar eclipse in the Americas will experience the sun dimming to 10% its normal brightness, leaving only a bright ring of fire of sunlight as the moon eclipses the sun.”
A question?
Interestingly, the eastern USA near the Great Lakes is the hot spot globally as of today.
I wonder if the forest fire smoke caused the current weather change anomalies?
That is counterintuitive because airborne particulates usually cool the planet as far as I understand things.
Also of note is that the climate is returning to more normal temperatures recently.
glenn…it has more to do with the hot air coming out of Washington, D.C converging with the hot air coming out of Ottawa, Canada, where the federal government is located.
The Canadian government is still trying to distance itself from honouring a Ukrainian Nazi, whom the entire House gave a standing O. In D.C, it’s Biden’s dog biting everyone and them rushing to deny it and blame it on Trump.
Here’s brilliant Nate explaining how insulation raises the global temperature –
“If the atmosphere and its GHE are acting as insulation for the Earths surface (and they are), then all that can be expected is that the surface will cool more slowly at night than it would without the GHE.”
Unfortunately, the use of the words “the surface will cool more slowly at night” rather destroys justification that the GHE increases temperatures. Slow cooling is temperature reduction, as is fast cooling. Not heating – no temperature increase at all.
Of course, Nate refuses to answer the easy question posed – “Why does the surface cool at night?”. GHE proponents positively refuse to address the question of why the surface cools at night, nor why the Earth has cooled significantly since the surface was molten!
No wonder none of them can actually describe the GHE, let alone say where this GHE may be observed, measured and documented.
Particularly the rather strange and totally misinformed Nate.
Slow cooling results in increased temperatures, does it? Nah, the word “cooling” exposes the illusion.
“Of course, Nate refuses to answer the easy question posed ‘Why does the surface cool at night?”.
I don’t recall being asked this rather stoopid question, that any 4th grader can answer.
But Swenson remains forever confused about what insulation can do, and what it cannot do. It cannot PREVENT a warm thing with cool surroundings from cooling. It can only SLOW its cooling.
And Swenson seems unable to figure out why SLOWING the cooling of the Earth at night (or anytime) results in it being warmer on average.
Cuz he is just not very smart.
Nate,
You refuse to answer the simple question “Why does the Earth cool at night?”, and you haven’t got the brains to ask the 4th grader whom you claim knows the answer!
You wrote (in a fit of fantasy) –
“And Swenson seems unable to figure out why SLOWING the cooling of the Earth at night (or anytime) results in it being warmer on average.”
Well no, Nate, falling temperature (it’s called cooling) does not result in anything getting hotter.
This is a mystery to you, but not to anyone who realises that temperatures drop at night, during solar eclipses, when it’s snowing, and so on.
According to fools like you, slow cooling is actually heating!
Idiot.
I just tried the experiment that falsifies your theory.
Hot oven, turned off, door open, it cools quickly. And with oven on, door open, it fails to get very hot.
Hot oven, turned off, door closed, it cools slowly. And with the oven on, door closed, it reaches a much hotter temperature.
So, a closed door (insulation) enables a heated oven to get hotter, and it causes an unheated oven to cool more slowly.
BTW the Earth’s surface is heated during the day and unheated at night.
Let’s see if you can connect the dots.
aq…the whiny alarmist comes onto Roy’s site hoping to stir the pot and only gets his butt kicked. That’s because he doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground.
In his latest assault on Roy, he doesn’t even have the class to post a links to his utter rubbish.
Begone trohl!!!
My apologies to aq, it was ark the snark who made the low-class post about Roy. I knew that while posting but somehow, because they both start with ‘a’ I got the nyms confused.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://climatecrocks.com/2023/10/03/deniers-favorite-temp-data-goes-woke/
All the alarmist weenies come out of the trees, slobbering over a fraction of a degree warming.
Hello, weenies, where has the catastrophic warming been hiding the past 40+ years? Is it in the oceans, as head weenie, Kevin Trenberth claimed when he got egg all over his face in the Climategate emails for claiming, in secret, ‘the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why’. When the emails broke, Kevin had to rush for an answer and claimed, ‘it’s hiding in the oceans’.
In the past 25 years, we’ve had three…count them…three months… where the thermometers topped 0.6C above the baseline average, and in that times we’ve had 24 years showing no trend whatsoever.
Not only that, we’ve had 1C warming in 170 years. To hear the weenies whine, you’d think the global average had exceeded 10C.
But the real joke is our local weenie, wee willy, where the wee stands for weenie, rushing to expose us to the alarmist whine.
Hopefully, Roy is losing no sleep over this blatant propaganda. I sure ain’t.
[BORDO] he doesnt even have the class to post a links
[ALSO BORDO] All the alarmist weenies come out of the trees, slobbering over a fraction of a degree warming.
Poor Bordo. Getting overwhelmed. When will he find the time to protect *HIS* blog?
Not that he shares with Roy the believe that CO2 warms the atmosphere and the Earth, mind you.
He just has nowhere else to go.
You are overly sensitive wee willy. I am not lecturing you on your posting practices, I am simply countering your propaganda.
Cool story, Bordo.
Mine is simpler. You asked for a link. You got served.
And then you ripped off your shirt.
Put your shirt back on, please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mental illness Diagnoses – climatosis
https://youtu.be/ayOV2jUvsFg?t=193
gb…re decline in public confidence for science.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Paper from 2005 claims most papers issued are wrong. Partial reason is a reliance on statistics as the source of their claims. I doubt if science has improved since.
That is definitely an issue. Especially in areas especially dependent on statistics. There is an accessible Veritasium video on the topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=49s
It’s not only statistics, Folkerts. It’s the perversion of reality, such as people claiming you can boil water with ice cubes!
There are actually people that promote such nonsense…..
Thanks for link, Tim. Good video except for the conclusion that we have no better means of doing science. Scrapping peer reveiw would be a good start and scrapping purely statistical analysiys would be another.
For example, many research papers coming out today about vitamins are geared to propping up the status quo theory that they are a waste of money, that you only pee them out. Linus Pauling did a study on himself where he consumed 10 grams of vitamins C. He measured about half in his urine and stool but half remained in the body for a lot longer. Obviously, the extra C was being used.
He concluded that the amount lost in the urinary tract and bowels performed a much needed antioxidant effect by neutralizing dangerous free radicals. Ergo, claiming it is a waste to pee them out is not true, all the extra C you take serves purpose due to the powerful antioxidant effect of C.
Pauling claimed later that it’s not how much C you take at one sitting that is important, it’s how high you keep the vitamin C serum level in your blood throughout the day. Statisticians would do no such experiments, they would simply comb through papers equating the amount of C ingested in experiments to unrelated factors. There is no way for them to know if those factors are related to C-levels, but they publish papers with negative conclusions about C when they have done no experiments of their own.
An important step toward the 2024 season was made this summer at Sebring International Raceway.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
While CO2 is not the exclusive driver of climate change, it is a hefty passenger.-
Yes, inflation is out of control. Some fast-food restaurants have raised prices 20% in the last 3 years.
Can’t cook, huh?
Inflation is across the board — food, energy, housing, cars, appliances,,,
Children aren’t expected to understand.
That would have been better the first time, Pupman.
You immediately went for what hits you the most.
Wrong child. There is no reality you will accept. You have to pervert my comments to defend your cult.
Now, get the last word in, like the childish tr0ll you are.
Mentioning fast food is better than mentioning food, energy, housing, cars, appliances?
Got it.
And, we also have record crop production. I’ll take it. We can feed people. The leftists don’t care about feeding people, only advancing their agenda.
What record crop production?
ark…”This year has already seen records broken for the number of U.S. weather and climate disasters…”
***
Not a shred of evidence relating any of this to CO2.
Sure there is. If the average temperature gets warmer over time, then you get more record hot temperatures than cold. I’ve posted the empirical results for that worldwide here many times.
The evidence that rising CO2 causes global surface temps to rise is overwhelming. Very few experts on atmospheric physics disagree with it (I can think of two only).
There is zero scientific evidence to correlate CO2 increases with temperature increases. The fact that both are rising simultaneously is not scientific proof of a correlation.
That’s especially true when you apply the Ideal Gas Law to a gas mixture like our atmosphere where CO2 makes up 0.04% and nitrogen and oxygen about 99%.
You certainly won’t get heat extremes from such a mix. Furthermore, the heat diffusion formula supplied by G&T which shows the amount of heat that can be diffused into the mix is dependent solely on the mass percent of each gas in the mix. Although CO2 has a percent of about 0.04% it is a heaver molecule and its mass percent is about 0.06%. It is no coincidence that the heat diffusion formula arrives at the same amount of heating by CO2.
To back up that science, the Ideal Gas Law arrives at the same figure.
Why are you talking about heat extremes?
Your ‘analysis’ completely ignores the different radiative function of gases in the atmosphere, which is the basis for the greenhouse effect.
As usual, you assign supreme credibility for an maverick view that has been debunked here and elsewhere many times over, written by people who are not qualified in the subject, and who have published nothing on the peer-reviewed literature on climate. And of course, you write off the consensus on the greenhouse effect as somehow corrupted. Or incompetence, which no doubt you assign to
Roy’s position.
Sorry, I’ll take the consensus of experts, including Roy Spencer, John Christy and Richard Lindzen over an ill-conceived and largely irrelevant paper that couldn’t pass peer-review. That seems sensible to me. Your mileage may vary.
barry, please stop trolling.
A clear ozone blockage of the circulation over Alaska in the stratosphere is already visible. This means negative temperatures in Alaska and waves of cold fronts from the north in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/LNtXTTP/gfs-t100-nh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/4ZYMdnY/gfs-toz-nh-f120.png
The first of the surface datasets is out.
Copernicus gives 0.91C for September on the same baseline as UAH.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67017021
Summer is over and typical autumn weather has begun in the UK. In a few days a big drop in temperature.
https://i.ibb.co/WvR2Gv5/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-05-163050.png
Ant and Wiltard link the propaganda sites.
Propoganda site: definition
Any site which disagrees with Stephen P Anderson’s world view.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Freeze watch for late Friday night into early Saturday morning for much of Nebraska. Temperatures could drop into the 20s and lower 30s by early Saturday morning.
At the same time, a severe winter attack will hit Scandinavia.
Maybe the Dakotas, not so sure about “much of Nebraska”: https://imgur.com/a/8OWNXRL.
We’re ready though. Just topped up my 500 gallon propane tank.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Allarmists be like –
https://i.postimg.cc/bdXh27xQ/shock-640×480.jpg
One of the ongoing mistakes, made by believers in the GHE nonsense, is that the sky is “radiative insulation”. That ain’t right.
For radiative insulation to work, a radiative “reflector” is needed. That way the same photons (same wavelengths) are returning. The sky returns only a portion of Earth’s photons, as most are absorbed, thermalized, and re-emitted as lower energy (longer wavelengths) photons.
In terms of flux, Earth emits an average of about 400 W/m^2. DWIR from the sky is about 300 W/m^2. Earth is always losing to sky.
And that’s also why the concept of “that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be” does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.
Clint R
You seem hung up on words while missing the concept. You don’t like the choice of “radiative insulation” well then use the term radiative barrier.
Yes the Earth surface is losing to sky, correct. But it loses far less with the DWIR than it would without it (remove the blanket and it cools much faster).
The Earth’s surface is a heated surface from the Sun. So with the reduction of radiant heat loss from the surface because of the DWIR it will reach a higher steady state temperature than it would have without the “blanket”.
NO you are wrong here: “The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.”
These heat transfer mechanisms do not insulate at all, both remove surface heat and cool the surface. They do NOT insulate at all. If you believe they do then describe the mechanism.
Wrong again Norman.
N2 and O2 (the atmosphere) are good insulators.
… except for radiation.
Clint R
N2 and O2 are good insulators for conductive heat loss but that is a very small amount.
CO2 and H2O do well enough with their radiant reduction to allow the solar heating to warm the planet surface. Surface emits and average of 390 W/m^2 but the loss out of the Earth system averages 240 W/m^2 so the reduction would be around 61% (240/390)x100%.
You do realize that O2 and N2 are the primary gases involved in convection which removes significant heat from the surface? They would act much more like anti-insulation for the surface as they act to remove heat from the surface and move it into the atmosphere. In the vacuum surface of the Moon the daytime surface temperature gets quite hot because their is no convection removing surface energy. Only radiant energy removes heat on the Moon surface.
Norman, you’ve wandered off topic and seem to be writing a novel about Moon and Sun.
Here’s the point you’re missing:
And that’s also why the concept of “that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be” does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.
So Clint R 2:42 pm: How exactly does the actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the cooler atmosphere make Earth warmer than it would otherwise be as Clint writes?
Also, exactly which earthen atm. gases are “non-radiative”?
Ball4, does your mommy know you’re playing on her keyboard?
3:10 pm is (just change “spoken” to ‘written’ and “an” to ‘a’):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542528
Norman tried to motivate Clint R:
” If you believe they do then describe the mechanism. ”
And? Some output, genius Clint R?
*
By the way, I remember an excellent article that fits Clint R’s state of mind like a glove:
The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)
M. Höp~fner, M. Milz, S. Buehler, J. Or~phal, G. Stiller (2012)
*
It’s soo perfect for him! I’m sure he’ll enjoy it.
” We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm−2 and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm−2. ”
A radiative reduction by NO LESS THAN 0.11 resp. 0.17 W/m^2!
Extraordinary. Unimaginable. I’m simply amazed.
*
Will the genius understand what the two sentences below exactly mean?
” The collision-induced fundamental vibra~tion-rota~tion band at 6.4 μm is the major absorp~tion signature of O2 in the thermal infrared. ”
.
” N2 has two major bands influencing the infrared radiation: the collision-induced roto~vibra~tional fundamental band at 2400 cm−1 and the collision-induced roto~trans~lational band at 100 cm−1. ”
Very interesting is that here, the authors suddenly switch from wavelengths to wavenumbers, he he hee :–)
– 2400 cm−1 means 4.2 microns, i.e. nearer IR, at the limit of solar radiation;
– 100 cm−1 means 100 microns, i.e. farer IR, way away from any energy relevant terrestrial IR emission, because bodies at a temperature of 300 K (27 C, typical average temperature in the most important Tropical region) emit at between 8 and 12 microns.
*
Finally, let’s note just for fun that 2400 cm-1 is a frequency range mainly used in astronomical research and observation, for example:
The Astronomical Journal
Medium-Resolution Stellar Spectra in the L Band from 2400 to 3000 cm−1 (3.3 to 4.2 Microns)
Lloyd Wallace and Kenneth Hinkle (2002)
https://tinyurl.com/y9csf256
I could tell people that Bindi composes long, rambling, pointless comments, but they may not believe me.
So it’s always good when he proves me right….
Bindiclown doesn’t compose, he copypasta pages from internet.
… says the dachshund who is not even able to copypasta.
All what he is able to do is to post links to du~mb YouTube trash all the time, like little dogs leave their poos everywhere.
Clint R
Please stop dodging.
Norman wrote:
” If you believe they do then describe the mechanism. ”
Please answer with something less vague, less trivial, less superficial than
” And that’s also why the concept of ‘that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be’ does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2. ”
Where is your scientific proof for your claim?
Bindi, if you’re really interested in science and reality, where is your model of “orbital motion without spin”?
You’ve dodged this question long enough. Quit tr0lling and put up or shut up.
Clint R
Since you are not actually interested in anything but peddling your cult beliefs (pretending they are “science”) why should Bindidon attempt something that you will just reject?
I have already given you examples of orbital motion without spin but you reject them and insist a ball on a string is an example of orbit with no spin. A ball on a string is only a rotational motion NOT an orbit. You think a string makes it conceptually different than a solid rod with a ball attached. You would consider a solid bar orbiting.
Nothing will change your illogical thought process or your demeaning and empty posts (no science at all just your loud obnoxious opinions). You are deep in a cult and don’t see it or too drunk to care and are just a complete asshole who wants to stir up shit while in a drunken stupor. You certainly are not gifted in any scientific ability. You have zero understanding of science.
Sorry Norman, but your “square orbit” gets rejected. That ain’t reality.
When you know you’re lost you start the insults and false accusations.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(And I notice Bindi ran, as usual — double fun.)
Clint R
” … where is your model of orbital motion without spin? ”
Real science tells us that all celestial bodies spin about their polar axis, but you de~ny that.
YOU therefore are the one who needs such a nonsensical model. I don’t.
*
Again: please stop dodging.
Norman wrote:
If you believe they do then describe the mechanism.
Please answer with something less vague, less trivial, less superficial than
And that’s also why the concept of ‘that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be’ does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.
Where is your scientific proof for your claim?
You still don’t answer, because you apparently don’t have such a proof.
Just like you aren’t able to prove that Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, Habibullin, etc etc, were wrong.
Ask the Eben dachshund for the lunar spin, maybe he will explain you :–)
“YOU therefore are the one who needs such a nonsensical model. I don’t.”
Of course you do. Without zero, how can you have one, or minus one (retrograde spin)? Or two, or three, or 366.25 times per orbit?
Bindi makes the false claim Real science tells us that all celestial bodies spin about their polar axis, but you de~ny that.
Support your claim, Bindi. Where does it say “all celestial bodies spin”? Most moons in our solar system do NOT spin. Some asteroids do not spin. Planets spin at different rates, telling us there is no relation of spin to orbit.
Where is your model of “orbital motion without spin”? If you de-ny the real ball-on-a-string, where’s your replacement? Norman has invented “square orbits”. Do you agree with Norman?
Put up or shut up.
You’re welcome, Pupman:
“In general yes, everything rotates. It is to do with something called angular moment. Gravity is the central force in the Universe, because it is the only one which has a significant pull over large distances. When things collapse under their own gravity in space (i.e. clouds of gas and dust), any small amount of asymmetry in the collapse will be enough start it spinning. Even if it spins by a tiny amount, as it collapses, angular momentum conservation will mean it spins more and more quickly – just like an spinning ice-skater pulling their arms into their body and spinning more quickly. This means that all coherent masses are spinning – e.g. asteroids, neutron stars, galaxies, quasars.”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis
PS: That other one is on you, Binny. One day you’ll learn.
Sure, you can think of every celestial object as spinning so long as you think of “orbit without spin” as being motion like the “moon on the right” (MOTR) in the below GIF:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
However, if you think of “orbit without spin” as being motion like the “moon on the left”, (MOTL) then no, not every celestial body is spinning.
Anyway, I’m at rest on this issue. The “Spinners” have a couple of good arguments (involving the libration in latitude, and longitude), but that’s it. Everything else they argue is complete bunk. I could even be prepared to be swayed to the “Spinner” point of view based on those two arguments alone, but there’s just so much more about the “Non-Spinner” view that the “Spinners” don’t get, and maybe never will. So I will remain a “Non-Spinner”. Regardless of who is correct, overall, these points remain eternally, gloriously correct, no matter what:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
DREMT remains eternally, gloriously incorrect, no matter what since correctly:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt to the string and central observer but the ball is rotating on its own axis wrt the spinner’s room.
2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis wrt to an observer on the circle is motion as per the MOTL.
3) The moon issue really is completely resolved by reference frames which is why they call it relativity. All motion is relative, there is no absolute motion as claimed by DREMT.
Ball4 is one of those that passionately believes the whole issue is resolved by reference frames. He’s wrong, and I have no need to argue with him on the issue. He won’t listen, and that’s OK. I know I’m right.
I’ll read, and understand, DREMT’s comments and then point out DREMT’s physics errors as usual.
I’m right.
Instead of having to explain how in the Moon Dragon crank universe celestial objects lose their angular momentum, Gaslighting Graham returns to his pet riddle.
Got it.
The tidal locking mechanism is fine with me. Get it?
Asking a rhetorical question to deflect from the fact that Moon Dragon cranks hold that tidal locking implies no more angular momentum?
Got it.
That’s right, an object that is tidally-locked (in "1:1 spin-orbit resonance") has no spin angular momentum, according to "Non-Spinners".
… an object that is tidally-locked (in “1:1 spin-orbit resonance”) has no spin angular momentum wrt to an observer on the planet surface, according to correct “Non-Spinners”. The tidally locked object however does have inertial spin momentum satisfying the “spinners”.
The sociopath returns…
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham could find an astrophysics textbook in which it is stated that tidal locking implies an angular momentum of zero.
Of course not! The "Spinner" view dominates. I would never expect to see that in any textbook.
You know, I thought I conceded rather a lot in my 8:35 AM comment. Seems nobody cares about that. They just want to argue with me, always…and indefinitely.
Poor Moon Dragon cranks, forever the victims.
https://gist.github.com/elnjensen/234e6045dd02c06dac1a227334f5a6a0
All Moon Dragon cranks need is to produce a notebook like this one.
Brilliant, well done, excellent. Have the last word if your ego requires it.
> as explained here
Here is the link under the “here”:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast161/Unit4/tides.html
Greenhouse gases in the upper troposphere radiate into space. There, the vertical temperature gradient no longer works. The tropopause is unable to retain heat in any way.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
Greenhouse gases in the upper troposphere radiate into space. There, the vertical temperature gradient no longer works. The tropopause is unable to retain heat in any way.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
“After the Earth, Sun, and Moon, Psyche might prove to be the most valuable object in the solar system. Whoever controls it will have access to a treasure trove of metals that dont sit at the bottom of a deep gravity well.”
https://instapundit.com/
It seems it’s valuable in terms of understanding Earth. And the Moon is probably more valuable in that regards than Psyche.
In terms mineral wealth, both Moon and Psyche aren’t very valuable.
The Moon’s value {and Mars} is related to amount of mineable water either or both have.
Determining whether Moon has any mineable water is a significant reason to explore the Moon- the other reason is to determine if we can then, explore Mars.
Another important aspect of exploring the Moon is the develop of the Starship.
Or Starship is surprising, but something like the Starship was assumed to have occurred, by first exploring the Moon. Or if you think it’s unrelated, something like New Glenn rocket was assumed to happen as result of first focusing on exploring the Moon, and THEN focusing on Mars. Or look at all the start ups other than SpaceX and Blue Orgin- all these things are NOT unrelated to the NASA Crew mission to the Moon.
Trust the science
https://i.postimg.cc/0NtSjFRS/1639275066701.jpg
Of course people have every right to be concerned at the radical departure of global temperatures from past norms. However it remains possible to associate this with the Tongan underwater volcano that sent massive quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere in January.
Such unexplained rapid warming is a feature of the past climate record in the form of DansgaardOeschger events. We have numbers of volcanos on the surface so I would expect the same prevalence exists under the world’s oceans – but normally undetectable.
Are we going through a relatively minor Dansgaard-Oeschger event?
Here is more information on DansgaardOeschger events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger…
When significant volcanoes erupt on the surface – they produce radical cooling known as “Younger Dryas” (due to sulphate emissions). This seems to corroborate the possibility of the Tongan volcano having a similar effect but not with sulphate emissions; water vapour instead.
https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1709227053818753119
All gases above absolute zero radiate IR.
No question.
Convection and advection merely result in IR radiating gases moving from one place to another. These gases cool by radiating IR unless the loss is made up by external radiation from other matter which is hotter than the radiating gas.
No question.
No GHE. So sad, too bad.
” All gases above absolute zero radiate IR. ”
Flynnson’s typical anti-scientific, nonsensical blah blah blah.
Any 10-year old boy would understand that while some gases absorb (and hence radiate) IR at a perceptible intensity in the 300 K temperature range, others do not at all.
Flynnson’s specialty is to distract, distort, obscure, misinterpret and misrepresent.
Binny,
All gases radiate IR. All gases can be warmed by absorbing IR.
IR radiated by air, and absorbed by a thermometer indicates the temperature of the air. Its degree of hotness.
Air containing no CO2 or H2O can be at the same temperature as pure CO2 or H2O gas.
You cannot tell the composition of air by measuring its temperature.
No question – unless by SkyDragon cultists, who have no clue.
Go on, tell me I’m wrong – and more importantly, why.
Otherwise you just look like another whining GHE fantasist.
Carry n,
You cannot tell the composition of air by measuring its temperature.
Flynnsons typical anti-scientific, nonsensical blah blah blah.
No one claimed that, Flynnson.
Any 10-year old boy would understand that while some gases absorb (and hence radiate) IR at a perceptible intensity in the 300 K temperature range, others do not at all.
Flynnsons specialty is to distract, distort, obscure, misinterpret and misrepresent.
Binny,
All gases radiate IR. All gases can be warmed by absorbing IR.
IR radiated by air, and absorbed by a thermometer indicates the temperature of the air. Its degree of hotness.
Air containing no CO2 or H2O can be at the same temperature as pure CO2 or H2O gas.
You cannot tell the composition of air by measuring its temperature.
No question unless by SkyDragon cultists, who have no clue.
Go on, tell me Im wrong and more importantly, why.
Otherwise you just look like another whining GHE fantasist.
Carry on.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The right-wing network’s resident comedian went full fascist on Thursday, warning that the only thing that can save America is another civil war.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-greg-gutfeld-floats-civil-war-because-elections-dont-work
Eboys will love that one.
Climatism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTRNprTPNBY
I didn’t comment, because sometimes, posts don’t post.
Sort of interesting video.
Julie and expert guest didn’t seem to be aware that we living in icehouse global climate, also, called a Ice Age.
But important aspect mentioned near the end of it, is the train wreck we going to have using more unworkable “renewable” energy. And that is what guest’s Steve Goreham’s book is concerning. Julie’s lack of understanding about “global warming” was a bit surprising- I guess the kiddies are learning less about it and instead just given a lot more scary stories, about it.
GB…the video sounded good till the 13:08 mark when the guest made an egregious error. He claimed that greenhouse gases trap most of the surface radiation and it is radiated back to the surface to warm it. That is wrong for two reasons. GHGs absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation, the rest being lost directly to space. Secondly, the back-radiation from GHGs to the surface has no effect since GHGs from the surface upward move from thermal equilibrium to becoming cooler.
Heat cannot be transferred during thermal equilibrium and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as stated by its inventor, Rudolf Clausius, states that heat can NEVER be transferred BY IT’S OWN MEANS, from a colder body to a hotter body.
Alarmists have tried to get around the 2nd law by claiming it deals with a net energy, and if a balance of energy is positive, the 2nd law is not contradicted. That balance of energy, or a net heat transfer, does not exist. It is derived from lumping infrared energy in with heat, as if IR and heat are one and he same. They are not. The 2nd law applies only to heat and only quantities of heat can be summed.
“That is wrong for two reasons. GHGs absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation, the rest being lost directly to space.”
So, 240 x .07 = 16.8 watts. Or 40 of 240 goes directly to space, so
200 x .07 = 14 watts per square meter average global.
Of course he might talking about water vapor and he knows Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas and there is a lot more of it.
I don’t know how much effect CO2 has, it just seem likely in has some warming effect which is small and it’s not measured, yet.
Like the father of global warming {though there many fathers and even mothers} but the father thought CO2 would cause some warming and he wanted more warming. And I hope CO2 causes some warming, but it’s been rather disappointing, so far.
But I am pretty certain that 15 C air temperature is cold.
“GHGs absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation, the rest being lost directly to space.”
Completely wrong. Rather than someone else correcting you, how about you have a good hunt around and see if you can correct yourself.
barry,
It doesnt matter how much radiation any particular component of the atmosphere absorbs.
As the surface cools, (for example, at night), the temperature drops. Drops, doesn’t increase. Gets colder, not hotter!
If you want to whine that it is not cooling as fast as it would without any atmosphere at all, who cares? Cooling is cooling – fast or slow.
Accept reality – abandon feather-brained fantasies that CO2 or H2O makes the world hotter. If it did, the seas would still be boiling – if the surface ever got cold enough for liquid water to form! Before the oceans formed, all the H2O was in the atmosphere. Lots and lots, but the atmosphere cooled anyway.
You are not terribly bright, are you? Go on, change the subject and complain about something else.
[laughing at misinformed GHE fantasist]
You’ve already changed the subject.
Back to the topic, can you help Gordon out and tell him what percentage of surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs?
barry, please stop trolling.
“Alarmists have tried to get around the 2nd law by claiming it deals with a net energy”
This isn’t about getting around the 2nd Law. It’s simply a fact. Radiative energy is exchanged between objects. It doesn’t matter what temperature the objects are, this is what actually happens.
“… and if a balance of energy is positive, the 2nd law is not contradicted. That balance of energy, or a net heat transfer, does not exist.”
Of course it does. Net transfer of radiation is not only a standard of radiative transfer equations, this reflects what actually goes on in the real world.
“All objects emit and absorb radiation. The net rate of heat transfer by radiation (absorp.tion minus emission) is related to both the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings…
When T2 > T1, the quantity Qnet/t is positive; that is, the net heat transfer is from hot to cold.”
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/14%3A_Heat_and_Heat_Transfer_Methods/14.07%3A_Radiation
This is bog standard physics text stuff, Gordon.
barry,
At least you got something right.
Heat moves from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. Otherwise, it wouldnt be heat. And cold rays – contrary to past scientific belief – don’t actually exist.
Unless you ask artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) “Does cold radiation exist (radiation that is physically cold)?”
Answer –
“Yes, cold radiation does exist. It is a type of electromagnetic radiation that has a lower energy and frequency than other types of radiation, such as visible light or microwaves. Examples of cold radiation include radio waves, infrared radiation, and millimeter waves.”
I believe the US is worried about losing its “lead” in artificial intelligence. Probably spending billions on cold death rays! Good for the US – leading the world.
swenson…from an AI source…”Yes, cold radiation does exist. It is a type of electromagnetic radiation that has a lower energy and frequency than other types of radiation, such as visible light or microwaves. Examples of cold radiation include radio waves, infrared radiation, and millimeter waves.”
***
Amazing!!! Radiation has no temperature and carries no heat, yet it is being defined by an AI ijit as being cold or hot.
Why do people fear AI so much? It is nothing more than computers programmed badly by ijits.
That’s the thing about all this “back-radiation” nonsense. If photons from a cold sky could somehow get absorbed by the surface, the result would be LOWERING the temperature, not warming.
The cult strives so hard to pervert science, only to end up always shooting themselves in the foot. They end up having to believe ice cubes can boil water, passenger jets fly backward, and orbits are square!
Sure adding energy to a surface lowers its energy!
You guys are simply bonkers.
Child, get a responsible adult to explain the bricks-in-a-box to you.
Photons add energy without adding mass.
Bricks add energy and add mass.
Anyone suggesting bricks would be a logical substitute for photons in an analogy, is trying very hard to obfuscate and mislead people.
Child, obviously you were unable to find a responsible adult.
A box contains bricks, all at the same temperature. If another brick, at a lower temperature, is added, the box temperature DROPS. More mass and energy were added, but the temperature drops.
You STILL won’t be able to understand, so don’t expect more from me.
Clint R, photons are not bricks. You can’t boil water adding lower temperature bricks! You should know that. Entertaining though.
” If another brick, at a lower temperature, is added, the box temperature DROPS. More mass and energy were added, but the temperature drops.”
Photons add energy to a system WITHOUT adding mass. The average energy of the system thus increases.
Does Clint really not understand this basic difference between bricks added and photons added?
Hard to believe anyone could be that stoopid.
The kids have such a hard time understanding physics. Adding a brick adds photons! They can’t understand ANY of this.
That’s why this is so much fun.
And subtracts (absorbs) even more photons! You should know that.
You can’t boil water adding lower temperature bricks! Entertainingly wrong attempt at physics yet again by Clint though.
I guess Clint has brick for a brain.
The kids have such a hard time understanding physics. Adding a brick adds photons! They can’t understand ANY of this.
One brick absorbs/emits X photons at equilibrium. Two such bricks absorb/emit 2X photons. Three such bricks absorb/emit 3X photons. Adding more bricks adds more photons.
That’s why this is so much fun.
What will they try next?
… and SUBTRACTS photons. Clint R STILL can’t boil water with added equilibrium bricks. Entertainingly wrong attempt at physics yet again by Clint, always fun to watch.
If Clint wants to add photons, he should add photons. Instead he adds photons together with bricks!
No one is buying his crap.
barry…you getting more weird as time goes by. The 2nd law is about ***HEAT*** not energy per se. There is no net in the 2nd law because it claims only that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a hotter object. The law is about the transfer of heat and has nothing to do with radiation.
Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject. They are basing their claims on an anachronism dating back to the 19th century in which heat was thought to flow through air as heat rays. Show me one example in such a text book where they calculate heat transfers in both directions via radiation.
And please don’t think I am exaggerating. In electrical engineering classes we were taught that current flows positive to negative which is a blatant lie. The profs know it is a lie but they teach the paradigm based on an error made circa 1925 that current flow consisted of positive charges which no one has ever found flowing in a circuit. Electrons were only discovered in 1898 and there was a strong resistance to the theory for many years.
These text books are confusing infrared radiation with heat. Because the net result of such a transfer via IR ***APPEARS*** to be an actual transfer of heat, in that one body cools while the other warms, they presume heat has actually been transferred.
It has not!!! Heat in the radiating body is lost the instant IR is created. The radiated IR is not heat but if it is absorbed by a cooler body it can be converted back to heat. The heat produced has nothing to do with the heat lost in the radiating body.
Heat and IR are two different forms of energy. Heat is the energy associated with atomic motion, its kinetic energy. IR is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a specific frequency. Heat can never have a frequency. IR can pass easily through a vacuum whereas heat cannot.
The heat we experience here on Earth due to the Sun is not the same heat at the Sun when the solar radiation is created. The heat we feel on our skin is actually created at the instant the solar radiation contacts our skin. It is done via the opposite action in which electrons in the atoms of our skin are excited to a higher energy level. That increase in energy is heat and it is felt as such.
Another point, it is much warmer here on Earth than on planets further out from the Sun. That’s because radiation loses intensity based on the square of the distance from a radiating body. Heat could never lose intensity in the same manner. Heat excites electrons in air molecules and its transfer via convection is limited to the air flow of the convection.
Therefore, if you have a body like the Sun with a surface temperature of 5000C, the amount of heat it can create in a distant body depends on the distance of the body from the Sun. Since there are no air molecules in space to transfer solar heat, no heat can move through space.
I don’t need a textbook to tell me that but your reliance on them has filled your head with rubbish.
Quantum fizzix hasn’t reached people like barry and Bindiclown, 200 years old theory is good enough for them.
Eben,
A famous Nobel Prize winning physicist agreed with me –
“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.” – Richard Feynman.
Interesting to note that very smart people like Einstein refused to accept the reality of quantum physics. it’s quite bizarre, counter intuitive, but supported by experiment. Good enough for me.
No GHE.
As you recall, Feynman said stop associating his name with all your nonsense!
“Quantum fizzix hasnt reached people like barry and Bindiclown, ”
This from the genius who insists photons have a temperature!
“Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject.”
Hmmm, it is hard to decide…should we believe all the textbooks, or the old cranky dude on a blog?
One of the most widely used college physics books is by Halliday/Resnick. That bogus equation is NOT in the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Physics
So sez a fraudster.
Epic self-goal by Clint!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543676
Gordon,
“Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!
As covered in ALL text books on radiative transfer. You are priceless.
barry…”Radiative energy is exchanged between objects”.
***
Not according to Bohr’s theory of 1913 or the quantum theory derived from it. Radiation is created and absorbed in matter by electrons that can only reside in quantum levels around an atom. That is Bohr’s theory and it has been corroborated as well as it can be corroborated without actually seeing the electrons in action.
According to Bohr, and this theory is still valid, when an electron in its lowest energy state (ground state) absorbs energy it is excited and jumps to a higher orbit. It can be excited by absorbing EM radiation of the proper, discrete frequency, or by heat. I read recently that pressure can also affect the electrons.
Once excited, it can drop back to lower energy orbitals and it must give up energy to do that. So, it emits a quantum of EM related to the difference in electron volts between levels with a frequency related to the electron’s angular frequency. Formula from Bohr is E = hf.
When an entire mass is heated, it’s electrons in its atoms become excited and jump to higher energy levels. If the mass is heated too much, the bonds with the electrons holding the atom together will break and the mass will be damaged.
The point is that electron transitions take place at discrete frequencies. An electron located at a specific orbital will only respond to a discrete EM frequency. See Dalton series for hydrogen. When the electrons in a mass at a higher temperature are excited they have a higher orbital angular frequency. Conversely, the electrons in colder masses will have lower angular frequencies.
That means an electron emitting from a colder object will necessarily emit a photon with a frequency that is too low to be absorbed by an electron in a hotter mass.
That agrees with the 2nd law, your theory does not.
“When the electrons in a mass at a higher temperature are excited they have a higher orbital angular frequency.”
Sounds like you’re confused between the Lorentz electron theory (1909) and the Bohr theory.
When dealing with cultists, like barry, we have to remember they believe ice cubes can boil water.
barry is so against reality that if you try to teach him any REAL physics, he will call you a “lying dog”.
Another ‘adult’ insult-filled from Clint.
The children are up early this morning.
“When dealing with cultists, like barry, we have to remember they believe ice cubes can boil water.”
I don’t believe that, Clint.
You’re back to being a lying dog, again, I see. Does it please you to be this way?
Lest we forget – you’ve been informed previously.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312231
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1315190
When will you stop telling these outright lies, hound?
barry, it’s very interesting that you can’t find any comments of your cult supporting the “ice boiling water” nonsense. Isn’t it?
This is easy. If you believe fluxes arriving at a surface add, then you MUST believe ice can boil water. And, you do believe fluxes arriving a surface add, don’t you?
Now, abuse your keyboard all you want. You can’t change reality.
Dr. Spencer experimentally showed long ago fluxes arriving at a surface do add so Clint R just doesn’t agree with reality. Reality always wins instead of Clint R simple minded assertions.
Clint,
I want to thank you.
I’ve told you many times I don’t believe any number of ice cubes can boil water, and you’ve read those comments, as I linked above.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to demonstrate that when I call you a lying dog – because you tell this lie repeatedly – it is a fitting epithet.
I am saving the above comments, as I have others, for the next opportunity you will no doubt provide.
I think it is a good thing for anyone who doesn’t know you to learn what a filthy lying hound you are.
Thanks again!
“his is easy. If you believe fluxes arriving at a surface add, then you MUST believe ice can boil water. And, you do believe fluxes”
Again Clint confuses emitted and arriving fluxes. He’s denied it before, then he does it again here.
He is hopelessly confused!
Poor child Nate believes because I said “arriving” that I’m confused about “emitted’.
Children say the darndest things….
Clint knows he cannot win against his opponents actual arguments, so he does battle with arguments that we never made!
It does get booring.
The poor sap hasn’t learned that no matter how many ice cubes in whatever configuration, the most that the arriving flux can be to any surface is 315 W/m2.
He’s just too dense to get it.
Exactly barry! Fluxes do NOT simply add. Ice can NOT boil water.
I accept your concession.
Radiative fluxes arriving at a surface do add, canine, including the fluxes from ice cubes. But fluxes from individual ice cubes of any number cannot ever add up to more than 315 W/m2 on any receiving surface.
You’ve been told why. You simply have a fault ion your mind that prevents you from understanding, ego or dogma or some problem you have.
barry, you are trying to confuse the issue.
The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.
That’s FRAUD. It won’t happen.
BTW, when you grow up you will realize you insults and false accusations don’t affect me.
“The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.”
This is not fraud, it is absolutely true.
What is not true is that the TWO fluxes of 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface, could EVER come from ice cubes.
This point has been made abundantly clear to him by Tim, Barry, and me, yet Clint is too thick and stubborn to abs.orb this information.
It’s fraud, child.
Child Nate believes that fluxes add, but he doesn’t believe 315 W/m^2 can arrive from ice. Like the child he is, he completely misunderstands the physics.
It would be easy to get some value, say 250 W/m^2 from an ice cube located off the perpendicular from target. Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cult’s fraud) another 250 W/m^2. Eight such ice cubes would result in 2000 W/m^2. That’s more than enough to boil water. They believe ice can boil water.
Ice cubes can’t boil water because fluxes do NOT simply add.
Clint 12:12 pm again forgets ice emits incoherent light which can’t be focused.
Yet another example of it’s just Clint being incoherent & somehow trying to boil water by adding cooler mass to the system. Fun to watch the flailing. Clint is a very slow study of the reality that Dr. Spencer demonstrated years ago.
“It would be easy to get some value, say 250 W/m^2 from an ice cube located off the perpendicular from target. Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cults fraud) another 250 W/m^2. Eight such ice cubes would result in 2000 W/m^2. ”
Sure. Show us a diagram and the actual math you used to get 2000 W/m^2.
Child, when you get to third grade, you will learn about “multiplication”.
8 multiplied by 250 = 2000
You’re too young to understand such “math”. It’s time for your nappy.
Diagram please.
Where does 250 come from? It seems arbitrary and made up.
When you do the real math, accounting for inverse square reduction with distance, angles, etc, you will never get more than the emitted flux density (W/m^2).
Here is the math.
Consider a small disk, radius r, area pi*r^2, a distance R away from a point, P. Its emitted flux density, F, will be reduced to F*(r/R)^2 when it reaches point P.
Now fill up a hemisphere around point P, with disks. The hemisphere has area 2*pi*R^2.
So it takes 2*pi*R^2/(pi*r^2) = 2R^2/r^2 disks to fill up a hemisphere. The flux from disks at the perimeter of the hemisphere is less, because of angle of incidence, theta, is small. It is proportional to cos(theta). Averaging cos(theta) over 180 degrees gives a factor 1/2.
So the total flux from a hemisphere is the sum of the fluxes from all the disks striking point P, which is
1/2*F*(r^2/R^2)*2R^2/r^2 = F, the emitted flux density.
SO a hemisphere of ice emits a flux density of 315 W/m^2, and a point at the center of will receive 315 W/m^2.
Clint truly believes that if at noon another sun popped into existence right next to ours, he would feel no warmer. Nearly twice the amount of solar radiation striking the Earth, but no change in temperature because “fluxes don’t add.”
Child, you’re not getting this.
For the eleventy-eleventh time, this is NOT about emitted flux. It is about ARRIVING flux. It is NOT about view factors, inverse-square law, and your other nonsense. ARRIVING fluxes do NOT simply add. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT result in a surface temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2. You can NOT boil water with ice cubes.
So if you can’t stay with this single issue, then you’re just wasting my time.
Brain-dead barry, your “two suns” has been explained before. You can’t understand because you’re brain-dead.
A second sun, like a second spotlight, makes up for the losses. But I’m glad you believe in two suns. Maybe you can explain to the other brain-dead child that two fluxes can arrive a surface. Like you can shine spotlights on a surface, you can shine ice cubes on a surface.
Kids these days….
Called anyone a “lying dog” today?
“Brain-dead barry, your “two suns” has been explained before.”
I remember well that you ignored that conjecture and changed the concept to 4 sons on each side of the Earth.
So do you agree that a second sun right next to ours at noon would make the surface warmer? Even if it was 10K cooler than our own sun?
“For the eleventy-eleventh time, this is NOT about emitted flux. It is about ARRIVING flux. ”
What?
You already showed that you think it is it is all about emitted flux here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1544153
You tried to claim that the emitted flux from several ice cubes can produce MORE arriving flux than what is emitted from one ice cube!
But your analysis is fake!
No, Nate I think he is talking about arriving flux, even though he wrote:
“It would be easy to get some value, say 250 W/m^2 from an ice cube located off the perpendicular from target. Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cults fraud) another 250 W/m^2.”
I think he has just been clumsy with the expression, and meant arriving from.”
However, his figures are hopelessly unrealistic. A square inch of ice surface at 0 C gives off less than a tenth of a watt.
I understand what he is saying and that it is nonsense, Barry.
He is trying to say that an ice cube EMITTING 315 W/m^2 can produce 250 W/m^2 arriving at a surface, which is possible with the right geometry, which he conveniently, doesnt specify.
But the arriving flux from several such ice cubes will never EVER sum up to 2000 W/m^2, ie more than the emitted flux, as he claimed, because his analysis is FAKE.
So he keeps trying to connect arriving flux to emitted flux, but fails to do it honestly.
Nate stumbles into some reality:
“But the arriving flux from several such ice cubes will never EVER sum up to 2000 W/m^2, ie more than the emitted flux, as he claimed, because his analysis is FAKE.”
[Of course, I never “claimed” that. That was my example showing the cult’s fraud. Nate has to misrepresent my words, as do all of the cultists. Then, they claim I’m lying!]
Yet Nate STILL clings to his cult’s fraud:
So when I say that fluxes don’t simply add, the cult rejects that reality. But when Folkerts says fluxes simply add, the cult swallows it whole, without question!
THAT is cultism, not science.
“But the arriving flux from several such ice cubes will never EVER sum up to 2000 W/m^2, ie more than the emitted flux, as he claimed, because his analysis is FAKE.
[Of course, I never claimed that. ”
Yes, Clint, you did claim that the fluxes emitted by 8 ice cubes would add up to 2000 W/m^2.
“Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cults fraud) another 250 W/m^2. Eight such ice cubes would result in 2000 W/m^2.”
Which is of course a completely fake analysis. Cuz you are a fraud.
Wrong again, child Nate.
The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a surface temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.
THAT is the FRAUD. It won’t happen.
BTW, when you grow up you will realize your insults and false accusations don’t affect me.
As usual, you’re not making any progress. You just keep going in circles. That means you’re wasting my time. So, I’m done.
“THAT is the FRAUD. It wont happen.”
So you say, but you are unable to demonstrate with real math.
The real math, as I showed above, shows that your claims about ice is a strawmen, because even surrounding an object with ice results in a summed flux of no more than the flux emitted by ice.
Clint,
Two arriving fluxes of 315 W/m2 each aren’t coming from two ice cubes.
You understand that right?
You’re not implying that these figures refer to irradiance from ice cubes, right?
“Clint says: The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.
Nate responds with: “This is not fraud, it is absolutely true.”
So Nate is being perfectly consistent. These emissions come from sources much, much hotter than ice cubes, and their irradiances will add.
When ice cubes emit a tenth of a Watt apiece, you need a whole lot of them all pointing at a tiny space to get the irradiance from them to add up to 315 W/m2.
So let’s get a one metre ice cube, emitting 315 watts from a side.
A blackbody surface a millimetre away would be irradiated by almost a total of 315 W/m2.
So let’s add another metre squared ice cube, adjacent to the first.
Hardly any radiation gets onto the already irradiated square, because 99% of the field of view is completely taken up by the first ice cube.
So let’s put ice cubes all around the first one, giving a little extra radiation to the edges of that metre squared blackbody receiving surface.
Even with that much coverage the meter squared blackbody surface is still receiving slightly less than 315 W/m2, because the inverse square rule applies even at a distance of one millimetre, and there is still a tiny bit of edge leakage where there is daylight between the emission surface area and the irradiated surface area.
Ice cubes of normal size would each give a tiny fraction of the power required to irradiate 315 watts over a square metre.
You would have to completely fill the receiving surface’s field of view to get the full 315 W/m2.
You have had this explained to you dozens of times, but you are obviously incapable of understanding.
Fluxes do add, but you need to learn about view factors and inverse square law.
” And cold rays contrary to past scientific belief dont actually exist.”
EM radiation has no temperature. “Cold rays” no more exist than “hot rays.” Who told you differently?
Having settled that, all objects absorb and emit radiation, regardless of the temperature of the source of emissions or the absorbing surface. As EM radiation has no temperature, the absorbing surface does not distinguish between radiation coming from objects hotter or colder than it.
Heat will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one, while the exchange of radiation (which is not heat) goes both ways.
This is in every standard textbook on radiative transfer, and even Clausius mentioned it in his treatise on the 2nd Law.
And then there are the half-wits on the net who think they know better than Clausius and all the universities that teach radiative physics.
barry, you can look at it any way you want. Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.
If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. You just can’t seem to find a textbook example showing that.
“If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate. ”
Whoops. Some people always forget about the heat source!
…if you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. You just can’t seem to find a textbook example showing that.
Find an example herein, see section 18 of Volume 1:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543534
Don’t have it. Provide a photo, or be disbelieved. Your choice.
Fairly obvious DREMT doesn’t have a copy. Ask Clint R to borrow his copy.
Can’t prove it? Then we’re done. I have no reason to trust you, since I know for a fact that you’re a liar.
Found an online copy:
https://elearn.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd/pluginfile.php/987150/mod_label/intro/fundamentals-of-physics-textbook.pdf
Page number, please.
Sec. 18, Vol. 1 pp. 538-9. Pay particular attention to the heated warmer object (i.e. heated BP, earthen L&O surface) absorbing radiated energy (“back radiation” (DREMT term) which is as always really forward radiation) from the passive cooler object (i.e. passive plate GP, atm.) increasing universe entropy as dQ/T is positive, ref. (2) under key ideas “Simultaneously, (the heated object) gains energy by thermal radiation from its (passive) environment at temperature Tenv.”
Astute long time readers understand years ago Eli’s correct 1LOT GPE solution used the text eqn.s 18.38 & 18.39 in the 1LOT consistent with 2LOT.
No, Ball4. The temperature of the skunk cabbage’s surroundings (which you are trying to pass off as representing the passive plate!) is fixed. This example is not comparable to what I asked you for.
Wrong DREMT, not even a good try, this example system is fixed at equilibrium same as the GPE since the GP temperature is similarly fixed at GPE system equilibrium.
Ball4, all they’re doing is inserting fixed temperatures into the RHTE and calculating the resulting heat flow. It is not at all the example I’m looking for. You are a liar.
We could start with page 537 on basic thermal radiation.
“Because an object both emits and absorbs thermal radiation, its net rate, Pnet, of energy exchange due to thermal radiation is
Pnet = Pabs – Prad = sigma epsilon A (Tenv^4 – T^4).”
For the RIGHT side of the ‘green plate’ the environment is the ‘space’ @ 2.7 K. Whatever the green plate’s temperature, it is higher than 2.7 K, so there is an energy transfer FROM the GP. This means there must be an equal transfer TO the GP when a steady state has been achieve.
For the LEFT side of the ‘green plate’ the environment is the ‘blue plate’. For the BP to provide an energy transfer to the GP, the BP must be hotter than the GP (according to the equation in the agreed upon textbook).
So we can immediately conclude the BP is warmer than the GP. This contradicts claims that the two could be the same temperature.
Yes both the GPE and text book example temperatures are fixed at system equilibrium DREMT, as I already pointed out.
What DREMT doesn’t understand is a key idea: “Simultaneously, (the heated object) gains energy by thermal radiation from its (cooler, passive) environment at temperature Tenv. during equilibrium.
The example was not what I asked for.
“find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate”
… so Clint’s text contains a found example that meets all those & shows DREMT is wrong about object equilibrium temperatures as did Eli long ago.
General principles and equations are useless to DREMT. They don’t know how to apply them.
Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535595
Ball4:
The example was not what I asked for.
DREMT points us to where Tim showed he was ‘spectacularly wrong’. And DREMT had no answer, thus he ignored the problem and here we are again!
So we go round and round.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543712
That exchange with Tim, DREMT having no answer, but now returning to repeat the ‘spectacularly wrong’ claim again, as if no one ever had a problem with it, is exactly WHY the argument never ends.
DREMT’s notion of ‘debate’ is to ignore his opponent’s arguments and pretend his arguments are handed down direct from GOD.
So anyway, Tim, you kind of just proved my point, really. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. How about finding an actual textbook example that closely resembles the Green Plate Effect? Or, if not, maybe just accept once and for all that the GPE is not textbook physics. Eli just made it up.
That’s the point I wanted to make. Thanks for helping me make it…and now there’s no real need for another twenty day back-and-forth over the exact same arguments. This’ll do.
Sure, Multi-Layer Insulation is a perfect example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
Oh well. DREMT will just pretend it doesnt exist.
And on and on his denial goes.
It’s good Clint’s text book link contained DREMT’s required actual textbook example. It’s a pity Clint held back for so long.
Actually, DREMT’s required example is easily found in many text books & sometimes in the problem sets where DREMT can practice working out another similar GPE according to Eli’s long ago solution.
The example was not what I asked for, Ball4.
Let Gaslighting Graham have the last word, B4.
His ego requires it.
If you let the trolls get the last word, where does it end?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543272
Very good, Little Willy. Well done.
But you are wrong in the first instance with your violation of the 1st law. It doesn’t matter if the source is a point source of fills the field of view, you can’t create energy.
The GP can’t emit twice what it receives from the BP.
The plate in the NASA doc cannot emit twice the energy it receives.
And you should really know this. Your description of energy flows with the blue plate was accurate, but you go bananas when you hit the green plate, with the outlandish argument (assertion, actually) that a view factor of 1 somehow changes the flow of energy, allowing GP to emit twice as much energy as it receives. It’s bizarre. And it is in direct violation of conservation of energy.
Sorry, wrong thread.
No violation of conservation of energy here, barry:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
OMG, DREMT is showing the thoroughly debunked diagram again.
It clearly shows a plate REFLECTING flux. Since the GPE involved blackbody plates, this diagram cannot be a solution to the GPE problem.
Once AGAIN, a BLACKBODY is DEFINED as
“an ideal body or surface that completely abs.orbs all radiant energy falling upon it with no reflection and that radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its absolute temperature”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackbody
Again, no violation of conservation of energy here, barry:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Just a violation of 2LOT in that cartoon (a GREEN arrow from a BLUE BB plate!) so there is no hope for the cartoon to be correct.
The sociopath returns…
DREMT used to try to debate with facts and reality. That hasnt worked out for him, so he has given up on even trying.
Again, the sociopath returns…
“you’re rambling, and still not answering the question.”
The crux of your question was why the atoms stop vibrating at the average rate the input requires them to, when the emissions are split between two sides.
I replied that they don’t stop vibrating at the average rate and explained why.
And you apparently don’t think my explanation of why I rejected this premise constitutes an answer.
No idea how to proceed if you just ignore what I say and pretend I haven’t answered you.
barry responds in the wrong place again.
Ball4 messed up (nobody’s arguing it emits 2,400 W/m^2), but what the hell. I’m bored of this discussion now.
DREMT is just not good at thinking like a scientist. Thinking through a problem logically, without the need to invoke magic.
Thats ok. Not everybody can do science.I’m sure he is good at something else.
But having awareness of ones abilities is healthy.
At least I’m not the only one responding in the wrong place.
True..
…have abandoned nothing. Stop responding to me.
Its like asking how can passive insulation result in a heated object getting warmer?
Yes, Nate. It is.
So, Dragon cranks willingly misunderstand insulation, angular momentum, and isometry. Anything else?
"back-radiation" ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
“”back-radiation” aint insulation”
And then they just keep asserting stuff as if assertions are just as true as facts.
They aren’t.
For example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
DREMT has no answer for this. So he will pretend it does not exist. What a loser.
And round and round we go..
Again, “back-radiation” ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
Experiments show that a passive black plate reduces radiative heat flux. That’s what an insulator does.
And multiple black plates reduce radiative heat transfer even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
People can deny this fact and pretend it does not exist, as often as they want, it will not change reality.
Once again, “back-radiation” ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
And he’ll claim that he has never read this, so it therefore it doesnt exist!
Everyone else can read it, and will know that each and every time he repeats the claim, that it will be false.
So go ahead and repeat it!
Once again, “back-radiation” ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham keeps asserting stuff as if assertions are just as true as facts.
Got it.
It’s an "assertion" that’s borne of several years of patiently making arguments, that you probably want to pretend don’t exist.
Experiments show that a passive black plate reduces radiative heat flux. That’s what an insulator does.
And multiple black plates reduce radiative heat transfer even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Gaslighting Graham can deny this fact and pretend it does not exist, as often as he wants, it will not change reality.
Where in that article does it say the equivalent of the blue plate warms? Nowhere. You can call a perfectly conducting blackbody plate an insulator if you like, it doesn’t mean it leads to any warming.
DREMT says passive blackbody plates don’t insulate.
We show him passive blackbody plates insulating, i.e. reducing heat flow.
So DREMT plays dumb, and moves goal posts.
Oh no, DREMT, the MLI description is definitely at odds with your view and comports with the realist view. Let’s quote:
“This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.”
But you say that the new plate radiates 460 W to space. You are already refuted, and our view is already supported.
“The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W.”
Yes, the 460W surface gains MORE ENERGY from the cooler new layer, which is why its NET LOSS is reduced.
“So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
And how have the radiation losses from the surface been reduced by half from the additional layer? Yes, because the originating surface absorbs some of the radiation back from the new layer.
This is what radiative insulation does.
If the power to the source surface is constant and there is no thermostat control, which there always is in spacecraft thermal design, the source surface must warm up, as it is losing heat less efficiently.
“If the power to the source surface is constant and there is no thermostat control, which there always is in spacecraft thermal design, the source surface must warm up, as it is losing heat less efficiently.”
So you claim, barry, but that is not supported by the link. The link does not say that the equivalent to the BP warms. You are extrapolating, exactly as I said. You guys cannot find any example that is the same as the GPE. MLI is probably as close as you can get, but note that in practice (rather than theory) it actually uses reflective materials, and generally it is used to shield spacecraft from the heat of the Sun. Cooling, not warming.
“This is what radiative insulation does.”
Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
“But you say that the new plate radiates 460 W to space. You are already refuted, and our view is already supported.”
Well, I can trump your MLI example, here:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/estimating_the_temperature.htm
As you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
Weird example. The plate seems to have only one side!
In any case, DREMT claimed that passive blackbody plates cannot insulate. The MLI example proves this is totally wrong.
It was just another of his made-up arguments by assertion.
Oh well!
So now he tries to move the goal posts and change the subject.
“You are extrapolating”
Yes. He is applying the new principles to a slight variation on the same problem.
Intelligent people can do that.
People lacking in intelligence or integrity, see a slight difference, then throw out all the principles, and claim that they do not apply.
…as you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
Anyone with intelligence can see that only one side of the plate radiates in this example, assuming the same principles apply.
…you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
And that example seem to have no relevance to the issue of MLI or the GPE.
…will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
“As you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K… i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!”
Surface area of plate at 394K is 2A.
Therefore, assuming it is emitting from both sides, it is emitting 680 W/m2 from each side.
Exactly the same as the example above of MLI, the layer receiving X energy emits X/2 energy from each side. Let’s quote:
“The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.”
And now let’s quote YOU, DREMT.
“So the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1473029
Are you now saying that what you said previously was incorrect?
No, barry. They calculate the plate to be 394 K, thus it is emitting 1,360 W/m^2. Full stop. It is not emitting 680 W/m^2. It is emitting 1,360 W/m^2. They claim it emits what it receives. The example supports me. Not you.
“Are you now saying that what you said previously was incorrect?”
No, I stand by what I said. If view factors were equal to one between the Sun and the BP, and between the BP and the GP, then the solution would be 290 K…290 K. Both plates emitting 400 W/m^2. With a point source Sun and the BP, instead, and view factors equal to one between the BP and the GP, then the solution is the 244 K…244 K we’re familiar with. Both plates emitting 200 W/m^2.
So, in the NASA example I linked to, they are apparently treating the view factors between the Sun and the plate as being equal to one. Thus they have the plate receiving 1,360 W/m^2, and emitting 1,360 W/m^2.
The main point of the example was to prove to you that even “an authority” will calculate an object as emitting what it receives…not “splitting by two” just because the object has two sides to emit from but only receives energy on one side.
You said:
“the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
The plate in the link you sent is receiving energy on one side (1360 W/m2), from the sun, and thus must behave in the same way as the blue plate, right?
Therefore the plate in your link must “split the input flux by 2” and emit 680 W/m2 on both sides.
By your own words.
Any issue with that before we move on?
barry, in the example I linked to, they calculate the plate receiving 1,360 W/m^2 to be at a temperature of 394 K, thus emitting 1,360 W/m^2. It is not emitting 680 W/m^2. The authors have not “split by two”. Do you understand that?
To put it another way, if the plate in my linked example was emitting “680 W/m2 on both sides” its temperature would be 331 K, not 394 K. However, they have calculated its temperature to be 394 K. Thus it is emitting 1,360 W/m^2. Which of course means “1,360 W/m^2 on both sides”.
But that completely contradicts what you said happens with the blue plate, where you “split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
Why would this happen with the blackbody ‘blue’ plate, but not the plate in the example you linked?
There is a correct answer to this. You’ve almost stumbled on it.
“The authors have not ‘split by two'”
And here’s a further hint from the article:
“The plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.”
Have you got it yet?
I already explained it to you, barry. View factors. If view factors were treated as being equal to one between the BP and the Sun, then I would not “split by two” for the BP, and I would have its temperature as being 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.
I only “split by two” for the BP in Eli’s thought experiment because the Sun is instead treated as being a point source to the BP.
In the NASA example, they must be treating the view factors between the Sun and the plate as being equal to one.
No.
“The plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.”
They are not treating the sun as if it fills the field of view. The sun is a point source, allowing the plate to “radiate to space.” On the other side of the “low orbit” plate is the Earth.
And to quell any doubt, they say more:
“From direct measurement, we know that at 1 A.U,
Ssun = 1,360 W/m2.”
It’s our sun they are using, not some theoretical, field-filling sun, which would have a completely different W/m2, rather than the one they use that we’re all familiar with at on AU.
The answer is they they treat the plate as if it only radiates towards space, from one face.
“Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space”
This makes perfect sense with the math. And it is how they describe the scenario – the plate only radiating in one direction.
barry is so completely brainwashed by Eli’s example that when he comes across an actual problem solved by a NASA scientist, that contradicts Eli, he believes they must be throwing all logic out of the window and claiming that their plate only emits from one side!
No, barry. There is nothing there that suggests they think their plate only emits from one side. It’s entirely in your imagination.
On the contrary, you are inventing a sun that fills the field of view, when they are clearly using our sun in the scenario, at a distance of one AU, providing 1360 W/m2 to the plate – just as our sun would to a plate in low Earth orbit.
Furthermore, they are calculating the temperature of the plate from the solar radiation striking the surface, not from the surface emissions of the plate. They are using only one surface for the temperature calculation.
You are trying to turn the plate in the NASA example into the green plate in your misguided explanation of how you think the energy flows should go. But there is only one plate, and the sun is a point source in the NASA link you’ve provided. If it radiates from both sides, the input should be halved for each side, as you correctly pointed out in April.
Sorry, but this isn’t Eli’s set-up. In Eli’s model the plates radiate on both sides.
There is absolutely nothing in the NASA example to suggest that the plate doesn’t radiate from both sides. The natural assumption would be that the plate does radiate from both sides, unless specified otherwise. I mean…why and how would the plate only radiate from one side!?
They have calculated the temperature on the basis that an object emits what it receives. If the plate was only one atom thick, presumably you wouldn’t have a problem with that. If the plate was two atoms thick, would you suddenly decide that you have to “split by two”?
We know it’s a point source sun, and one plate. The sun is one astronomical unit away from the plate, they say it on that page.
“the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
If the plate emitted from both sides, it would behave just as you describe here.
It doesn’t, it only emits from one said, and that comports with everything said in the article, including particles only hitting one side, and the plate only radiating spacewards – back towards the sun.
It doesn’t make sense any other way.
barry is stuck on “infinite repeat”.
The most fundamental part of Eli’s Green Plate Effect is that according to him, you always “split by two”, regardless of view factors, or anything else. Without always “splitting by two”, his entire argument comes crashing down.
The NASA example is an “authority” not “splitting by two”. So, no matter what way you look at it, ultimately it is a problem for Eli’s argument, not mine.
There is nothing in that NASA example to suggest the plate only emits from one side, either. There is “space” on both sides of the plate. “Space” between the plate and the Earth, and “space” between the plate and the Sun. So the quote, “the plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space” doesn’t mean the emission comes from only one side.
“he comes across an actual problem solved by a NASA scientist”
DREMT quotes authorities, without understanding the logic behind they are saying.
They must be right!
This is a perfect example of ‘deferring to authority’.
“hey calculate the plate receiving 1,360 W/m^2 to be at a temperature of 394 K, thus emitting 1,360 W/m^2.”
“There is nothing there that suggests they think their plate only emits from one side. Its entirely in your imagination.”
So DREMT imagines the plate receives 1 x 1360 W/m^2, and emits 2 x 1360W/m^2.
What could be wrong with that?!
It’s a point source sun, DREMT. If you insist that the plate is emitting from both sides, then it behaves like the blue plate as you described it, each side emitting half the input that one side receives.
But the text says it’s only emitting in one direction.
“Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.”
Either you accept that what you said in April is true, or you deny it now. Or you realize that the NASA sheet has the plate only emitting “back into space,” in the direction the energy came from.
There’s no wiggle room here. No sun-filled field of view for the plate. In that respect it is the same as the blue plate in Eli
s set-up.
barry ignores every word of my 3:25 AM comment, and just repeats himself again.
Here it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545388
Respond to it.
When you say that the NASA sheet is an “authority” of “not splitting by two,” then you are contradicting what you said back in April.
And I’m repeating it because you’re not dealing with it.
“the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output”
Here you are endorsing “splitting by two.” Yet today you are saying that what you endorsed is now illegitimate according to the “authority” of the NASA page.
You can’t have it both ways, DREMT. Either you were correct in April and you’ve misunderstood the NASA article. Or the plate in the NASA article radiates both sides, in which case you were wrong about “splitting” in April and should now say so.
NASA don’t “split by two”, barry. That’s a problem for Eli, not a problem for me.
Now, I would have preferred it if the example were more clear cut, like having two infinite parallel plates facing each other – one powered, and the other passive – but I’ll take what I can get.
If it turned out the answer to the original GPE was actually 290 K…290 K, rather than 244 K…244 K, that wouldn’t bother me much.
DREMT shows here that he quotes without thinking.
He has given up on rational thought and logic in favor of mindless belief.
Just for completeness, let’s have the whole quote rather than the little bit you keep quoting:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it.“
Yes, of course you would prefer two parallel plates, because then you could treat the plate in the NASA page you linked like the green plate.
You argued that the NASA plate must have its field of view filled with the sun – just like the green plate field of view is filled with blue plate.
But as soon as I pointed out the plate in the NASA page gets its energy from a point source sun, 1 astronomical unit away, you thereafter completely ignored what you’d said in April, that a plate receiving energy from a point source “splits” the input between two emitting faces. Once the view factor of 1 was shown to be false, you just relentlessly ignored your contradiction. You simply refused to explain it, despite me repeatedly challenging you to do so.
You will ignore this again. And you will keep repeating your argument from “authority,’ not from reason.
“and that’s all there is to it.”
Indeed. Quote yourself talking about the blue plate and the green plate, but don’t admit that the NASA scenario is analogous to the blue plate, not the green.
You can’t have it both ways.
“They have calculated the temperature on the basis that an object emits what it receives.”
Yes indeed. Conservation of energy must apply.
Thus the plate cannot be receiving 1366 W/m^2 on one side, and emitting that amount from 2 sides.
If DREMT believes it was the intent of the author of the NASA piece to suggest a violation of conservation of energy is taking place by the plate emitting 1366 W/m^2 on both sides, that is quite a dubious assumption!
We can infer that he intends the plate to be emitting from one side.
This makes sense because he did not specify that the plate is a conductor or an insulator, or a black body or a mirror.
He has left it vague. Because he want to keep it simple for the school kids. The plate could well be an insulator, and on the Earth side it simply receives and emits 240 W/m^2, in equilibrium with the Earth.
And on the space side it is receiving and emitting 1366 W/m^2. And this is the only side he wants to discuss.
Nate,
The plate is identified as a blackbody:
“We begin with Stefan-Boltzmann’s law for a black body in sunlight.”
No other emissivity is mentioned, and the clcs proceed on the basis of a blackbody plate.
Other than that, yes, the author is obviously working with unidirectional radiation, as he only speaks of the plate radiating “back” to space, which is where the source of the radiation is. The us of the word “back” clinches it. It’s returning in the direction it came from. If that wasn’t enough, the calcs are based on a single surface, not two.
DREMT’s problem is that he can’t admit that the plate in this document is exactly the same as the blue plate in Eli’s set-up, and that he’s already agreed the blue plate “splits” the input between its two emitting faces.
Same as the blue plate….
in that it’s receiving energy from a point source sun. So according to DREMT, the input energy should be split between two faces if it’s radiating on both sides.
“You argued that the NASA plate must have its field of view filled with the sun – just like the green plate field of view is filled with blue plate.“
No, barry, I argued that, for whatever reason, the NASA author seemed to be treating the situation as though the view factors were equal to one between the plate and the Sun. Since they don’t “split by two”. I was already well aware that it was our Sun, at 1 AU distance from the plate, and that yes, arguably that should be treated as a point source Sun. However, they don’t “split by two”, so, for whatever reason, they seem to be treating the situation as though view factors are equal to one.
You can claim I’ve ignored the contradiction, but this:
“If it turned out the answer to the original GPE was actually 290 K…290 K, rather than 244 K…244 K, that wouldn’t bother me much.”
actually dealt with it directly. Supposing we take the situation at face value, rather than imagining that the plate only radiates from one side when clearly there is no reason for it to do so, then the NASA example suggests that they simply treat the amount received as being equal to the amount emitted, regardless of view factors. In which case their solution to the GPE would presumably be 290 K…290 K. I’m happy to go with either 290 K…290 K or 244 K…244 K. Though I think the latter is more reasonable as it takes view factors into account.
“No, barry, I argued that, for whatever reason, the NASA author seemed to be treating the situation as though the view factors were equal to one between the plate and the Sun. ”
DREMT is again misusing sciency words as if they are wild cards, that allow him to get of physics jail for free.
Here, it is ‘view factor’, VF. He is erroneously thinking VF can allow one to evade conservation of energy.
It does not. VF only tells us how much of the plates emitted radiation would hit the sun.
Whether all (VF = 1), or some, or none (VF = 0) of its emission hits the sun, that is irrelevant to how much the plate is emitting!
In any case, the plate is clearly able to radiate IR on the sun side, so VF being 1 or not makes no difference, whatsoever.
The main point is that the plate simply CANNOT radiate 2x what it receives. That violates conservation of energy, and VF makes no difference.
"Other than that, yes, the author is obviously working with unidirectional radiation, as he only speaks of the plate radiating “back” to space, which is where the source of the radiation is. The us[e] of the word “back” clinches it. It’s returning in the direction it came from. If that wasn’t enough, the calcs are based on a single surface, not two."
No, barry, nothing "clinches" it. You’re desperately reading things into it that just aren’t there. The NASA author simply assumes that the amount received by the plate (1,360 W/m^2) will be the amount emitted by the plate (1,360 W/m^2) and thus the temperature of the plate will be 394 K. He says nothing about the plate emitting from only one side. That is simply your assumption, because nothing else makes sense to you. That doesn’t mean that the NASA author thinks the same way you do.
Taking the example at face value, the NASA author is assuming that the amount received will be equal to the amount emitting, and isn’t adhering to Eli’s "split by two" logic regarding the amount received being over half the surface area that the plate emits from.
That’s what you have to accept, barry. The example is a challenge to Eli. Not me.
“Taking the example at face value, the NASA author is assuming that the amount received will be equal to the amount emitting, and isnt adhering to Elis “split by two” logic regarding the amount received being over half the surface area that the plate emits from.”
Indeed, he is clearly using the fact that the amount received will equal the amount emitted.
To any sane person of at least average IQ, that is NOT consistent with emitting 2x what is received, which is what would be happening if it emitted 1366 W/m^2 on two sides, while receiving 1366 W/m^2 on only one side!
By the way, barry, you never answered my question:
"They have calculated the temperature on the basis that an object emits what it receives. If the plate was only one atom thick, presumably you wouldn’t have a problem with that. If the plate was two atoms thick, would you suddenly decide that you have to “split by two”?"
I asked Norman a similar question, at one point, and he replied that if the plate was only one atom thick, then it would indeed emit what it receives, i.e. if it received 1,360 W/m^2 then it would emit 1,360 W/m^2. No "split by two". I didn’t get as far as asking him what he thinks would happen if the plate was two atoms thick. Maybe you can advise.
“To any sane person of at least average IQ”
Clearly DREMT does not qualify.
Here is Norman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535594
I took that to mean he thought a plate of one atom thickness would emit what it received, i.e if it received 1,360 W/m^2 then it would emit 1,360 W/m^2. The idea being that it is just a sheet of single atoms induced to vibrate at a certain rate by the energy they are receiving. So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all. I would be interested to know your thoughts on that, anyway, barry.
It is a completely different matter with e.g. the Earth. The Earth might receive, after correcting for albedo, 480 W/m^2 over half its surface area, whilst emitting 240 W/m^2 from its entire surface area, in the same moment. I have no problem with that, because the Earth rotates, and does not “heat through” like these perfectly conducting blackbody plates. If the Earth did not rotate, and was made of some perfectly conducting material, would it in fact receive 480 W/m^2, and emit 480 W/m^2? I don’t know. Interesting to think about, though.
Red herrings anyone?
Oh well, all of this does nothing to rebut the fact that MLI insulates, even with blackbody plates, thus contradicting DREMTs claim that passive blackbody plates do not insulate.
…and Swenson’s thoughts on the issue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536069
Poor choice for a new authority to defer to…but nice try at distraction.
Oh well!
Anyway, barry, you’ve got a lot to respond to, so let’s see what you have to say…
Barry has already thoroughly debunked the NASA diversion.
Nothing else new or useful here, just more diversions—the endless beating of a dead horse.
…barry, you’ve got a lot to respond to, so let’s see what you have to say…
In these thought experiments plates either emit from one side or two. Very often it is from one side, as in the MIT link I provided.
You are forever trying to squeeze the parameters into some configuration that you hope supports your view. Thus you turn a radiative problem into a conductive one (they are not the same), and here you try to reduce the plates to an atom thickness – for what?
A ‘plate’ an atom thick would radiate from 2 sides. Photons from atoms are directional, so half the energy would be emitted to one side and half to the other (ignoring, as is our convention, photons emitted at the edge of the plate along the axis of the plane).
The wording in the NASA piece completely supports the notion that the plate emits unidirectionally, and the wording does not at all support the notion that it is bidirectional.
The emission is “back” to space – in the direction that the radiation came from. There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your view. That’s just your hopeful assumption.
And if you disagree that the wording supports a unidirectional emission – that doesn’t matter one bit. Because the directionality is not specifically stated, you can’t brandish this as an argument against the GPE. Your assumptions do not count as evidence to the contrary.
But you are wrong in the first instance with your violation of the 1st law. It doesn’t matter if the source is a point source of fills the field of view, you cant create energy.
The GP cant emit twice what it receives from the BP
The plate in the NASA doc cannot emit twice the energy it receives
And you should really know this. Your description of energy flows with the blue plate was accurate, but you go bananas when you hit the green plate, with the outlandish argument (assertion, actually) that a view factor of 1 somehow changes the flow of energy, allowing GP to emit twice as much energy as it receives. It’s bizarre. And it is in direct violation of conservation of energy.
“You are forever trying to squeeze the parameters into some configuration that you hope supports your view.”
I’m an honest man seeking truth.
“Thus you turn a radiative problem into a conductive one (they are not the same), and here you try to reduce the plates to an atom thickness – for what?”
Well, for one, Eli described them as being “infinitely thin”. That’s impossible, of course, but the thinnest they could logically be is one atom in diameter. So, let’s stick to his conditions, for one thing. For another, it shouldn’t be too difficult to work out that if you can accept a plate one atom thick emits the same amount as it receives (with no “split by two”) then a plate millions of atoms thick can also emit the same amount as it receives, so long as it is being “warmed through” so that each layer of atoms vibrates at the same rate as the layer preceding it.
“A ‘plate’ an atom thick would radiate from 2 sides. Photons from atoms are directional, so half the energy would be emitted to one side and half to the other (ignoring, as is our convention, photons emitted at the edge of the plate along the axis of the plane).”
So you don’t agree with Norman. Again, the idea being that it is just a sheet of single atoms induced to vibrate at a certain rate by the energy they are receiving. So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all.
“The wording in the NASA piece completely supports the notion that the plate emits unidirectionally, and the wording does not at all support the notion that it is bidirectional. The emission is “back” to space – in the direction that the radiation came from. There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your view. That’s just your hopeful assumption.”
You’re deluding yourself, barry. There is no reason for a plate to emit from only one side. So unless they actually specify it is emitting from only one side, for some strange reason, there is no reason to think that it is! You have everything backwards.
“And if you disagree that the wording supports a unidirectional emission – that doesn’t matter one bit. Because the directionality is not specifically stated, you can’t brandish this as an argument against the GPE. Your assumptions do not count as evidence to the contrary.”
It doesn’t need to be specifically stated that the plate emits from both sides. That should go without saying! Silly barry.
DREMT claimed
“Taking the example at face value, the NASA author is assuming that the amount received will be equal to the amount emitting”
Barry and I are assuming that, when agreeing that the plate emits from one side, the same amount that it receives.
The only one not assuming that is you, DREMT, when you nonsensically insist that the plate must be emitting 2X what it receives!
DREMT’s goal seems to be to always be contrary, even if it requires that he makes no sense at all.
…it doesn’t need to be specifically stated that the plate emits from both sides. That should go without saying! Silly barry.
“So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all.”
If a square metre, atom thick plane emits all its energy from one face, it would illuminate a surrounding hemisphere (a dome completely surrounding the plate) with all the energy it emits. For simplicity, let’s call the energy received by the hemisphere, per second, X.
You are trying to argue that if we now make the plane emit from both sides, the other side would now illuminate the second hemisphere with X.
How is this possible? All the energy from the plate was illuminating the first hemisphere. Where did the extra energy come from? How did you turn X into 2X?
This is the creation of energy from nothing, violating the 1st Law.
A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
When you double the surface area and keep the power constant, the W/m2 reduces, as does the temperature.
Surface area matters. When you remove the insulation from the back of the plate, you now have twice the surface area.
You’re ultimately arguing with yourself. You held that the blue plate “splits’ the input over two faces. And now you’re trying to argue that it doesn’t.
Does your blue plate suddenly emite twice the energy when it is only an atom thick?
I’m interested in your answer to this question.
…assumptions do not count as evidence to the contrary.
barry, the atom-thick plate is a sheet of single atoms receiving 1,360 W/m^2. The energy that they receive causes them to vibrate at a certain rate. Why would they stop vibrating at a rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?
Take a tiny ball, made up of, say, a clump of ten atoms. Irradiate the ball from one direction with 1,360 W/m^2. Does the ball:
a) radiate 680 W/m^2 in two opposing directions?
b) radiate an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
c) radiate 1,360 W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
I’ve answered that and you are now ignoring my responses.
You’re ultimately arguing with yourself. You held that the blue plate “splits” the input over two faces. And now youre trying to argue that it doesn’t.
Does your blue plate suddenly emite twice the energy when it is only an atom thick?
I’m interested in your answer to this question.
I agree, there is an element where I’m arguing with myself. I like to challenge myself. I like to challenge what I think. So, maybe it is the case as I outlined here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545455
Which leads, ultimately, to this 244 K…244 K solution:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
(Note that there is no violation of conservation of energy).
However…maybe, just maybe…it is simpler than all that. Maybe it is as outlined in the NASA example, and as Swenson explained. Maybe, if the plate is a perfect conductor, it just…warms through. Until all the atoms are vibrating at the rate set by the input. In which case, the solution would be: 290 K…290 K.
You can answer my question about the ball, now.
Simply repeating yourself is not “challenging” yourself.
You are not dealing with your contradiction here.
Were you wrong about the blue plate in April or not?
I don’t know if you realize it, but you are trying to eradicate dimensionality from the equation. That’s why you’re banging on about the rate at which individual atoms vibrate – they don’t vibrate at any W/m2. I’m not joining you in your effort to remove dimensionality from the physics, sorry.
It’s a simple fact that surface area matters.
A 1 metre squared blackbody surface receiving 400 watts and emitting the same from one surface is at 290k
A 2 metre squared blackbody surface receiving 400 watts and emitting the same from one surface is at 244K
You can check that here
The blue plate has 2 faces, receives 400 W/m2 on one side, it splits the input energy by 2 each side. It now radiates 200 W/m2 X 2A = 400 W/m2 X 1A.
(A being area)
This does not violate conservation of energy. And this is what you correctly described in April.
You would now have the blue plate receive 400 W/m2 on one side and radiate 400 W/m2 X 2A = 800 w/m2 X 1A.
This creates energy, in violation of the 1st Law. Balls of atoms have nothing to say to this.
“Were you wrong about the blue plate in April or not?”
Don’t know, barry. I am keeping an open mind on the issue. It could be that the answer is 244 K…244 K. Or it could be that the answer is 290 K…290 K. I will remain skeptical, and not settle my mind on the issue one way or the other.
Meanwhile, I notice that you are repeating yourself again. Everyone understands Eli’s logic behind the “split by two”. There is no need to go over it again and again.
How about answering that question about the ball?
I’ve already answered on atoms. You are trying to remove dimensionality from the issue in order to not have to deal with the fact that surface area matters.
Removing the change in surface area from the argument avoids the argument.
So you may resile from your position on the blue plate.
Let me try to anticipate.
You are now considering that the BP radiates 400 W/m2 from each side.
Right?
This isn’t going to work, because in your conception the 2-plate system would be receiving 400 W/m2 on one side, and emitting the same on both sides, creating 400 W/m2 energy out of nothing.
And you are now considering changing your view on the BP, all because you want to put all your eggs in the “authority of a NASA document that lacks specifics.
I’d say retain your skepticism, and don’t assume that plate emits both ways. The alternative is better evidenced, and doesn’t contravene the 1st Law.
“I’ve already answered on atoms. You are trying to remove dimensionality from the issue in order to not have to deal with the fact that surface area matters.”
Instead of falsely accusing me of this or that, why not have a go at answering the question, barry? I even made it multiple choice. Here you go…
Take a tiny ball, made up of, say, a clump of ten atoms. Irradiate the ball from one direction with 1,360 W/m^2. Does the ball:
a) radiate 680 W/m^2 in two opposing directions?
b) radiate an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
c) radiate 1,360 W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
The ball receives the equivalent of 340 W/m2 over its entire surface area, accounting for the shape of a sphere. It radiates at different intensities depending whether it is receiving direct sunlight or radiating from the dark side.
If you are about to say there is no dark side, then you are removing dimensionality from the argument, thus avoiding the argument.
Surface area matters.
Hmmm…perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The ball is irradiated with 1,360 W/m^2, so the lit hemisphere will receive 680 W/m^2. The ball is a perfect conductor, and “warms through”. I should change my options accordingly. Does the ball:
a) radiate 340 W/m^2 in two opposing directions?
b) radiate an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
c) radiate 680 W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
“The ball is a perfect conductor, and ‘warms through’.”
Ok, no dark side, effectively dimensionless to incoming solar radiation.
Let’s make this simple. The ball is heated internally to radiate at a rate of 340 W/m2. It will radiate at this rate at any part of its surface.
Now if you keep the power feed the same, but change the surface area, the W/m2 will change.
A ball twice the surface area will now emit at 170 W/m2.
Surface area matters.
It matters whether a plate emits from one side only, or two.
No, barry, there is a lit hemisphere, and a dark hemisphere. It’s just that the ball is a perfect conductor, and “warms through”. So, instead of continuously dodging the question, try to pick an answer. Or just admit that you don’t know. It’s OK to answer “don’t know” occasionally.
“The ball is irradiated with 1,360 W/m^2, so the lit hemisphere will receive 680 W/m^2”
The lit hemisphere will receive 340 W/m2. For a sphere you divide by 4, not 2, which accounts for the changing angle of incidence over the hemisphere as well as the fact that only half the the ball radiated.
A sphere receiving a total of 340 W/m2 over its entire surface area will emit 340 W/m2 over its entire surface area.
A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
Do you agree?
Do you disagree?
No, barry. For a sphere you divide by 4, thus for a hemisphere you divide by 2. The lit hemisphere receives 680 W/m^2. You could argue the ball receives 680 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere, and radiates 340 W/m^2 from the entire surface area of the sphere, if you like? That would be option a). Are you going for option a)?
To be precise, the ratio of area receiving sunlight to total area of the sphere is 4 to 1. This takes in the fact that only half the sphere is lit, and that the lit hemisphere does not get the full force of sunlight across its surface. The solar energy being received per unit area is reduced the further away you get from the point on the sphere pointing directly at the sun.
The sphere receives 340 W/m2 across its entire surface (half in darkness, the lit hemisphere receiving a varied amount of insolation depending on latitude). If that energy is distributed evenly across the sphere, it will emit at the same rate across its surface.
If you ignore my following question again I will assume you are proceeding in bad faith.
A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
Do you agree?
Or do you disagree?
Agree, of course.
barry, the ball receives 680 W/m^2 averaged across the lit hemisphere. You are very ignorant, but always certain that you are correct. Again, you could argue that it is emitting 340 W/m^2 across the entire surface area of the sphere. That would be option a).
Are you going with option a)? Simple question, barry. Please answer.
“Agree, of course.”
Excellent.
Then you must understand
1) that a plate radiating in only one direction – back towards the point source sun – will radiate the same energy rate as the input
2) that a plate radiating from both sides now has twice the surface area, but not twice the input, and must therefore “split” the input between the two faces emitting thermal radiation
This is what you correctly described with the BP in April, and is the logical consequence of your agreement to my query.
So far so good?
No, barry. I don’t necessarily agree with you, for the reasons I have explained, and you have not been able to rebut, e.g:
“…the atom-thick plate is a sheet of single atoms receiving 1,360 W/m^2. The energy that they receive causes them to vibrate at a certain rate. Why would they stop vibrating at a rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?”
Also, I have repeatedly tried to get you to answer another related question. Without acknowledging the errors that you’ve made, and without ever providing a direct answer to the question, we are supposed to now proceed with your line of questioning!? And you were to accuse me of not arguing in good faith because I didn’t respond to one of your questions once, due to a cross-post!?
Sheesh.
I already answered that question and the one on the ball.
An atom thick plate receiving 1360 W/m2 to one side will radiate 1360 W/m2 from one side if insulated at the back, and 680 W/m2 from both sides if emitting from two faces.
You have this bizarre idea that individual atoms radiate at 1360 W/m2.
They don’t. They radiate at different rates in a blackbody, which is why you see the famous Wein curve of blackbody radiation across a the spectrum, peaking at the frequency associated with the temperature.
The average rate of the output from all the atoms is 1360 W/m2 if emitting to one side. All the atoms can only radiate in one direction.
Remove the insulation and half the radiation will go one way, half the other. Atoms radiate in random directions, so the result will be 50/50, each way, instead of 100% from one side only.
Do you now understand?
a) is not the right answer, because there are not just two directions that the sphere can radiate. Under the conditions you have stated, the sphere will radiate at the rate of 340 W/m2 in ALL directions.
Do I need to repeat myself or clarify any of this, or have you finally noticed that I’ve answered your questions?
Cross post? You answered the question 6 hours later, after my second prompting and you having replied in the interim. And 8 hours after I initially put forward the notion, which you ignored, and then I turned into a question – twice. You had made numerous replies in those 8 hours.
So, you agree that if you increase the surface area receiving same input, the per unit area output must reduce.
This is the basis for the understanding that a plate receiving energy from one side, but emitting from two sides has twice the surface area of the input, and therefore the input must be “split” over the two faces. Just like the BP you described in April.
If you disagree with that, please explain why.
I put this incorrectly. I’d hope you would amend it in your own mind, but just to be sure…
“So, you agree that if you increase the surface area receiving same input, the per unit area output must reduce.”
Should be:
So, you agree that if you increase the emitting surface area while receiving the same input, the per unit area output must reduce.
It follows that if you increase the emitting surface area of a plate but retain the same absolute input, the per unit are emission rate must therefore reduce.
When you change the radiating surface area of a plate from one side to both sides, you double the emitting surface area. In the case with a point source sun, the input remains the same, but the surface area doubles, therefore the per unit area output is halved.
If you disagree with this, please explain why.
Yes, barry, cross post. We will sort this out, first of all. You posted your question first time at 8:28 PM, but I was composing a post while you were doing that, which posted at 8:29 PM. So, when I wrote that comment, I was unaware that you had even asked me a question. I then went to sleep. When I woke up, I was somewhat surprised to see you acting like I was avoiding a question that I hadn’t even had a chance to answer.
So, no, I wasn’t lying about a cross post. I’ll wait for your apology on that, before we continue.
Looks like I will be waiting forever for an apology, so I will move onto the second issue.
“An atom thick plate receiving 1360 W/m2 to one side will radiate 1360 W/m2 from one side if insulated at the back, and 680 W/m2 from both sides if emitting from two faces.”
So you assert, whilst avoiding the actual question.
“You have this bizarre idea that individual atoms radiate at 1360 W/m2.”
No, I don’t, barry. You just made that up. What I said was:
“The idea being that it is just a sheet of single atoms induced to vibrate at a certain rate by the energy they are receiving. So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all.”
You can take that “certain rate” to be the average across the entire sheet of atoms.
“They radiate at different rates in a blackbody, which is why you see the famous Wein curve of blackbody radiation across a the spectrum, peaking at the frequency associated with the temperature.”
Yes, barry. I know.
Now, pay attention. Here is the question again:
“…the atom-thick plate is a sheet of single atoms receiving 1,360 W/m^2. The energy that they receive causes them to vibrate at a certain [average] rate. Why would they stop vibrating at a [average] rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?”
Maybe you can have a go at answering it, this time.
Endless rabbit holes DREMT wants to go down, rather than deal with the heart of the issue: Conservation of Energy.
No amount amount of goobldegook about what vibrating atoms would do will allow them to create energy that they have not received!
He has decided facts and reality are not for him anymore.
“Maybe you can have a go at answering it, this time.”
I’ve answered it every time. You are blind. Either physically or ideologically. Here it is again.
‘The average rate of the output from all the atoms is 1360 W/m2 if emitting to one side. All the atoms can only radiate in one direction.
Remove the insulation and half the radiation will go one way, half the other. Atoms radiate in random directions, so the result will be 50/50, each way, instead of 100% from one side only.’
What about this does not answer your question. Be specific. Repeating your question while ignoring a reply to this answer simply does not cut it, and proves to me that you are just avoiding the answer.
Amd you have ignored my own question yet again. it follows this post..
Dremt,
So, you agree that if you increase the emitting surface area while receiving the same input, the per unit area output must reduce.
It follows that if you increase the emitting surface area of a plate but retain the same absolute input, the per unit are emission rate must therefore reduce.
When you change the radiating surface area of a plate from one side to both sides, you double the emitting surface area. In the case with a point source sun, the input remains the same, but the surface area doubles, therefore the per unit area output is halved.
If you disagree with this, please explain why.
“When you change the radiating surface area of a plate from one side to both sides, you double the emitting surface area. In the case with a point source sun, the input remains the same, but the surface area doubles, therefore the per unit area output is halved.
If you disagree with this, please explain why.“
I don’t necessarily disagree. I certainly don’t need it to be continuously explained. I fully understood it already five years ago. As I said a couple of days ago:
“Everyone understands Eli’s logic behind the “split by two”. There is no need to go over it again and again.”
The 244 K…244 K solution doesn’t have any issues with conservation of energy:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
It’s just I’ve recently become interested in a simpler solution, the 290 K…290 K. That’s why we’re talking about the atom-thick plate, etc. it could be wrong, I’m just thinking it through.
The main thing is, the 262 K…220 K solution is definitely wrong, and has been debunked a dozen times over these last few years. I’m just trying to decide between 244 K…244 K and 290 K…290 K.
Another cross-post. Whilst I was composing my 8:58 AM comment, you posted your 8:50 and 8:51 AM comments. I saw neither of them at the time I wrote my 8:58 AM comment, so your accusation that I have avoided responding to your "question" (there was no question mark, so it wasn’t actually a question) is again false. You didn’t apologize for the first time this happened, so I doubt you will apologize this time, either.
"The average rate of the output from all the atoms is 1360 W/m2 if emitting to one side. All the atoms can only radiate in one direction.
Remove the insulation and half the radiation will go one way, half the other. Atoms radiate in random directions, so the result will be 50/50, each way, instead of 100% from one side only".
Yes, barry, I saw that you had attempted an "answer", but the thing is…it doesn’t actually respond to the question. It’s just a sort of argument by assertion that the "split by two" applies. But, I can tell you’re getting frustrated, so maybe we should just leave it. I’m not here to wind people up, unlike some. I was going to continue with the ball example, too, but I think that might be pushing you a bit too far. You’re obviously not going to get where I’m coming from.
By the way…Eli’s “split by two” logic seems so “bulletproof” that I wouldn’t even have thought to question it before now, if it weren’t for the fact that there is some empirical evidence that perhaps objects just “emit what they receive” (in other words, there might be no “split by two”):
https://principia-scientific.com/bridging-the-gap-in-greenhouse-gas-theory-one-plate-test/
It’s Geraint Hughes again. He heated a plate, radiatively, and it came to a temperature far in excess of what the “split by two” hypothesis would predict. It came closer to what the “emit what they receive” hypothesis would predict, instead. Not sure what to make of it.
“The main thing is, the 262 K220 K solution is definitely wrong…”
DREMT, again no, Eli’s original solution has long been correct as it follows from 1LOT and 2LOT & is in accord with the textbook Clint R recently found.
There is no hope for your 8:58 am linked cartoon to be correct as it obviously violates 2LOT with a GREEN arrow coming from a BLUE plate.
“The 244 K244 K solution doesnt have any issues with conservation of energy:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB”
But since it doesnt use blackbodies, it cannot be a solution to the GPE.
Oh well!
"There is no hope for your 8:58 am linked cartoon to be correct as it obviously violates 2LOT with a GREEN arrow coming from a BLUE plate."
Ball4, that is the emission from the GP being returned from the BP, rather than violating 2LoT by resulting in an increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. As you know, the plates may be blackbodies, but that cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT. Besides, all this has been discussed a hundred times before. We will get nowhere going over all that again.
I was much more interested in my discussion with barry. So perhaps you could just go away, and leave us to it? That would be great. Thanks.
DREMT, the emission shown from the GP being returned from the BP violates 2LOT since such a process does not increase universe entropy as required by 2LOT. As such, there is no hope for your linked cartoon to be correct.
Consult Eli’s correct solution which increases universe entropy, the text example found by Clint R which also increases universe entropy, or even ask barry.
You are still the only person on this blog who has ever claimed the 244 K…244 K solution violates 2LoT, and you’re a known (notorious) liar. You are dismissed. Thank you.
DREMT’s 244K….244K “solution” has been thoroughly debunked (& Eli’s solution supported) in various ways for several years by many commenters on this blog so using the 2LOT is just one correct means among many.
I just want to talk to barry, and barry alone. No trolls allowed, so you are dismissed. Thank you.
“As you know, the plates may be blackbodies, but that cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.”
Well, not using the plates specified in the problem, your solution cannot be a solution to the problem!
You tried, but failed. It is as simple as that.
As Yoda would say,
Do or do not solve the problem. There is no try.
…just want to talk to barry, and barry alone. No trolls allowed, so you are dismissed. Thank you.
As I wrote, then listen to barry who is also correctly debunking DREMT’s incorrect BP,GP solution in barry’s own way consistent with Clint R’s text book example as many have already done.
You are dismissed. Thank you.
Teacher: ‘Why did you change this blackbody, which is a perfect abs.orber, into some sort of mirror? That’s not a blackbody.’
DREMT: ‘Well I couldnt solve it with a blackbody there, because…”
Teacher: ‘So you couldnt solve the assigned problem.’
DREMT: ‘Yeah but you see, the 2LOT…’
Teacher: ‘Oh well, sorry, you get a 0 on that problem’
Again, you are dismissed. Thank you.
“Yes, barry, I saw that you had attempted an “answer”, but the thing is… it doesnt actually respond to the question. It’s just a sort of argument by assertion that the “split by two” applies.”
That is untrue.
You took this to the atomic level and I have answered you there. I made no ‘assertion, but pointed out that atoms emit photons in random directions. This is a fact you can look up if you like.
The consequence of this is that an atom thick plate will emit half its energy in one direction, and half in the other.
Now, you can choose to rebut the fact I have brought up. And I wish you luck trying to prove that atoms emit photons differently to the way science tells us.
Or you can continue to ignore this substantiation to my point, and keep claiming that I’m ‘asserting’ something.
“You’re obviously not going to get where I’m coming from.”
Let’s see if I can see what you see.
You have taken the discussion to an atom thick plane, because in your mind you see the atoms all glowing at the same colour, all with the same energy.
All the atoms are at the same temperature as the average temperature of the surface of the plate they comprise.
And if the atoms are all at the same temperature, then they are emitting the equivalent energy of their input in all directions.
So, every atom emits at the same frequency as the input, same rate as the input therefore they are emitting that 1360 W/m2 in all directions.
That’s how you see it, isn’t it?
barry, I don’t need to rebut the fact that atoms emit photons in random directions, or that the consequence of this is that an atom thick plate will emit half its energy in one direction, and half in the other. I already accepted that the atom thick plate would emit energy in both directions. The question was, since the atom thick plate is receiving energy at a rate of 1,360 W/m^2, and this causes the atoms to vibrate at a certain average rate, why would they stop vibrating at an average rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?
“That’s how you see it, isn’t it?”
No.
“The question was, since the atom thick plate is receiving energy at a rate of 1,360 W/m^2, and this causes the atoms to vibrate at a certain average rate, why would they stop vibrating at an average rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?”
They “vibrate” – and emit photons at an average rate of 1360 W/m2. They don’t stop doing this. They keep doing this.
You understand that W/m2 applies to a single emitting surface, not a dual-sided plane, right?
So 1360 W/m2 applies specifically to a single surface emitting.
With a dual-sided plate, half that energy goes one way, half the other. What is difficult to understand about this?
The atoms are absorbing and emitting the same rate of energy, but one case has twice the emitting surface area of the other.
I’m perplexed at how you’re not getting this. The only way I could imagine it was the way I described what I thought was your view. Of course, atoms don’t have a temperature, and they transfer their energy radiatively by photons.
A single-sided plate, all the photons are emitted by that surface away from that surface.
A dual-sided plate, half the photons go one way, half the other.
The atoms are emitting at exactly the same rate of energy.
Energy is a conserved property, temperature is not.
And maybe my last sentence needs emphasising.
Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
I wonder if you’re not completely across that idea, as you seem to be relying on maintaining a constant temperature with 290K..290K, 244K…244K.
Could that be the disconnect? That you assume that temperature must be conserved?
barry…you’re rambling, and still not answering the question. I don’t even think you perhaps understand the question.
Did you read this comment, by the way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546618
Perhaps take a look at that. Maybe that will help.
“youre rambling, and still not answering the question.”
The crux of your question was why the atoms stop vibrating at the average rate the input requires them to, when the emissions are split between two sides.
I replied that they dont stop vibrating at the average rate and explained why.
And you apparently dont think my explanation of why I rejected this premise constitutes an answer.
No idea how to proceed if you just ignore what I say and pretend I havent answered you.
You have a single sheet of atoms vibrating at an average rate where they emit 680 W/m^2. However, they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2. You don’t seem able, in my opinion, to explain this discrepancy, except to say that the “split by two” should apply because the “split by two” should apply. But, here’s how we could proceed.
You could discuss the empirical evidence I linked to that suggests the “split by two” does not apply. How do you explain those results, barry?
P.S: you demonstrated that you did not understand the question. I didn’t mean that at any point the atoms actually stopped vibrating! I meant, if you irradiate a sheet of atoms with 1,360 W/m^2, and the sheet starts increasing in temperature from 0 K, why does the sheet stop increasing in temperature at 331 K, emitting 680 W/m^2, rather than continuing to increase in temperature to 394 K, emitting 1,360 W/m^2? In other words, why does the increase in the average rate of vibration of the atoms stop when they are emitting 680 W/m^2?
“You have a single sheet of atoms vibrating at an average rate where they emit 680 W/m^2. However, they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2.”
No, they are “vibrating” at the same rate as input.
If the plate emitted from only one surface, the rate of the emission would match the input from that surface.
But they are emitting oved twice the surface area that they are being irradiated.
Imagine a meter square surface, emitting from one side, the other side insulated.
The meter square surface is radiating 1360 watts back in the direction of the point-source sun. No problem with that, right?
But if you remove the insulation, the emitting surface area now doubles, and therefore the power per unit area must be halved, as you agreed upthread.
DREMT: “Agree, of course.”
1360W X 1A = 680W X 2A
The plate is emitting equivalent energy that is being received, but it is emitting over twice the area that it is receiving. The energy is conserved, the temperature is not.
The math is straightforward. Dunno how it is you understood it in April and in the comment you agreed to, but now apparently can’t see it.
Did you want speak to these points at some time, instead of just repeating the question?
barry, I already understand the logic of the “split by two”, as I said. I understood it perfectly well five, six years ago.
We just had a cross-post again. Read my “P.S:” post. Maybe that will help.
Don’t forget to discuss the empirical evidence that the “split by two” doesn’t happen.
Amending:
If the plate emitted from only one surface, the rate of the emission per unit area would match the input per unit area to that surface.
“No, they are “vibrating” at the same rate as input.”
Obviously not, barry. Vibrating at an average rate where they emit 680 W/m^2 does not correspond to an average rate that 1,360 W/m^2 input could induce.
They are vibrating at the same rate, otherwise they would not be able to spread that 1360 watts over twice the surface area.
What you’re refusing to look at, deal with or even argue about is that the emitting area is twice that of the area being irradiated.
You just haven’t spent a single word on that point. You appear to be blind to it, much less have an argument on it.
My guess is that your argument dwelling at the atomic level is somehow trying to remove the notion of there being two sides to deal with.
Whatever the case, you’ve been ignoring the point for multiple transactions now. When will you take it up?
You’re not getting it. That’s OK.
The empirical evidence, barry?
The experiment? Doofus thinks that he is replicating 3K space environment by creating a vacuum in a jar, not realizing that the other side of the disc is being irradiated by the environment, including the hot glass jar and the device above the disc. ‘Empirical evidence’ is facepalm material.
You’ve serially ignored the substance of the replies to your questions and that’s clearly not going to change. No point going on.
I’ll leave you with the consequence of your way of seeing it.
Point source sun irradiates a two-sided plate with 400 W/m2.
DREMT considers the plate now radiates 400 W/m2 from each side.
So now we put insulation on the side of the plate facing away from the sun.
What happens to the 400 W/m2 that was being radiated?
Presumably DREMT thinks it disappears. Surely it would not now be redirected to the sun, and the plate emits 400 W/m2 back to the sun?
Nope, pretty sure you’d have to argue that this 400 W/m2 that was streaming away from the side of the plate just vanishes into another dimension.
sigh
Presumably DREMT thinks it disappears. Surely it would not now be redirected to the sun, and the plate emits 800 W/m2 back to the sun?
Energy was created by having the plate emit 400 W/m2 from both sides, and when the insulation goes on, that 400 W/m2 must now be destroyed.
1st Law violations galore.
Test.
barry, he anticipated your criticism of the experiment. Did you read the article accompanying it? It will not let me post the text from the article, for some reason, but I assume you can find the relevant section.
Look, barry, I never said I definitely thought 290 K, 290 K was correct. I just said I was thinking it through. It could well be wrong, but there is some empirical evidence that it might be correct. So, you have to take that at least somewhat seriously, IMO.
As for your point about insulation: if you covered one side of the plate with insulation, then of course that side of the plate would stop radiating, because it is now covered with insulation. Instead, the layer of insulation would be radiating out to space.</p
I will try to quote that section again:
"Firstly, If we assumed that back radiant hypothesis was real with a 76 percent efficient heat transfer process and we performed the necessary fake back radiant mathematics, we arrive at a predicted temperature of 257 C, and that would be if the external glass along its entire length reached a temperature of 200 C. If we assumed 100 percent efficiency, which is a complete non.sense we still only get 288. The time to end your del.usions is now. Your science is false. As can be seen from the you tube videos the temperature of the glass at the point where the plate is, only reached a mere 77 C. This is not sufficient to emit the rate of energy required to explain the observed temperatures if we assumed the false universe was how it was."
“because it is now covered with insulation. Instead, the layer of insulation would be radiating out to space”
No, you don’t understand the principle. Insulation means that there is no heat loss towards the insulation.
Think of affixing a planet to the back of the plate.
Where does the 400 watts that was radiating out of the back of the meter squared plate go?
Whatever you think, 400 –> is a violation of the first law. 800 watts is coming out of a meter square plate that is only getting 400 watts delivered to it
“Whatever you think, 400 > is a violation of the first law.”
ffs – I am so tired of the issues with this website.
400 watts coming out of each side of a meter square plate is 800 watts total being emitted. It’s a violation of the 1st law when that plate is only receiving 400 watts.
barry, if you cover a radiating surface with something, then that surface stops radiating, and instead conducts energy into the “something” covering it. The outermost surface of the “something” then becomes the new radiating surface.
Earlier, you said the ball would radiate 340 W/m^2 in all directions. Not two, like you insist on with the plates. OK. One last try.
You have a long column of single atoms stacked one on top of the other. Maybe one hundred atoms high. You view the column from above, looking down. The column is irradiated with 1,360 W/m^2 from one direction. Does the column radiate:
a) 13.6 W/m^2 in 100 directions.
b) 1,360 W/m^2 in 100 directions.
c) 680 W/m^2 in 100 directions.
We have been talking about insulated plates here for years, and we’ve always understood that this means that there is no thermal loss where the insulation is – a staple theoretical concept our discussions – as is our use of theoretical blackbodies.
I actually anticipated that you would today decide that the theoretical insulation we have used in the same way for years here would now change into an emitting surface – so that you would not have to deal with the point.
And all because you read a 12 year-old NASA web page that lacks specifics.
I anticipated that you would have to abandon your description of the way energy flows with the blue plate, I even called you on it. lo and behold, you are indeed considering resiling from your original understanding.
All because of your interpretation of that NASA doc, which has a point source sun.
“Earlier, you said the ball would radiate 340 W/m^2 in all directions.”
Yes, a sphere emits in all directions.
“Not two, like you insist on with the plates.”
You make it seem as if I’ve been unreasonable to proceed in this fashion, when we all have adopted this convention for years, including you, including in this discussion. “Insisting?” Please.
You have serially avoided dealing with the concept of a plate having twice the emitting surface area as the area being irradiated. You’ve said you understand the “logic” of “splitting” but not whether you think the logic is sound.
Until you deal straightforwardly with this point, you won’t be getting any more replies from me. A column of atoms now?? Hey, why not cut to the chase and just have one atom emitting in a random directions?
You can try and fish for ways to repudiate or get around the notion of 2 dimensions and surface area, but it is all just ways of avoiding the point. It is the crux of my rebuttal, and you’ve set it aside for 2 days. I’ll wait to see if you ever get around to dealing with it squarely, but I’m not wasting time going down ever-shrinking rabbit holes that are escape passages from the point.
barry, cool it with the false accusations. When you insulate a plate on one side, the insulation does become the new radiating surface for that side. That’s just a fact. Now, if it’s “perfect insulation” it would prevent all the energy from conducting through and there would be nothing left to radiate from that new radiating surface. Typically, in these discussions we would say that a “perfectly insulated” BP would increase in temperature from 244 K to 290 K. Obviously, though, if the BP was already at 290 K, it’s theoretical “maximum temperature”, then insulating one side would not cause it to rise in temperature. It would not suddenly be radiating 800 W/m^2 from the uninsulated side, because it’s only receiving 400 W/m^2 in the first place! I get what you were trying to say, but it’s not quite the zinger you hoped for to leave the discussion on.
The plates don’t just emit in two directions, barry. I have in fact always tried to point out that they emit in an entire sphere of directions, a hemisphere from each side. If you re-read this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545455
you will notice me referring to a hemisphere of directions.
I have already said many times that I’m not certain the solution is 290 K…290 K, and that I’m just thinking it through. I still prefer 244 K…244 K. The only thing I’m sure of is that it’s not 262 K…220 K. You don’t have to sound so outraged and upset that I’m considering 290 K…290 K, though. Like I said, Eli’s logic for the “split by two” seems so “bulletproof” that the only reason I’m considering it at all is due to the empirical evidence (which you tried to criticise, but failed).
I take it from your refusal to answer the question that you finally realise you have no excuse but to accept that the column of atoms would “emit what it receives” rather than “splitting by two”, and you don’t like where that train of thought leads you. If one shape of an object can “emit what it receives”, then why not all shapes? So long as they can “warm through”, of course.
‘Empirical evidence’
FYI, for those that actually care about empirical evidence, there is quite a lot of empirical evidence that the Law of Conservation of Energy is valid.
Anyone claiming they have done an experiment that violates this Law has a large burden of proof.
It would be an extraordinary finding, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.
Given the large amount of empirical evidence supporting Conservation of Energy, it is highly probable that any one experiment contradicting it has simply made a mistake.
“You have serially avoided dealing with the concept of a plate having twice the emitting surface area as the area being irradiated.“
Not at all, barry. It’s a great argument, and like I said, normally I wouldn’t question it…but for the empirical evidence against it. The counter argument is as I’ve been trying to get across to you from the start. The object “warms through” so that all the atoms are vibrating (on average) at a rate set by the input. So, regardless of the surface area issue, an object that “warms through” has no option but to “emit what it receives”.
“I have already said many times that Im not certain the solution is 290 K290 K, and that Im just thinking it through. I still prefer 244 K244 K. The only thing Im sure of is that its not 262 K220 K.”
DREMT is unsure, but Nature has figured it out already: energy cannot be created from nothing.
DREMT is also unsure about whether blackbody surfaces can reflect or not. Again, nature has already figured that one out, and the answer is NO.
With all his uncertainty about the basic facts, DREMT is still certain that the PhD physicists must be the ones that are confused, not him!
Thus he is certain that the solution found by physics is certainly wrong, or so he mansplains it to us.
So, regardless of the surface area issue, an object that “warms through” has no option but to “emit what it receives”.
… when GPE equilibrium is achieved at 262 K…220 K per 1LOT,2LOT.
Yawn. He’s back again.
“The counter argument is as I’ve been trying to get across to you from the start. The object ‘warms through’ so that all the atoms are vibrating (on average) at a rate set by the input. So, regardless of the surface area issue, an object that ‘warms through’ has no option but to ’emit what it receives’.”
But this has no real sense behind it. You are using the term “emit what it receives” to assert that the object radiates at the same wattage per square metre that is radiated to it. There is no argument here, just assertion.
The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input. The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input.
You don’t want to deal with 2 dimensions, so you try to make them go away by imagining that the atoms give off radiation omnidirectionally. It’s why you use the word vibrate – it exempts you from having to consider that the atoms release their energies on a random but specific vector.
It’s why you have devolved, as I told you you would, to getting rid of dimensions. A column of atoms has no surface area. What is the temperature of an object receiving any wattage per square metre when it doesn’t have a surface?
So here’s another example of how you have created energy with the view you’re testing.
Let’s make our plate a disc of one metre square area. Let’s furnish the energy by a wire rather than by the sun.
We send 400 watts to the disc, it radiates 400 watts from each side.
Now we place two hemispheres over each face, so that the energy they emit is completely received by these hemispheres.
Each hemisphere receives 400 watts. The entire sphere is receiving 800 watts.
The disc that is receiving 400 watts, is powering a sphere surrounding it with 800 watts.
Do you now see the problem?
ffs – it is tedious to have to spell everything out in minute detail in case the assumed understanding is overthrown. So, amending for clarity.
You are using the term “emit what it receives” to assert that the 2-sided object radiates at the same wattage per square metre that is radiated to it on one side.
Yes, barry, I always saw the problem.
I understand the logic of the "split by two", completely. Same as I did five, six years ago. No need for you to keep repeating yourself.
The column of atoms would "emit what it receives". You haven’t put forward any argument as to why it would receive 1,360 W/m^2 but emit 680 W/m^2. In fact, all you’ve done is tried to claim that a column of atoms wouldn’t have a surface area! If a column of atoms doesn’t have a surface area, why would a sheet of atoms have a surface area!? So, anyway, we’ll go with it receiving 1,360 W/m^2 and emitting 1,360 W/m^2. That’s a start. You must therefore accept that such a thing is possible.
"The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input. The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input."
Obviously not, if the atom-thick plate receives 1,360 W/m^2 but emits 680 W/m^2. I’m not sure how you don’t see that! The atoms would be (on average) vibrating at a rate corresponding to an emission of 680 W/m^2…even though they are receiving an impetus to vibrate at a rate corresponding to 1,360 W/m^2!
If you see that the disc I described is supplying twice the energy to the sphere surrounding it than the disc receives, surely this conversation should be over.
W/m2 is a vector quantity. It is “the power transferred per unit area, where the area is measured on the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy.”
You are trying to remove the vector component from the physics, DREMT.
This is why you are talking about atoms vibrating rather than emitting. Their energy state doesn’t have a direction. But when we talk about power transferred per unit area (W/m2), we are referring to emissions. Photons. And these have direction.
A plate of atoms is irradiated one one side. The atoms take on the energy they receive.
But they emit photons in all directions. At any given moment half the atoms emit to space from the surface facing the point source sun, and half the atoms emit their energy from the surface not facing the sun.
Half the energy they have received is going one way, half the other.
Every time you change the shape of the object, or speak of “warming through” you are trying to eradicate the notion of vector from the matter.
No, barry. I said cool it with the false accusations. That means stop making them, not continue to make even more of them.
"The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input. The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input."
Obviously not, if the atom-thick plate receives 1,360 W/m^2 but emits 680 W/m^2. I’m not sure how you don’t see that! The atoms would be (on average) vibrating at a rate corresponding to an emission of 680 W/m^2…even though they are receiving an impetus to vibrate at a rate corresponding to 1,360 W/m^2!
You don’t have any response to this argument…so you falsely accuse me of some dishonest tactic, instead. Remove the accusations and what actually is your argument? That the atom-thick plate will emit photons in all directions from the surface? I already acknowledged that they will! So yes, some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from one side of the plate, and some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from the other side. Your fixation on photons changes nothing.
“So yes, some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from one side of the plate, and some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from the other side.”
I don’t understand how you’re NOT seeing it.
1360 W/m2 describes the amount of power transferring to a plane perpendicular to the the direction the energy is propagating from.
The vector quantity (direction) is intrinsic to the definition of power per unit area.
What this means is that if every atom transfers its energy to a perpendicular plane, then that plane will receive the full 1360 W/m2 of energy.
But with our two-sided plate, not every atom will transfer its energy to that plane.
In fact, statistically half the atoms at any given moment are transferring energy to a single plane perpendicular to the emitting plate (our plates are infinitely large, remember), and half are not.
You only get all those atoms transmitting the 1360 W/m2 if they are all illuminating the same plane – if they are all transmitting to one side.
But they are transmitting to two sides. A plane on one side would get 860 W/m2, and the plane on the other side of the plate would have another 860 W/m2 transmitted to it.
The total being transferred, then, is still 1360 W/m2, but it is split between two vectors.
Now imagine what I asked you to imagine before.
A metre square disc is radiating in the way you are considering.
It is receiving 1360 watts to it by wire.
A dome covers one radiating face, absorbing all its radiation – 1360 watts, according to your proposal.
Another dome covers the other face. It, too, is receiving 1360 watts, according to what you are proposing.
Therefore, a disc that is receiving 1360 watts of power, is powering a sphere surrounding it with a total of 2720 watts.
You have created 1360 watts of energy. 1st Law violation.
What is your rebuttal to this?
“Obviously not, if the atom-thick plate receives 1,360 W/m^2 but emits 680 W/m^2. Im not sure how you dont see that! The atoms would be (on average) vibrating at a rate corresponding to an emission of 680 W/m^2even though they are receiving an impetus to vibrate at a rate corresponding to 1,360 W/m^2!”
Barry, this is meaningless gobbldegook that can only have one purpose: to obfuscate.
It allows one to endlessly hand-wave about vague things like the vibration rate of molecules under different conditions while always evading the main issue.
The testable reality is quite simple, the molecules emit in all directions a total energy NO MORE than what they are receiving.
There is no amount of hand-waving obfuscation that can undo that fact.
My rebuttal is the same as it’s always been, barry. You have no counter-argument to it except to ramble and waffle on about various irrelevancies.
A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that are vibrating at (on average) one particular rate. That is a rate that is less than 1,360 W/m^2 can induce. That the plate emitting 680 W/m^2 emits in all directions goes without saying, and is irrelevant to the point. It doesn’t even need to be an atom-thick plate to get the point, either, though it ought to help.
I don’t think any progress is going to be made, so we might as well give it up. I’ll stick to 244 K…244 K in future, as life’s too short for this relentless back and forth.
The empirical evidence needs an explanation. That’s all I’m going to say.
Now, you can repeat yourself, and Nate can (presumably, although I don’t read his comments) repeat himself, and Ball4 can chip in and repeat himself. On and on it goes.
“Now, you can repeat yourself, and Nate can (presumably, although I dont read his comments) repeat himself, and Ball4 can chip in and repeat himself. On and on it goes.”
You forgot DREMT keeps repeating himself.
And he keeps seeking new ways to evade reality, while keeping the argument going, endlessly.
On and on it goes.
No, you haven’t said a word about the following.
——————————————————-
Let’s make our plate a disc of area 1 square metre.
We supply 400 watts to the disc internally.
You argue that the disc is radiating 400 W/m2 to the left, and 400 W/m2 to the right.
As the surface area of the disc is exactly 1 square metre, it is radiating 400 watts to the left, and 400 watts to the right.
Place a hemisphere over each side that completely captures the energy being sent. One hemisphere gets 400 watts, and so does the other.
We now have a situation where a disc that is powered by 400 watts is powering a sphere with 800 watts.
That contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics – we’ve created 400 watts of energy from nothing.
What is your response to this? Where is the flaw in that chain?
Yes, good argument, barry. I can’t fault what you’re saying. As I’ve said many times, the logic of the “split by two” seems “bulletproof”…and yet, the empirical evidence to the contrary needs an explanation.
The only thing I could say is that supplying the plate with an electrical supply of 400 W, via a wire, might indeed mean that the plate only emits 200 W/m^2. Whereas supplying the plate with a flux of 400 W/m^2, from a source to one side of the plate, might have a different outcome. So long as it “warms through”.
The argument that I’ve made several times, that you can’t rebut, could also be repeated…but what’s the point? We’ve made our arguments. That’s that. If you want me to say that the 290 K…290 K solution is definitely wrong, you’ll be waiting a very long time. I’m keeping an open mind.
Though, like I said, I’ll probably continue to go with the 244 K…244 K going forward. Less endless back and forths.
“The argument that I’ve made several times, that you can’t rebut”
To keep the rebuttal simple – and to check if you’ve actually responded it more than just repeating your argument…
1. 1360 W/m2 is a vector quantity. It is the power per unit area being transferred to a single surface perpendicular to the propagation of energy. Direction matters.
2. All the atoms are “vibrating” at a rate commensurate with the 1360 W/m2 they are receiving.
3. If all their energy is now directed at a single perpendicular surface, that surface would receive 1360 W/m2.
4. But – and this is where we seem to get lost – an atom-thick plate that radiates on both sides does NOT emit its energy in one direction to a perpendicular surface.
5. Statistically half the atoms at a given moment are emitting in one direction (or towards one hemisphere), and the other half are emitting the other way.
6. If half the atmos are emitting their energy towards a single perpendicular surface, then they are emitting a total of 680 W/m2.
7. The atoms have not lost any energy, it’s just that fewer atoms are radiating towards the single perpendicular surface that gives us the energy transferred in W/m2. The rest of the atoms are directing their energy elsewhere.
Your rebuttal to this argument I make has been to restate your argument.
Yes, we are on a loop.
Were we to move on, taking for granted the BP with 244 || 244, I would then point out that the GP, getting only 200 W/m2 from the BP, must therefore emit 100 W/m2 from each side, otherwise it, too, would contravene the 1st Law.
“2. All the atoms are “vibrating” at a rate commensurate with the 1360 W/m2 they are receiving.”
No, barry. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that (on average) are not vibrating at a rate commensurate with the 1,360 W/m^2 they are receiving. This is where your counter fails, every time…and, you can’t learn. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 331 K. A plate emitting 1,360 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 394 K. The atoms in the latter plate would be (on average) vibrating faster than those in the former plate. A flux of 1,360 W/m^2 incident on a plate at 331 K would constantly be acting to induce a faster rate of vibration in the atoms it impacts. End of story.
“5. Statistically half the atoms at a given moment are emitting in one direction (or towards one hemisphere), and the other half are emitting the other way.”
Yes, I know that the plate emits in all directions. That doesn’t change anything.
“Yes, we are on a loop.”
Since you cannot take on board what is being said.
“Were we to move on, taking for granted the BP with 244 || 244, I would then point out that the GP, getting only 200 W/m2 from the BP, must therefore emit 100 W/m2 from each side, otherwise it, too, would contravene the 1st Law.”
barry, there is no 1LoT violation in this:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
How many times!?
Once again DREMT links to a picture violating 2LOT so there is no hope for that GPE balance to be correct.
The troll is back.
“No, barry. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that (on average) are not vibrating at a rate commensurate with the 1,360 W/m^2 they are receiving.”
Sure it does. It is emitting at 680 W/m2 in two completely different directions, and that is a total of 1360 W/m2 if it were emitting in one direction.
The two hemispheres enclosing either side of this plate are receiving 680 W/m2 each. If the plate is a metre square these hemispheres are receiving 680 watts each, for a total 1360 watts being received by the sphere surrounding the meter square surface being fed 1360 watts.
“A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 331 K. A plate emitting 1,360 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 394 K.”
Correct.
Energy is a conserved quantity. Temperature is not.
If you change the configuration of a single plate or open system receiving a constant energy, the total energy in and out of the single plate or system doesn’t change, but the temperature will.
Change the plate from a blackbody to a whitebody and the temperature will change dramatically. Double the size of the plate but keep the total input the same and the temperature of the surface of the plate will change.
Are you misled into thinking that the temperature must remain constant if you change the way a plate radiates?
The sun doesn’t transfer its temperature to a plate. It transfers its energy.
“The atoms in the latter plate would be (on average) vibrating faster than those in the former plate.”
If all the atoms are vibrating as if they were getting 680 W/m2, then they would emit 340 W/m2 to each side.
You have a one atom thick plate. It has no dimensions that you could measure with a thermometer. No kinetic energy by any standard definition, because the atoms are arrayed in a single plane. There is no ‘material’ with a temperature. Atoms don’t have a temperature.
All we have to measure the temperature is determined by the SB law, and that is a vector analysis. The only temperature we can measure from this set-up is that which is emitted to or from a surface.
Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
Here is a challenge for you, relating to something you put to me, and giving insight into what I just said.
You have a blackbody column of atoms at a certain distance from the sun where a blackbody plane would be receiving 1360 W/m2.
The column of atoms is one metre long.
What is the temperature of the column? And how did you work that out using the S/B law in watts per square metre?
barry quotes me:
“No, barry. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that (on average) are not vibrating at a rate commensurate with the 1,360 W/m^2 they are receiving.”
then says:
“Sure it does. It is emitting at 680 W/m2 in two completely different directions, and that is a total of 1360 W/m2 if it were emitting in one direction.”
Wrong, barry! It is emitting in an infinite number of directions – does that mean it is emitting an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2!?
I have made this point so many times, throughout, and you never picked up on it!?
No need to read further. This is your fundamental error in understanding. “Number of directions” has nothing to do with it. Correct your error, re-read my responses to you, and you should realise why your counter fails.
“You have a one atom thick plate. It has no dimensions that you could measure with a thermometer. No kinetic energy by any standard definition, because the atoms are arrayed in a single plane. There is no ‘material’ with a temperature. Atoms don’t have a temperature.”
Take all your nonsense up with Eli, barry. He described his plates as being “infinitely thin”. Not me.
” Im keeping an open mind.”
His mind is open to energy being created from nothing.
Ok then.
“barry, there is no 1LoT violation in this:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
How many times!?”
How many times does it need to be mentioned that this diagram uses bodies that are NOT BLACKBODIES, and THUS it CANNOT be a solution to the GPE!
How many times?!
It seems some people will never stop ignoring the facts.
…take all your nonsense up with Eli, barry. He described his plates as being “infinitely thin”. Not me.
“Take all your nonsense up with Eli, barry. He described his plates as being ‘infinitely thin’. Not me.”
Eli said that only to remove the need to calculate radiation from the edges of the plates, or have to include conduction. That’s it. You could make the plates a millimetre thick and now you have kinetic energy and a macro state to deal with, where classical thermodynamics (as opposed to quantum mechanics) applies.
If you wanted to drill down to an atomic temperature for such an array you would have to state the nature of the atoms (eg, you would no longer have a blackbody condition) and calculate the temperature quantum mechanically. Neither of us has the skill to do that. And it’s a pointless exercise WRT our discussion. And the temperature would be as close to 0 K as makes no difference.
If you want to deal with plates with actual material, then a one metre square plate a millimetre thick radiates 0.4% of its energy from the edges.
So now the faces radiate (x – x/250) W/m2. An unhelpful complication that doesn’t interfere one bit with the point, only its clarity.
Eli just removed the complication by removing the edge and making the plates infinitely large, so we could proceed under classic thermodynamics with fewer complications to the equations.
barry, it ultimately doesn’t matter to my point. Have the plates a mm thick if you want. If they are “perfect conductors” as he also specified, they will “warm through” easily enough so that all the atoms are vibrating at the same rate (on average). So the point about how a flux of 1,360 W/m^2 incident on a plate at 331 K would constantly be acting to induce a faster rate of vibration in the atoms it impacts still applies.
I just thought this would be easier to understand in a plate one atom thick, though I pointed out from the start it ought to also be clear why it would still apply in a plate of more substantial thickness.
For fun, I asked ChatGPT this question:
“If a one square metre plate receive energy at a rate of 400 watts, and radiates from both sides, what is the radiation in watts per square metre that is radiated from each side?”
And this was the reply:
“When a one square meter plate receives energy at a rate of 400 watts and radiates from both sides, the total power radiated from the plate is still 400 watts. Since the plate is radiating from both sides, you can assume that it is radiating 200 watts per square meter from each side. This is because the 400 watts of energy is being evenly distributed over the total surface area of the plate, which is 2 square meters (1 square meter for each side).
So, the radiation in watts per square meter that is radiated from each side of the plate is 200 watts per square meter.”
I am not crediting ChatGPT with any skill in radiative transfer, nor assigning its answer any credence. We can call this corroboration a coincidence, not a conclusion.
Well, that doesn’t surprise me. The logic of the “split by two” seems “bulletproof”, so that’s what I’d expect it to say. What might be interesting is to ask it a less specific question, and see what it comes up with. Something like, “if you irradiate an object with 400 W/m^2, and the object is a perfect conductor, what will it emit?”
There are some quite big differences in temperature, when you come to think about it. 394K – 331 K = 63 K. So that’s a huge difference depending on which way of looking at this is correct. That’s why I found Hughes’ experiment quite interesting. There’s such a big difference in the predicted temperatures, from each hypothesis, that it should be really easy to resolve this through a carefully conducted experiment. It’s amazing that it hasn’t been resolved already, really. Maybe Hughes’ experiment does resolve it? Who knows. He listed a bunch of improvements that could be made to his experiment, anyway. So, going forward, we may get a definitive answer on this.
The biggest temperature difference would be with a cube rather than a plate. If you had a perfectly conducting blackbody cube where each face had a surface area of a metre squared, and one face was permanently pointing towards the Sun at 1 AU distance, that face would be receiving 1,360 W/m^2. However, the total surface area of the cube, multiplied by the six sides, would be 6 m^2. So now, instead of a "split by two", you have a "split by six" going on. So, whereas the "warming through", "emit what you receive" hypothesis would have the cube at a temperature of 394 K, emitting 1,360 W/m^2, the "split according to surface area" hypothesis would have the cube at a temperature of only about 251 K, emitting 226.67 W/m^2! That’s a colossal 143 K difference between the two hypotheses…and it’s hard to see how any object at our distance from the Sun would only be warmed to 251 K, just because of the surface area issue.
I’m really starting to think there might be something to this "emit what you receive" hypothesis.
Barry, that is scary.
You are showing that AI is already more intelligent than some of our regular posters!
…and there would be an 80 K difference in temperature between what the plate would be (331 K), assuming the "split according to surface area" hypothesis is correct, and what the cube would be (251 K). An 80 K difference, essentially just due to the shape of the object! Does that really make any sense? Both objects are at the same distance from the Sun, receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun, but because one is a plate, and one is a cube, there’s an 80 K temperature difference between them! As a basic sanity check…does that seem right to you?
” its hard to see how any object at our distance from the Sun would only be warmed to 251 K, just because of the surface area issue.”
“Does that really make any sense? ”
For example, AI, doesn’t seem to suffer from thinking that incredulity is equivalent to, or can substitute for, sound logic.
Reminds me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV6NoNkDGsU
Awaiting a response from barry, the only person I’m interested in talking to on this sub-thread…
The set-up for that experiment is way too distant from what is required to get a decent read.
Every single surface in that room is radiating to the jar. Emptying the air doesn’t change that. Also, the thermometer will have a lot of residual heat in it once the jar is empty. The object above the plate will absorb the radiation coming from the plate and re-emit it back to the plate, slowing the rate of heat loss from the side of the plate not being directly heated.
We have no figures for any of this, so no way to check the validity of the test.
What we did get was a plate heated from a very short distance, right across its surface, that didn’t nearly reach the temperature required to prove the theory you’re considering, when the environment around the plate should have helped it – obviously the environment is much warmer than the depths of space.
The author only considered ‘leakage’, but not the additional radiation from the environment and nearby objects heated by the plate itself and radiating back to it. No doubt the experimenter believes that radiation from colder objects can’t be absorbed by warmer objects.
And if that is the case this experiment will fail us both, as we can’t even agree on the principle needed to question it.
The plate warmed to a temperature beyond what it should have done if the “split by surface area” hypothesis was the correct one. Not only that, but it warmed to a temperature beyond what would be predicted even if “back-radiation warming” were correct and the glass was heated to 200 C…and the glass was only measured to actually get to 77 C. Given that, I don’t see how the radiation from the room temperature surroundings could make much difference. Not if the immediate surroundings (the glass) is already warmer than the room.
So, I’ll ask again: as a basic sanity check for your “split by surface area” hypothesis: does it really make sense to you that a plate would be 80 K warmer than a cube, at the same distance from the Sun (one AU)?
None of the result numbers in that experiment are reliable.
“does it really make sense to you that a plate would be 80 K warmer than a cube, at the same distance from the Sun (one AU)?”
The ratio of the radiating area to area being irradiated is greater on a cube than a plate, so with more surface area losing energy than gaining energy, the cube is going to be cooler.
Same with a sphere.
It’s not the number of flat surfaces radiating that matters, it’s the ratio of surface area being irradiated to surface area radiating. So, if you’re going with an icosidodecahedron, you don’t divide the incoming energy by 20, you factor the ratio of surface area irradiance vs radiating. This would be rather complicated, as you now have to account for the view factor of every surface receiving radiation. Simpler would be to use a sphere as a model for a rough approximation.
So in simple terms, the ratio of area energy loss to area energy gain is
2:1 for a plate
4:1 for a sphere
6:1 for a cube
(assuming that only one side of the cube receives solar radiation)
“None of the result numbers in that experiment are reliable.”
Why’s that, barry? Is the experiment not straightforward, and replicable?
“The ratio of the radiating area to area being irradiated is greater on a cube than a plate, so with more surface area losing energy than gaining energy, the cube is going to be cooler.”
Yes, that’s the hypothesis.
“It’s not the number of flat surfaces radiating that matters, it’s the ratio of surface area being irradiated to surface area radiating. So, if you’re going with an icosidodecahedron, you don’t divide the incoming energy by 20, you factor the ratio of surface area irradiance vs radiating.”
Indeed.
So I guess your answer is, “yes, it makes sense to me that a cube would be 80 K cooler than a plate, when both are at the same distance from the Sun”. To me, even though I understand the logic behind the hypothesis, it seems somewhat silly that there would be such a huge difference in temperature, effectively the result of a difference in shape. It doesn’t seem like something you experience in real life…cube shapes being cooler than plates, etc.
If you keep thinking about the cubes in space, and start arranging cubes behind cubes, and thinking about how quickly the amount of energy they would receive and emit tapers off, it seems ever less feasible, as a hypothesis. Whereas with the “emit what you receive” hypothesis, you have cubes behind cubes remaining at the same temperature, or slightly lower when taking view factors into account. Now, this might seem counterintuitive at first, because objects in the shade of other objects we know, from experience, to be significantly cooler. However, those objects aren’t perfectly conducting blackbodies. Real objects provide shade because they don’t perfectly conduct heat all the way through, and because they reflect energy from the Sun.
Still keeping an open mind. It might well be that the 290 K…290 K is wrong. I would like to see more empirical results. Improved experiments. It should be really easy to settle this through experiment.
“Why’s that, barry? Is the experiment not straightforward, and replicable?”
I explained the problems with the experiment already. But one that is completely in our way is that if you think that warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects, then you don’t think the disc would absorb any radiation from the object above it. Or indeed the rest of the room.
We have no way forward to even question the experiment if we can’t agree on that principle. We will forever be hamstrung by our different understanding of radiative transfer.
The experiment does not – in any way shape or form – replicate the theory as it applies to a black body object in the radiative environment in extraterrestrial space. The vacuum does next to nothing to ameliorate this problem.
“it seems somewhat silly that there would be such a huge difference in temperature, effectively the result of a difference in shape”
No, it’s purely the difference in the ratio of radiating area to are being irradiated.
“It doesnt seem like something you experience in real life… cube shapes being cooler than plates, etc.”
Because IRL means down here on Earth, where the environment is full of radiation and you have convection and conduction transferring heat.
If you want a real life analogy, then point a propane torch at a small ball bearing, then touch the other side of the ball bearing after a few minutes. You’ll get a little scar. Now get yourself a huge metal sphere the diameter of a human, point the propane torch at it, and touch the metal all the way on the other side. You can wait for a year of propane torching before you touch it if you like. You telling me you expect the far side to be just as hot as the point where the propane is firing?
“If you keep thinking about the cubes in space, and start arranging cubes behind cubes, and thinking about how quickly the amount of energy they would receive and emit tapers off, it seems ever less feasible, as a hypothesis.”
Not in the least. I now have a cuboid with many kilometres of side face, and still a one square metre face perpendicular to the sun – the longest, narrowest box you ever saw.
You seriously expect that if the energy that 1 square metre face is getting were distributed over kilometres of surface that is only shedding energy but getting none, that it should be the same temperature all the way across the surface?
That seems pretty lunatic to me.
“I explained the problems with the experiment already. But one that is completely in our way is that if you think that warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects, then you don’t think the disc would absorb any radiation from the object above it. Or indeed the rest of the room.
We have no way forward to even question the experiment if we can’t agree on that principle. We will forever be hamstrung by our different understanding of radiative transfer.”
Not at all. Since, as Hughes did, you can calculate what the temperature would be assuming “back radiation warming” were a thing. It’s like you don’t listen to a word I say.
“The experiment does not – in any way shape or form – replicate the theory as it applies to a black body object in the radiative environment in extraterrestrial space. The vacuum does next to nothing to ameliorate this problem.”
barry, you’re just looking for excuses to reject the results.
“No, it’s purely the difference in the ratio of radiating area to are being irradiated.”
Which is effectively due to the difference in shape.
“If you want a real life analogy, then point a propane torch at a small ball bearing, then touch the other side of the ball bearing after a few minutes. You’ll get a little scar. Now get yourself a huge metal sphere the diameter of a human, point the propane torch at it, and touch the metal all the way on the other side. You can wait for a year of propane torching before you touch it if you like. You telling me you expect the far side to be just as hot as the point where the propane is firing?”
No, because real objects are not perfect conductors.
“Not in the least. I now have a cuboid with many kilometres of side face, and still a one square metre face perpendicular to the sun – the longest, narrowest box you ever saw.
You seriously expect that if the energy that 1 square metre face is getting were distributed over kilometres of surface that is only shedding energy but getting none, that it should be the same temperature all the way across the surface?
That seems pretty lunatic to me.”
Yes, if it was made of perfectly conducting material.
“Yes, if it was made of perfectly conducting material.”
It still couldn’t convert the energy received over one square metre to be the same per unit area over 100 square kilometres. That energy has to be distributed over a greater surface area.
You previously agreed with this. And now you are contradicting yourself.
Me: “A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
Do you agree?”
You: “Agree, of course.”
You agreed that if you increase the surface area of the plate but keep the input constant, the temperature of the plate would decrease.
And thus, the emission rate per unit area would decrease.
That is EXACTLY what is happening with the cuboid. The energy being received is the same, but now you have a lot more surface area.
You are contradicting yourself here.
All our chat has been under the assumption of blackbodies and perfect conductors, so what is the substantive difference between the two propositions?
Or are you now retracting your agreement from 8 days ago? Are you going to put your understanding on this into probation as well?
In simple English:
400 W/m2 means:
For every square metre of surface area, 400 watts is being irradiated / emitted
Let’s have a cube with 6 sides of one metre square area each
One side is illuminated at 400 watts
If the other 6 sides emit at 400 watts
Then the cube is emitting a total of 2400 watts
But only receiving 400 watts
uh oh
barry, your many km long cuboid receiving 1,360 W/m^2 on the end square meter face is the perfect theoretical debunking of the “split according to surface area” hypothesis. According to that hypothesis, its temperature would be near 0 K! Yet we know that to be a nonsense, because it is receiving 1,360 W/m^2 at one end, and it’s a perfect conductor, so there’s no reason for that energy not to conduct along the length of the cuboid like the classic examples of conduction along e.g. a long, thin rod. It becomes more of a conduction question than a radiation question…and with infinite thermal conductivity to play with, you’ve shot yourself in the foot there. It can’t have a temperature of near 0 K. If it was touching an object at 394 K, presumably you would agree that (being a perfect conductor) it would be 394 K. Separate it from the object, by even a millimetre, and it drops to near 0 K? Just not plausible, I’m afraid.
“According to that hypothesis, its temperature would be near 0 K!”
Correct. Your mistake is to think that the temperature would be evenly distributed when the energy is evenly distributed. Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
In simple English:
400 W/m2 means:
For every square metre of surface area, 400 watts is being irradiated / emitted
Let’s have a cube with 6 sides of one metre square area each
One side is irradiated at 400 watts
6 sides emit at 400 watts
Then the cube is emitting a total of 2400 watts
But only receiving 400 watts
Your hypothesis fails the 1st Law.
Tell me why the argument here is wrong.
I just did…
…and no, I am not “conserving temperature”. I’m simply acknowledging that with infinite thermal conductivity, there is no reason for the many km long cuboid not to “warm through” from the heated end. That’s conduction, barry, not radiation.
1) Do you agree that if the long cuboid was touching another object at 394 K, it would itself warm through to 394 K? 2) If yes, how could you possibly think it would plummet in temperature to nearly 0 K just on being separated from the 394 K object by 1mm?
1) Cube is receiving 400 watts
2) Cube is radiating 2400 watts (according to your hypothesis)
3) This violates conservation of energy
Where is the fault in this analysis?
The fault is not to consider that the cube “warms through”. Now, please answer my questions.
“the cube ‘warms through’ ”
And then emits 6 times the amount of energy it receives, according to to you. Receives 400 watts, emits 2400 watts.
You haven’t dealt with this, DREMT. Not one word.
I’ll answer your questions when you finally deal with this violation of the 1st Law of Thermo.
On the ropes, barry returns to simply repeating the logic of the “split according to surface area” hypothesis, which I’ve already acknowledged multiple times appears “bulletproof”, and demanding that I say some magic words that are going to help him move past it. barry, I don’t know what to say to you other than what I’ve said already. If you still can’t accept it, that’s fine, but you are left with the troubling scenario of the many km long cuboid that you brought up yourself, and which seems to be very problematic for your own position.
When looking at conduction problems, e.g. conduction of heat along a long, thin rod, why does the surface area of the outside of the rod not enter into any of the calculations, barry? The equation for heat flow by conduction only includes the cross-sectional area of the object. Not the surface area.
“And then emits 6 times the amount of energy it receives, according to to you. Receives 400 watts, emits 2400 watts.
You havent dealt with this, DREMT. Not one word.”
” I would like to see more empirical results.”
Just a reminder that Conservation of Energy is probably the most well-tested Law of Physics that there is.
It IS the epitome of an empirical result.
Barry, you are infinitely patient.
DREMT sez:
“On the ropes, barry returns to simply repeating the logic of the split according to surface area hypothesis, which Ive already acknowledged multiple times appears bulletproof”
If its ‘bulletproof’ then why does he keep insisting that it could be violated?
Then he blames you for reminding him that this contradiction is simply not logical.
DREMT, your cube is receiving 400 watts and emitting 2400 watts.
That is the consequence of having every side emit the same amount of energy received by the metre square side facing the sun. Every face emitting 400 watts and the surface area is 6 metres square. 6 X 400 = 2400.
“barry returns to simply repeating the logic of the ‘split according to surface area’ hypothesis”
I’m not talking about splitting anything. I am talking about YOUR model of energy flow and pointing out the glaring flaw in it.
You don’t have an answer to this clear violation of conservation of energy. That’s why you are talking about anything BUT this problem.
Ah, I see Nate responded again. I don’t read any of his comments, but I can just imagine the things he’s saying. Without having a single answer for any of the points I’ve raised, I bet he’s just continuously repeating the 1LoT mantra. Either that, or just making snide little remarks. Nothing constructive, that’s for sure.
“Without having a single answer for any of the points Ive raised”
If DREMT stopped pretending that he doesnt read my posts, he would have learned that I provided an answer for this:
” I would like to see more empirical results.”
I had pointed out that Conservation of Energy is a well tested empirical result.
Barry, you tried your best. But there is simply no cure for his illogical thinking.
Well, that’s that. The arguments have all been made. Readers will decide who is correct, in their opinion. No need to continue any further.
This reader is laughing at DREMT but still, just in case, would like to acquire one of the DREMT ACME model 400 W/m^2 powered “warms through” cubes continuously emitting 2400 W/m^2 off Amazon for the upcoming NH winter. DREMT, what is the UPC?
Fine, I’ll go with 244 K…244 K in future. Less pushback.
Sure DREMT, the laughs will just keep on coming.
Ball4 messed up (nobody’s arguing it emits 2,400 W/m^2), but what the hell. I’m bored of this discussion now.
” Im bored of this discussion now.”
Understandable. No one is buying the crap you are selling.
…I will assume that all those in disagreement with me will be correcting the physics texts on conduction. When they see the long, thin rod being heated from one end, they will immediately point out that due to the issues with the surface area involved, the rod will not warm beyond an extremely low temperature.
Bored DREMT 9:52 am, that situation would be consistent with Eli’s long ago correct 1LOT,2LOT GPE solution so there is no need to update physics texts on conductive energy transfer. Good to see you have now abandoned your 244K…244K GPE solution which is inconsistent with your 9:52 am comment.
I have abandoned nothing. Stop responding to me.
“When they see the long, thin rod being heated from one end”
Thinking that you will find some geometry that has the object emitting more energy than it receives is a pipe-dream.
People have endlessly tried to get around energy conservation..and have yet to succeed.
…have abandoned nothing. Stop responding to me.
… having abandoned nothing but DREMT’s original 244K…244K GPE solution as DREMT commented at 9:52 am which was a good physics move by DREMT as there is no hope for that solution to be correct since not in accord with 2LOT. See Eli’s workout for the correct solution in accord with 1LOT and 2LOT.
Nuisance, begone.
Stop confusing energy with heat.
I’m not, barry.
7:01am wrongly: “radiative heat transfer”
Yes, DREMT’s writing really is confusing energy with heat. “Back-radiation” and forward radiation are NOT heat so DREMT’s conclusion is physically unsupported.
There exists radiative, conductive, and convective energy transfer.
7:01 am: It’s easy to find a textbook example showing the radiative energy transfer equation meaning the heated plate must warm due 1LOT as Eli showed long ago consistent with 2LOT increasing universe entropy.
There’s an example in here, see section 18 of Volume 1:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543534
Ball4 turns up to lie, as usual.
Since Gaslighting Graham for once made an effort:
18. Temperature, Heat, and the First Law of Thermodynamics – 514
His turn.
Yes, that’s the first page of the section, Little Willy. What page is this example on, that Ball4 claims exists?
Gaslighting Graham uses the most common contrarian technique: deny and wait for otters to spoonfeed you.
Got it.
OK, well I skimmed through and couldn’t see anything obvious. So I’m not sure what to say. Seems like Ball4 is lying.
Must suck to be Gaslighting Graham.
Perhaps he should reread what B4 wrote.
I found mention of the radiative heat transfer equation between an object and its surroundings. No example of what I’m looking for, though. Remember, I’m looking for:
"one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate."
So…I need to see: heat source, heated plate, and a passive plate. "Back-radiation" from the passive plate warming the heated plate. Not seeing anything with that, so far.
Let’s see if Gaslighting Graham will get how abusive he is becoming by mirroring it –
I read the exchange he had with B4, and I don’t see where he shows he understood what B4 was saying.
If Ball4 was saying that he doesn’t have the example I’m looking for, then I agree. I guess he said, "it’s easy to find a textbook example showing the radiative energy transfer equation meaning the heated plate must warm due 1LOT".
So you could read it as: all he was saying was you can find an example involving the radiative [heat] transfer equation.
But, that’s not what I asked for…and it’s also not something I dispute. Of course you can find examples involving the RHTE in textbooks. I’m looking for something like the Green Plate Effect, though. You won’t find that in textbooks.
Which is my point.
Gaslighting Graham is using an if-by-whiskey.
Got it.
You won’t find that in textbooks… if you never look.
I looked. The skunk cabbage example fails, obviously.
So here’s the standoff so far:
[BARRY] Heat will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one, while the exchange of radiation (which is not heat) goes both ways. This is in every standard textbook on radiative transfer, and even Clausius mentioned it in his treatise on the 2nd Law.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] barry, you can look at it any way you want. Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate. If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate.
Notice how the topic shifts between the two replies.
So here we are, yet again in another of Gaslighting Graham’s goose chase, just because he has to read the solution to a very specific case. One Eli had to construct himself, no less.
Had he any willingness to learn physics, he’d have settled this over Zoom with Mighty Tim a long time ago.
So here we are, with Little Willy inserting himself into another discussion involving me, due to his obsession.
Yes 11:23 am the skunk cabbage example does fail DREMT’s position on the GPE, obviously since Eli used the 1LOT correctly consistent with the 2LOT.
The example was not what I asked for.
“find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate”
… so is an easily found example that meets all those & shows DREMT is wrong at equilibrium temperatures like Eli did long ago.
So here we are. Gaslighting Graham once again fleeing away from Mighty Tim.
Here’s what I said to barry:
"barry, you can look at it any way you want. Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.
If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. You just can’t seem to find a textbook example showing that."
What has ensued today has completely proved my point. Tim’s comment in particular! They just find the radiative heat transfer equation, in a textbook, and any example that comes with it (however inappropriate to the Green Plate Effect it may be) and just extrapolate from that. You cannot find an example like the GPE in a textbook. As much as they’re desperate to try and claim that it’s textbook physics, they can’t actually demonstrate that. So they just take the RHTE, mumble about 1LoT, and then say, hey presto, there’s your GPE!
Here’s to what Gaslighting Graham is supposed to respond:
Gaslighting Graham is peddling Eli’s thought experiment here.
And Mighty Tim already spoonfed him above.
So here we are, Gaslighting Graham trying to find another way to break the exchange.
barry is always only one step away from mentioning the Green Plate Effect, Little Willy. I just cut to the chase. The real question is, and always has been, "does back-radiation warm"? All the chatter about two-way flows of radiation, heat only flowing one way…that’s just a warm-up.
In any case, I just wanted to make one brief, simple point…but as usual, that can’t be allowed. So, here we are. I predict the thread will only get longer.
Gaslighting Graham is one bait away from pulling Barry into his silly maze of traps.
Got it.
I’m desperate not to continue this discussion any further, but I’m sure barry, you, Ball4, Tim and others will bait and goad me into it, as always.
All Gaslighting Graham would need is to explain to Mighty Tim, via videochat, how a thermos works in the Sky Dragon crank universe.
Well after DREMT started us off this morning on this topic:
“Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.”
Now he’s decided its not going too well..
“How vacuum flasks work
A vacuum flask is a bit like a super-insulated jug. Most versions have an inner chamber and an outer plastic or metal case separated by two layers of glass with a vacuum in between. The glass is usually lined with a reflective metal layer. Unbreakable flasks do away with the glass. Instead, they have two layers of stainless steel with a vacuum and a reflecting layer in between them. There’s also a tight, screw-down stopper on the top.
These few, simple features prevent virtually all heat transfer by either conduction, convection, or radiation. The vacuum prevents conduction. The tight stopper prevents air from entering or leaving the flask, so convection isn’t possible either. What about radiation? When infrared radiation tries to leave the hot liquid, the reflective lining of the inner chamber reflects it straight back in again. There’s virtually no way heat can escape from a vacuum flask and a hot drink stored inside will stay steaming hot for several hours.“
“The gap between the two vessels is partially evacuated of air, creating a partial-vacuum which reduces heat conduction or convection.”
So much the worse for Gaslighting Graham’s backconduction riddle!
“Back-conduction” was discussed in the scenario when the plates are pushed together, Little Willy. Boy, you’re not bright.
Gaslighting Graham distances himself from his own riddle.
Got it.
No, I fully embrace it. I was just correcting your comment.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Got it.
Everything I said to you was honest and correct.
Everything Gaslighting Graham says is irrelevant, unresponsive, and misleading at best.
Got it.
What I said to you was honest and correct, Little Willy.
Well after Gaslighting Graham started us off with:
“Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.”
Now he’s decided its not going too well…
Got it.
It went great, thanks. All over now, though.
Got it.
Gaslighting Graham can have the last word.
His ego requires it.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Its the son stoopid
https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/10/05/new-study-by-20-climate-researchers-from-12-countries-finds-un-ipcc-ipcc-might-have-substantially-underestimated-the-role-of-the-sun-in-global-warming-published-in-journal-research-in-astronomy/
The Sun and the Little Ice age. Akasofu claimed the IPCC erred by not including rewarming from the LIA in their AGW propaganda.
What rewarming?
The LIA was part of the cooling trend towards the next glacial period which began 5000 years ago.
Without human intervention we would still be cooling.
Ent, is that belief supported by your cult’s belief that ice cubes can boil water?
Like your belief that passenger jets fly backward, you sure have a lot of strange beliefs, huh?
Entropic man
It’s years ago that I read the highly discredited Mann & alii paper (known as MBH98) and Amman/Wahl’s paper about temperature reconstructions of the last millennium.
Recently I found a few articles collected at the German University of Mainz, all focusing on more recent, deeper tree ring evaluation.
*
A press info of U Mainz dated 2012:
https://press.uni-mainz.de/climate-in-northern-europe-reconstructed-for-the-past-2000-years-cooling-trend-calculated-precisely-for-the-first-time/
Therein you read:
” An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings.
Professor Dr. Jan Esper’s group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. “We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,” says Esper. ”
Esper & alii’s article is behind paywall, but at least a nice picture contained in the article was visible on the net:
https://i.postimg.cc/CL4KVfqW/Climate-in-northern-Europe-reconstructed-for-the-past-2-000-years.png
*
Further, newer publications
Northern European summer temperature variations over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density records
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2014_JQS.pdf
*
Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from
tree rings: Part I: The long term context
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Wilson_2016_QSR.pdf
*
Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from
tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2016/03/Anchukaitis_2017_QSR.pdf
*
Impressing jobs, to say the least.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
I agree with you about the cooling trend.
Temperatures stabilised around 10,000 years ago at 14.3 C and held for 5000 years. Over the 5000 years to 1850 the temperature then dropped to 13.8C.
We are in the end-Holocene cooling, a natural cooling trend interrupted by the Industrial Revolution and the artificial warming. Note that we are now at 15.55C, 175C on the right hand Y axis.
“highly discredited Mann & alii paper (known as MBH98) ”
The pattern described in MBH98 has been replicated many times using a variety of proxies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Yes Ent, that’s how a cult behaves. Each member totally supports the other.
You can see that here. Not one of your cult has challenged your nonsense that passenger jets fly backward. Norman tried, but then he realized that meant the Moon was not spinning. So he quickly reversed himself — such a loyal cultist.
The issue 10:38 am is MBH98 replications used the same proxy, which if that one proxy is not used, the blade significantly diminishes or is eliminated altogether.
The problems for Clint R 11:08 am is youtube dot com has reliable videos of passenger jets flying backwards, our moon possesses inertial spin, and Dr. Spencer’s experiments where reality shows Clint R is wrong.
See Ent?
Ball4 would drink poison to support his cult.
I think he already did
I believe you, Eboy.
For you and your fellow Sky Dragon cranks reality is like a poison.
“Akasofu claimed the IPCC erred by not including rewarming from the LIA in their AGW propaganda.”
Bunkum.
Lord, the stories ‘skeptics’ tell themselves.
The IPCC discusses the mechanism for the LIA. Akasofu treated it like the climate was an elastic thing that rebounded, instead of examining mechanisms.
In later work he had a crack at describing what caused the LIA and ended up repeating the IPCC.
barry, please stop trolling.
Bindidon’s response to being asked to provide factual information –
“Flynnsons specialty is to distract, distort, obscure, misinterpret and misrepresent.”
He can’t even get my name right.
Oh well, maybe he believes he is wise and well respected.
Pity he can’t even describe the GHE.
Bindidog is all bark – no science
Copy/paste all pages from internet to this board, doesn’t understand the meaning of any of it
Aaaah. The little stalking dachshund is here again and spits out his subcutaneously aggressive nonsense.
Vas-y, mon p'tit teckel chéri. Mords-le aux mollets tant que tu peux, ça lui fera comprendre que c'est toi l'chef ici, hé hé.
Binny,
Congratulations!
You can spout nonsense in two languages! How about a description of the GHE in two languages? Too hard?
Okay, a description in one language will do.
[laughing at sauerkraut suffering from canine excrement obsession]
Every time Bindiclown struggles and cannot figure out to post something sensible he flips into spanish babbling
Bindiclown thinks he’s smart because he just posts links lmao. He also criticizes coolistas as if that were a thing.
Yesterday, I caught Norman in another of his attempts to pervert reality. He responded, as usual, with one of his meltdown rants. Everyone needs to see this — it’s what meltdown looks like:
Nothing will change your illogical thought process or your demeaning and empty posts (no science at all just your loud obnoxious opinions). You are deep in a cult and don’t see it or too drunk to care and are just a complete asshole who wants to stir up shit while in a drunken stupor. You certainly are not gifted in any scientific ability. You have zero understanding of science.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Seems fairly accurate.
That’s your future, tr0ll Nate. You get to end up just like Norman.
ClintR
Norman has described you well
Following in the footsteps of tr0ll Nate is NOT very bright, Ent.
We know Dragon cranks lost when they start insults and false accusations.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(And I notice Gaslighting Graham ran, as usual – double fun.)
I’ve learned everything I know about how not to behave in this website from you.
I believe you Ent. I accept reality, but you do not.
Where did the heat escape to?
https://i.ibb.co/N6tNggZ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-06-135647.png
Gordon Robertson wrote: “Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject.”
I found a good textbook for you:
Physics for the Utterly Confused
Arkady, please stop trolling.
The utterly confused Gordon Robertson wrote: “An electron located at a specific orbital will only respond to a discrete EM frequency. See Dalton series for hydrogen.”
There is no widely recognized “Dalton Series” specifically associated with hydrogen. The concept of “Dalton Series” doesn’t have a well-established or widely accepted meaning in the context of hydrogen or atomic physics.
John Dalton was a pioneering chemist who introduced the atomic theory in the early 19th century, which laid the groundwork for understanding the composition of chemical elements and compounds. His work primarily focused on the relative weights of atoms and their combinations in chemical reactions, rather than on series or spectral properties of elements like hydrogen.
In his latest assault on the reality, Robertson doesn’t even have the class to post a reference to his utter rubbish.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
How does solar radiation work? Solar radiation is absorbed by the surface from which the troposphere is heated. In the stratosphere, energy comes from ultraviolet radiation with a wavelength of less than 242 nm (Chapman reaction). This is very evident above the 65th parallel. When polar night falls, the height of the troposphere drops to 6 km on average, and stratospheric winds rule the circulation in the upper troposphere. It is so strong and constant that it nullifies the influence of El Nino during the winter season.
It seems to some that Ozone is a greenhouse gas and that is why higher temperatures appear in the stratosphere. But this is not true. If that were the case we would have high temperatures in the tropopause in winter, because more ozone accumulates in the lower stratosphere during the winter season. In fact, ozone cools the surface because it absorbs UV radiation above 242 nm.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2022.png
On Earth, solar radiation works by mostly warming the tropical ocean- most of the sunlight that earth surface absorbs is absorbed by the transparent ocean surface which covers about 80% of tropical region.
Land surface absorb the energy of sunlight at the surface which isn’t transparent, and most energy of sunlight is warming the 10 ton per square meter atmosphere above- land doesn’t much it mostly is heated to transfer the energy to atmosphere which has a large thermal mass, and this large thermal mass retain the heat from the ground surface.
It should be noted the colder the air is, the more heat by convection
into the atmosphere. If air is warmed to around 40 C, the dry surface can reach about 70 C when the sun is near zenith, but if dry and air is cooler, the dry ground heat up to about 60 C when the sun is near zenith or it has to be somewhere around noon and in summer or in lower latitudes. The ground doesn’t absorb much sunlight and doesn’t keep the night time warm, rather it large mass of air which keeps the nights warmer.
If land is wet, it absorbs more sunlight, and transfer heat to atmosphere from evaporative heat transfers- and ground doesn’t get as hot if wet as compared dry- a lawn doesn’t get very hot as compared a dry sidewalk but a damp lawn would be transferring more heat to atmosphere. Or dry desert heats up quickly, and during night it can be quite cool, a forest doesn’t heat up as fast, but has warmer night.
Ocean surface don’t vary much during a day, they warm up or cool over weeks of time. And do not cool at night. And ocean cover 70% of entire Earth surface has much higher average temperature and control global average temperature.
Palmowski
It seems to ‘some’ that you eventually could have misunderstood this O3 thing.
The reason it is called a greenhouse gas may be due to the presence of a strong-looking absorp-tion/emission band at the beginning of the terrestrial atmospheric window:
https://i.postimg.cc/dtvr5D3N/O3-5-40-micron-sbaa.png
The same thing can be seen at an altitude of 50 km, only an order of magnitude weaker.
*
But what looks strong isn’t always so. A comparison with CO2 tells us clearly:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFU0veDw5zzFI9KfVGEVuRfdNtN_4I2V/view
CO2’s absorp-tion/emission intensity is shown here with 0.0025 i.e. 2.5e-3 cm^-1/cm at the surface, thus 10^5 higher than O3.
The utterly confused Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Show me one example in such a text book where they calculate heat transfers in both directions via radiation.”
The following is from: Engineering Introduction to Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. 2nd edition by Yanus Cengel. McGraw-Hill. 2008
A,
Imaginary radiation which cannot be measured is a convenient fiction, sometimes useful for visualizing concepts which are not easily demonstrated.
About as silly as the imaginary multicolored objects which apparently show that merely cutting an object in two will cause it to increase in temperature.
Imaginary concepts are very useful in some cases. The square root of minus 1, for example. A mathematical impossibility, but without it, imaginary numbers (vitally important in physics, finance, mathematics etc.), would not be possible.
No, Arkady, hot soup does not get hotter by absorbing radiation from ice totally submerged in the soup. If you believe otherwise, you will be able to tell everyone where the photons emitted by the ice “go” (it’s totally surrounded by soup, remember).
Or you could just agree with Einstein, and refuse to accept the reality of quantum physics.
Reality doesnt care what either of you believe.
You have to assume Gordon has never read anything on radiative transfer, even after being quoted and linked to text just like the above many times.
But don’t worry, after having read none of it, he’ll be along again to tell us that the textbooks get it wrong.
That’s how fat his head is.
Come on barry, demonstrate your immense knowledge.
Tell everyone what happens to the radiation from ice when you totally immerse it in hot soup.
Refer to as many textbooks as you like. How hard can it be for a wondrously wise fellow like you?
Changing the subject again? It’s a bad habit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543540
Come on barry, demonstrate your immense knowledge.
Tell everyone what happens to the radiation from ice when you totally immerse it in hot soup.
Refer to as many textbooks as you like. How hard can it be for a wondrously wise fellow like you?
Posting links which are no doubt irrelevant and pointless does not help you to appear intelligent. Trying to emulate the peabrained Willard is unlikely to help, either.
Can’t you answer a simple question about radiative physics? Colour me unsurprised!
barry…talking about fat heads, I just explained to you why radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body. You won’t find that info in textbooks you read because the authors are unaware of quantum theory and are stuck in the 19th century anachronism about heat being transferred body to body by heat rays.
Nonsense, Gordon.
Provide just one source saying that radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
You will not be able to. Because it is false.
Your nonsense about this being limited by quantum states of electrons is ridiculous. Electrons are not limited to 2 quantum states, and all that is needed to effect a higher energy state is for the molecule to absorb a photon of sufficient energy.
An electron can keep jumping into higher orbitals even if the energy received is lower than the energy of the whole molecule. All that is needed is enough energy of a specific wavelength to cause the discrete jumps to higher orbitals.
Most objects give off radiation over a very wide spectrum. You error is to imagine that an object at a certain temperature only gives off radiation at one frequency. The opposite is true, which is why all objects absorb radiation from all other objects.
And you will find that last concept in EVERY textbook on radiative physics.
You are thoroughly misinformed on this, and it seems to be self-inflicted.
barry, please stop trolling.
Heavy snowstorms are beginning in Scandinavia, and Arctic air will fall over the UK into Central Europe, bringing snowfall to the mountains.
If all the photons are the same and the matter receiving the radiation cannot tell what frequency and temperature emitted them, then photoelectric effect is still a mystery and Einstein has to return his Nobel prize.
No, it just shows Eben doesn’t understand photelectric effect.
No, it just shows that Ball4 has no clue, but likes making pointless unsupported assertions.
[laughing at Ball4’s misguided efforts to appear authoritative]
Einstein has an excuse, when he issued the photoelectric theory in 1905, Bohr had not yet found the relationship between the EM (photons) and electrons in the atoms of the mass emitting the photoelectric emissions. In fact, electrons had only been discovered in 1898.
Obviously, Ball4, Barry, and other alarmists are not yet aware of Bohr’s theory of 1913. That’s unfortunate because it was based on what Eben is trying to tell you about the discrete frequencies of EM emission and absorp0tion. It was the discrete frequencies emitted by the hydrogen atom that led Bohr to his discovery.
Nothing has changed to this day, photons have discrete frequencies while no photon has a spectrum of frequencies.
Objects have a spectrum of frequencies. And so the photons they emit are of a very broad range of frequencies.
This range of frequencies mostly overlaps the range of emission spectra from other objects of different temperatures, which is why warm objects can absorb radiation from cooler objects. The receiving surface doesn’t know what temperature the emitting surface is, it only absorbs photons that are of the right frequency, which all objects provide to all other objects.
Gases are different, in that the emission spectrum is much more discrete.
barry, please stop trolling.
“If all the photons are the same and the matter receiving the radiation cannot tell what frequency and temperature emitted them, then photoelectric effect is still a mystery and Einstein has to return his Nobel prize.”
Einstein correctly deduced that the frequency of light matters in the photelectric effect, not temperature.
Your are erroneously conflating frequency and temperature!
I’m trying to stay out of the Moon “debates” because I consider the issue settled. The cult can NOT provide a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”. They have NOTHING.
What is interesting about the issue is that it has no value to science. It does not matter if Moon is spinning in synch with its orbit, or if it’s not spinning. It matters not. Something that isn’t happening has no effect. Spacecraft landing on Moon are not affected in any way by something this is not happening.
So the only interest the cult has, is to protect their cult institutes. They can’t let it be known that their cult is wrong. Wouldn’t it look funny if the public knew that NASA was wrong about something so simple?
They will, someday….
The debate is settled, long ago, in favor of lunar inertial spin. To an observer on Earth like Clint R, no lunar spin is observed in the earthen accelerated frame.
Ball4,
Settle as many debates as you like. Not a single fact will be altered in the process.
The fact here is that one face of the Moon faces the Earth. Debate away – I hope you win the debate.
Tr0ll Clint R
1. ” The cult can NOT provide a viable model of ‘orbital motion without spin’. ”
All celestial bodies spin about their polar axis.
*
2. ” Spacecraft landing on Moon are not affected in any way by something this is not happening. ”
Thus, not only NASA but also ALL other institutions responsible for lunar missions are wrong, aren’t they?
Especially the poor, ignorant people who planned the Chinese Chang’e 5 mission and unnecessarily worried about the lunar spin.
Look below at how they utterly failed!
Orbit Design Elements of Chang’e 5 Mission
Wang & alii (2021)
https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/2021/9897105
*
(a) 4.1. Problem Statement
” Referring to point A in Figure 4, the intended landing site is close to the orbit plane when the lander begins the powered descent at descent point E, and the landing site will be in the descent trajectory plane when the lander lands, owing to the spin of the Moon. ”
*
(b) 4.2. Orbit Inclination Optimization
” … where φ = 43.11° is the specified latitude of the landing site in this study, ωm is the spin rate of the Moon, and tAB is the time that the landing site travels from point A to point B in Figure 4 (the lunar surface stay time of two days). Using the above formula, the orbit inclination is found to be i = 43.7°. ”
*
Similar documents can be found for USA’s Apollo, the Japanese Selene or the Indian Chandrayaan-3; and very certainly in Russian documents as well.
But… we all know on this blog: tr0lls like Clint R and his friends-in-den-ial are ALWAYS right, and hence the NASA, the Chinese, Japanese and Russian scientists and engineers had it ALL wrong.
*
Why did they not ask Clint R, Robertson and a few other geniuses, before planning their nonsense?
Sorry Bindi, but just saying you don’t have a model is NOT having a model.
You don’t like the current model of a ball-on-a-string, so you need to have something to compare. Right now, you’ve got NOTHING.
And, you’ve already learned taking stuff out-on-context, from sources you don’t understand, won’t work. You tried this with Newton’s work. You haven’t learned. That’s because you’re brain-dead.
I thought you said that the ball-on-a-string was not a model of the motion of Moon, Pupman.
Want me to fish it out?
Willard, JAQing off again?
Who cares what you “think” (I use the word loosely, of course)?
Fish away, laddie, fish away. At least it will be a change from playing with yourself.
[chortling at dim SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
I do. So do you.
Cheers.
Yes child willy, do all the fishing you want.
Just check with your mommy first.
Willard’s latest gibberish generation –
“Mike Flynn,
I do. So do you.
Cheers.”
Your wish is my command, Puppiteer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426668
So where’s that Moon Dragon crank model of “motions of the Moon”?
Don’t need a model when you can describe the actual motion.
Child, this is WAY over your head. You can’t keep up.
The “model” under discussion is for “orbital motion without spin”. The correct model is a ball-on-a-string. Your cult needs such a viable model, or they’ve got NOTHING.
See if you can find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
> Dont need a model when you can describe the actual motion.
..________
,.-.~.,
..,.-..-.,
.,/..:,
,?\,
./..,}
../,:`^`..}
/,:/
..?..__..:`../
./__.(..~-,_,:`./
../(_.~,_..~,_..,:`.._/
.{.._$;_=,_.-,_.,.-~-,},.~;/.}
..((..*~_.=-._;,,./`./../
.\`~,~.,..`..}../
(.`=-,,.`(;_,,-
/.`~,`-.\/\
.\`~.*-,.|,./..\,_
,,_.}.>-._\..|..`=~-,
..`=~-,_\_`\,\.-,
.`=~-,,.\,.\.-,
..`:,,`\._-,
.`=-,.,%`>==
._\.._,-%.`\
..,<`.._|_,-&.`
Well, that was supposed to be a monospaced facepalm.
Let’s try this instead:
\_(ツ)_/
Willard, why do want to smack yourself in the face? Mental insufficiency, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Do you have other sadistic fantasies to share?
Willard, why do want to smack yourself in the face? Mental insufficiency, perhaps?
Just the one sadistic fantasy, then.
barry,
Do all SkyDragons fantasize about smacking themselves n the face?
Or is that what they threaten to do when others laugh at their belief in a GHE which none of them can describe?
No, Mike Flynn.
I don’t.
Do you?
Spin is the wrong choice of words. They are referring to a re-orientation of the near face of the Moon wrt the stars. They use the Greek symbol for lower-case omega which is close to our ‘w’, which is meant to represent angular velocity. However, we need to understand that the orbiters use the stars as a reference frame based on an on-board gyro. In that reference frame the Moon would “appear” to be rotating but not wrt the Earth.
When coming up with universal laws, the natural reference should be
a) the universe.
b) the earth.
He said ""appear" to be rotating", Tim. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
It happened exactly as I predicted :–)
Den-ial, vague guessings, pseudo-theories and… no scientific contradiction anywhere.
No need for any further discussion.
Dragon cranks keep pulling me in into silly word games and puzzles they always lose. Their three main tricks have been refuted more than a thousand times. It is time to call their bluff.
Moon Dragon cranks don’t have a numerical model of the motion of the Moon. Sky Dragon cranks don’t have any circulation model of the Earth’s climate. Heck, they don’t have an energy balance model of the Earth that works.
After all these years, they succeeded in citing one undergraduate textbook. And they still can’t work with it. When Mighty Tim shows up and demonstrate how the equation works, they flee and appear elsewhere in the thread to gaslight and mock.
So here it is, with Pupman crying about all the things he can’t use as support. All he got is silly riddles. Embarassing himself every day.
When will they grow up?
When will the Ice Age end?
When will we become a space faring civilization?
Will NASA delay putting first woman on the Moon?
When will the New Glenn rocket launch?
Google. wiki:
“The mission is targeting a launch window between 6 and 15 August 2024.”
Willard,
You seem obsessed with models, denying reality.
The IPCC uses at least 131 climate models, giving 131 different outputs, of which at least 130 must therefore be wrong. Which useless output do you support?
Your “energy balance” is pure nonsense. The Earth has cooled and continues to do so, overall. Man made heat is ephemeral, and is observed to affect thermometer temperatures in the vicinity.
As to “Dragon cranks”, what are they? A convenient faction of your imagination – nothing more, nothing less.
So go away, Silly Wee Willy. You obviously cannot find anyone to play with you, so you might as well go back to playing with yourself.
Off you go, now.
[sniggers at peabrain]
How is that relevant?
Why should I care?
What does that even mean?
Aren’t you the space freak here?
Google. Just Asking Questions:
“JAQing off is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.”
I think I am the only space freak, here.
I think we could launch a lot more satellites to
measure the global air temperature.
But I am also like the idea ocean settlements.
And also making lakes on Mars [and living below their martian
water pressure].
It seems without much doubt, I am the only aquatic space freak, here.
And it seems have mentioned very cheap floating breakwaters and floating launch pads which I call, pipelaunchers?
It seems the only way to have freshwater lakes on the ocean is to stop the ocean waves. And an ocean settlement should have some lakes
in it.
Cool story, gb.
What does it have to do with my first comment?
Willard, JAQing off again?
Tut, tut.
Why do you want to know, or are you just trying to be disruptive?
Mike Flynn,
Misplaced your comment again?
Willard, JAQing off again?
Tut, tut.
Why do you want to know, or are you just trying to be disruptive?
Mike Flynn,
That’s not JAQing off.
Here’s JAQing off:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543837
What was your first comment? [that you want me to comment about
{or explain or whatever}]?
This:
“Dragon cranks keep pulling me in into silly word games and puzzles they always lose.”
I am not your mother.
???
> What was your first comment?
The comment to which you replied with your string of irrelevant questions. And no – I don’t want you to comment on it. I never did. I still don’t.
Willard,
Well, that has certainly cleared things up. Or not.
–The comment to which you replied with your string of irrelevant questions. And no I dont want you to comment on it. I never did. I still dont.–
Ok.
But it does seem, you want to talk to Mike Flynn.
{And I am not him, either.}
While I respond to Mike Flynn, gb, please don’t mistake that for any willingness to talk to him.
Willard is a strange lad, gb.
He claims that he wants to respond to Mike Flynn, but doesn’t want to talk to him.
Looks like some weird homosexual obsession with an imaginary boy friend who rejected him.
Strange.
Everybody understands that Swenson is Mike Flynn. His ongoing denial of it is just for comic relief.
gb…”I think I am the only space freak, here”.
***
There are a lot of space cadets here, we call them climate alarmists.
–a trainee astronaut.
an enthusiast for space travel, typically a young person.
informal
a person perceived as out of touch with reality, as though high on drugs.–
Does coffee, count?
I would define a space freak has someone struggling to understand why NASA isn’t on the Moon, yet.
I have some answers, but I am still struggling.
How could you think Mercury could have a ice cap, and at same time, not the moon??
“When Mighty Tim shows up and demonstrate how the equation works, they flee and appear elsewhere in the thread to gaslight and mock.“
Are you on drugs?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Got it.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, that’s a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
And so are you.
What are you braying about?
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, thats a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Still haven’t found the greenhouse effect?
So sad, too bad.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, that’s a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Try copy-pasting your comment, but backwards.
I want to see if I will skip it as easily.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, that’s a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
JAQing off again?
Tut, tut.
Why do you want to know, or are you just trying to be disruptive?
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is Not cooling. Slower cooling?
Oooooh, sorry, thats a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
By the way, thanks for the flattery by imitation. I confess to accepting flattery from anyone – even those poor specimens of humanity such as yourself. Flatter away.
Mike Flynn,
Your copy-pasting machine is on fire.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is Not cooling. Slower cooling?
Oooooh, sorry, thats a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
By the way, thanks for the flattery by imitation. I confess to accepting flattery from anyone even those poor specimens of humanity such as yourself. Flatter away.
Mike Flynn,
You did a little copy-pasting again.
Oups!
Well, the way you apparently see things is so wonderfully warped, I assumed you must be on something.
“Dragon cranks keep pulling me in into silly word games and puzzles they always lose“
I mean…what are you on about!? Nobody pulls you into anything. You rabidly stalk all those you describe as “dragon cranks” and interject into their discussions incessantly, completely against their will. You act like we want you to be involved! You’re a worthless troll who never adds anything of any value to the debate. Get a grip.
Gaslighting Graham repeats his gaslighting.
Got it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sorry, posted in wrong place before.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Atlas V rocket sends Amazons first satellites into space
https://cosmiclog.com/
“Amazons first satellites were launched today on a mission aimed at testing out the hardware and software for the Seattle companys worldwide Project Kuiper broadband internet constellation.
Two prototype satellites known as KuiperSat 1 and 2 rode a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida into space at 2:06 p.m. ET (11:06 a.m. PT). ULA declared the mission to be successful and said that the Atlas V precisely delivered the satellites to orbit.
The flight plan called for the satellites to be sent into 311-mile-high (500-kilometer-high) orbits with a 30-degree inclination.
Project Kuiper, an ambitious program that was unveiled four years ago, aims to provide broadband internet access and satellite-based access to Amazon Web Services to millions of people around the world.”
Miura 1 Test Flight
Europe’s first reusable rocket
OCT 06
05:00 PM
The launch date is currently targeted for Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:00 AM (UTC).
[a suborbital test launch of small kerosene/Lox rocket, by Spain]
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/
But today:
Vega
Arianespace
ELV, Guiana Space Centre
OCT 06
06:36 PM
And on Sunday and Monday, starlink falcon-9 launches of
Starlink (6-22) & Starlink (7-4)
And then Thursday:
Falcon Heavy
Psyche Asteroid Mission
OCT 12
07:16 AM
Increasing global CO2 levels is supposed to increase water vapor.
One can assume it’s reversible, less CO2, decreases global water vapor?
So, obviously if increase the ocean surface temperature, it increases global water vapor.
And in regions where water vapor is lowest, one could say, it’s easier to increase low levels water vapor- “easier” than compared to tropical ocean which has high level of water vapor.
So we in ice age and colder the ice age the drier the world becomes.
And our current world has more than 1/3 of land area being a desert.
And if current world cools, we get more deserts, and if it warms, we get less deserts.
We also know that glaciers are more about moisture, than temperature.
It was the removal vegetation around the African glacier, Mount Kilimanjaro, that cause glacial ice loss,.. yes, wiki does mention it: “appears that decreasing specific humidity instead of temperature changes has caused the shrinkage of the slope glaciers since the late 19th century. No clear warming trend at the elevation of those glaciers occurred between 1948 and 2005.”
Anyways, question is how does less CO2 cause it to be drier, and more
CO2 cause higher global water vapor?
test
wee willy…aka modicum dickus…”[non-spinners] dont have a numerical model of the motion of the Moon”.
***
The curvature of the Earth changes 5 metres vertically per 8000 metres in a horizontal direction. Any body moving at a tangential speed which will allow Earth’s gravity to move it in the above ratio, will remain in orbit. That has been a fact since the times of Newton, when he first discovered it.
The problem we have here is spinners and alarmists trying to communicate with non-spinners and skep.tics who are several orders of intelligence above them.
Cool story, Bordo.
Where’s the model?
Willard,
Models are attempts to mimic facts. Who prefers an inferior representation to the real thing? Apart from SkyDragon cultists like you, of course!
Mike Flynn,
Facts is something like “Snow is white.”
A scientific enquiry on whiteness would involve an abstract mathematical model to represent colors as tuples of numbers.
The CIE 1931 color space can be such a model.
So no, a model does not “mimic” facts.
We know that colors are not numbers.
Willard,
You seem quite besotted with models. A scientific enquiry on whiteness is a bit pointless – white is the absence of colour – no model required.
Babbling about colour spaces is likewise pointless – colour spaces are infinite, specifications such as CIE 1931 attempt to mimic this fact with reasonable approximations. Good enough for Government Work!
Some people believe that future climate states can be derived from models, but of course those people are living in a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Even the IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states, and the members of the IPCC are world-class wishful thinkers.
Just accept reality. Models are useful in some cases, but if the model and reality give different results, what then? If you are a SkyDragon, you may believe that the Earth is hotter than it should be, and invent a factor to explain why the reality is different from the model. I would just measure the temperature with a scientific instrument designed for the purpose.
Reality is good enough for me. Stick with your models if you prefer fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
If scientists had direct access to the world like Sky Dragon cranks, they would not need any model at all.
Alas, their work isn’t powered by sheer contradiction.
Pout a little more,
Willard,
SkyDragon cranks believe that CO2 in the atmosphere raises temperatures.
Detached from reality, obviously.
That’s why they, and other GHE cultists of the SkyDragon variety, bang on about models. Not happy with reality, are they?
Have you managed to come up with a better GHE description than your “Not cooling. Slow cooling”, yet? Maybe you could devise a model to give you a better description.
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
Sky Dragon cranks believe that the greenhouse effect exist.
Would you like to know to whom I am referring?
You, among others.
Cheers.
Willard, you ninny,
of course SkyDragon cultists believe that a GHE exists! That’s what makes them SkyDragon cultists!
They are fixated on fantasy, like you. You can’t even explain why you keep referring to me as Mike Flynn! You may truly believe that I am Mike Flynn, and that you are wise and respected, but who really values your opinion?
Carry on regardless. Keeps me laughing. Others may laugh, cry, or beat their heads against the wall as they wish.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps I was not clear.
I was saying that *you* believe in the greenhouse effect.
You may not know it, but you do.
Remember your cool more slowly bit?
That bit spills the bean.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Scientific modelling is an activity that produces models representing empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes, to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate. It requires selecting and identifying relevant aspects of a situation in the real world and then developing a model to replicate a system with those features. Different types of models may be used for different purposes, such as conceptual models to better understand, operational models to operationalize, mathematical models to quantify, computational models to simulate, and graphical models to visualize the subject.
Modelling is an essential and inseparable part of many scientific disciplines, each of which has its own ideas about specific types of modelling.The following was said by John von Neumann.
There is also an increasing attention to scientific modelling in fields such as science education, philosophy of science, systems theory, and knowledge visualization. There is a growing collection of methods, techniques and meta-theory about all kinds of specialized scientific modelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
Willard,
What the observed phenomena to which you are referring?
The effect of heat on thermometers is well known, as that is what thermometers are specifically designed to reflect.
Possibly you are referring to something you can’t even describe – like the GHE. Modelling something you can’t describe is unlikely to be fruitful.
You really are quite confused, aren’t you? Just accept reality – you won’t need a model. If you have any questions, just ask me. I’ll refuse to answer, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Another silly question?
Or is that one of your gotchas?
Perhaps are you expressing a wish?
What is it you say about wishes, again?
As a wise man you never really read once said –
“If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill, any experimental result can be made to look like-or an expected consequence.”
Numerical models make consequences more testable.
Long live and prosper.
Willard,
What the observed phenomena to which you are referring?
The effect of heat on thermometers is well known, as that is what thermometers are specifically designed to reflect.
Possibly you are referring to something you can’t even describe like the GHE. Modelling something you can’t describe is unlikely to be fruitful.
You really are quite confused, arent you? Just accept reality you won’t need a model. If you have any questions, just ask me. I’ll refuse to answer, of course.
Mike Flynn,
It’s a general description.
If you could be less dumb at least once a week, that’d be great.
And no, I’m not talking about the day off you take.
Willard,
What is the observed phenomena to which you are referring? Just saying “It’s a general description” is not useful.
The effect of heat on thermometers is well known, as that is what thermometers are specifically designed to reflect.
Possibly you are referring to something you cant even describe like the GHE. Modelling something you can’t describe is unlikely to be fruitful.
You really are quite confused, arent you? Just accept reality you wont need a model. If you have any questions, just ask me. I’ll refuse to answer, of course.
Mike Flynn,
The description applies to phenomena in general.
Your gotcha is silly.
Willard,
What is the observed phenomena to which you are referring? Just saying “Its a general description” is not useful.
The effect of heat on thermometers is well known, as that is what thermometers are specifically designed to reflect.
Possibly you are referring to something you cant even describe like the GHE. Modelling something you can’t describe is unlikely to be fruitful.
You really are quite confused, aren’t you? Just accept reality you wont need a model. If you have any questions, just ask me. Ill refuse to answer, of course.
Mike Flynn,
The description does not refer to any specific phenomena.
In fact, any observed phenomena can in principle be modeled.
Keep playing dumb.
Willard,
Only a SkyDragon cultist like you would believe that you could model a phenomena which cannot be observed, measured, or documented.
That’s why none (repeat none) of the models used by SkyDragons are worth any more than a pinch of pickled rocking-horse crap.
Still no GHE – a prime example of the non-existent effect. All you need is a non-existent model.
Go for it.
Mike Flynn,
Only a Sky Dragon crank would still pretend that the greenhouse effect has not been observed, measured, and thus modelled. And the most clownish one is you.
To be fair, you are all a bunch of clowns. But you are the one who epitomizes the Auguste the most. And we tend to identify a clown act first and foremost by the Auguste.
Well done!
Silly Willy, if you had any “observations” or “measurements” of the bogus GHE, you wouldn’t have to make stuff up.
Silly child.
Good example showing why your comments are trash, Pupman.
Like a good old character clown, which would make you the eccentrique.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Could Modified Gravity Be the Answer to Planet 9?
“Recently, some astronomers have suggested that they would have to modify the Newtonian dynamics they know so well to understand more complex events. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (or MOND) theory has already been proven accurate for things like understanding galactic rotation. But what about using it closer to home?”
…
However, as an object increases in distance from the Sun, the galactic cores gravitational forces start to take control of its orbital path. Drs Brown and Mathur believe there are two manifestations of this extrasolar gravitational pull. First, the objects have their major axes aligned toward the galactic core. The second manifestation is that their minor axes aligned perpendicularly to the same galactic core.
Observations of more and more KBOs have proven that their orbits fit these manifestations to a t. In other words, the orbital mechanics of KBOs that have sparked so much speculation about Planet 9 can be explained entirely by modifying calculations to consider the gravitational pull of the galactic core.”
https://www.universetoday.com/163533/could-modified-gravity-be-the-answer-to-planet-9/#more-163533
Are they even bodies of our solar system?
I mean, if Pluto is not a planet, it seems you might call these free floaters rather part of our solar system. Or they are in a galactic orbit perturbed by mass of our solar system.
Pluto is a planet, I am not buying into the pseudo-science that it’s not.
Really? Please give your definition of a planet, one which includes Pluto but excludes every other object of comparable size outside Neptune’s orbit.
Either there are eight planets or there are dozens.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
India hopes reforms will make it a global space hub
BAKU, Azerbaijan The Indian government is continuing a series of reforms aimed at increasing private involvement in the space sector and attracting global capital.
https://spacenews.com/india-hopes-reforms-will-make-it-a-global-space-hub/
Well I would say what I think NASA or Space force should do.
Make some place to test large rockets.
I would put it in the ocean.
Solar wind
speed: 367.1 km/sec
density: 6.78 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Oct 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 138
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Low
–THE SUN’S MAGNETIC POLES ARE DISAPPEARING: The sun is about to lose something important: Its magnetic poles.
Recent measurements by NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observatory reveal a rapid weakening of magnetic fields in the polar regions of the sun. North and south magnetic poles are on the verge of disappearing. This will lead to a complete reversal of the sun’s global magnetic field perhaps before the end of the year.
…
“In fact, it’s routine,” says Todd Hoeksema, a solar physicist at Stanford University. “This happens every 11 years (more or less) when we’re on the verge of Solar Maximum.”
…–
” … ‘sometimes one pole switches before the other, leaving both poles with the same polarity for a while.’
Indeed, such a scenario could be playing out now. The sun’s south magnetic pole has almost completely vanished, but the north magnetic pole is still hanging on, albeit barely. ”
Interesting. Reminds me this:
ASYMMETRIC SOLAR POLAR FIELD REVERSALS
Leif Svalgaard and Yohsuke Kamide (2013)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/23/pdf
This reversal starting in the south hemisphere would happen for the first time since… SC 19. Since then, reversals started all in the solar NH.
But opinions differ in this field, as visible in
On Polar Magnetic Field Reversal in Solar Cycles 21, 22, 23, and 24
Mykola I. Pishkalo (2019)
https://browse.arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00055.pdf
because he gave a lot of references to the work of others.
“This reversal starting in the south hemisphere would happen for the first time since SC 19. Since then, reversals started all in the solar NH.”
Well, I have look up things like solar cycle 19- or it’s not in my head.
A simple take, is, I think how high is not as important as how wide it is, at least in terms GCR {which I am interested in}.
So, I could pick a number or two, like 50 spot average over years or 100 spot number over years.
50 spot or less for many years is “bad” and 100 spot for years is “good”- in terms of space travel. And maybe for Earth itself.
Broadly speaking it seem everyone was right about 25 Max as weak or similar to 24 Max. And I am still not sure we are in Solar grand Min, yet. And Solar Grand Min is bad for space travel {in terms of manned crew to Mars} it’s not really bad, but is a bit of problem- and largely, a political problem.
Anyhow, I am waiting for Nov.
” Broadly speaking it seem everyone was right about 25 Max as weak or similar to 24 Max. ”
Everyone… you’re looking with one eye only, as it seems.
Everyone who wrote paper or something like that, or “experts”-
and I am not expert or even have much interest in it.
I am interested in sense of a baseball fan, and I like baseball more, though not watching it lately, I think Dodgers will get in playoff and lose again, seems likely. Might even be considered to be boycotting, it. I was very unhappy about baseball and Dodgers in particular during the lockdown.
As I said at one point, predicting space weather is like predicting
Earth weather. Or regarded it as impossible, if talking about months of time.
But I was interested in Space radiation, and wanted some idea about space weather and there was someone predicting a solar grand min- which I thought was interesting.
Also I think studying the sun is almost as important as studying the Moon and was happy NASA was funding such things as Parker Solar Probe- which has fascinating technology, btw.
And recently impressed that they were not very worried about solar eruption breaking the spacecraft.
So I tried to guessing solar weather.
Doing impossible, Alice in Wonderland.
Oh, btw, Tropical Storm Lidia was change back into predicting
it would become a hurricane. And apparently doing u-turn into Mexico.
It seems a strange prediction path, but probably mostly correct.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Also disturbance with 80% and I wonder if it will affect Starship in Texas.
DATA: THE SUNS MAGNETIC POLES ARE VANISHING
21 hours ago Anthony Watts 30 Comments
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/06/data-the-suns-magnetic-poles-are-vanishing/
This gives useful graph. And my guess is a bit different.
Solar wind
speed: 315.6 km/sec
density: 16.89 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 145
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.77×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
48-hr change: -0.1%
“NO CMEs ARE HEADING FOR EARTH: A CME that forecasters thought might hit Earth yesterday missed. That means no CMEs are currently heading for Earth.”
The proton density of solar wind seems to be affected.
Thermosphere seems to be getting less energized.
Can ask when will go below, 18.00×10^10 watts?
In terms of spotless day, we lots of small spots {which might grow] one not numbered yet came from farside and don’t any others coming.
Two number spots {which don’t spots which I can see on nearside} are going to the farside. The big group of 3451, 3452, and 3458 should take about 3 days to leave nearside – and don’t seem to be changing much in terms growing or fading- or it seems it will make it to farside- and might even eventually return to nearside.
They say big spots are coming within days. Anyways the numbers leaving shouldn’t effect the spot number. And my best for growing spot, is 3460
Solar wind
speed: 340.8 km/sec
density: 1.51 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 129
“Sunspot AR3460 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares. ”
3460 has grown quite bit, “big group of 3451, 3452, and 3458”
as lessen a lot and 3460 is as big as it shrunk to, but 3451, etc is leaving to farside in day or so, thereby making 3460 the biggest spot.
And unnamed spot is 3463, and it grew a little bit, and could grow more, with highest numbered, and I don’t see much coming from farside.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.79×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
The old big spots are going to show up in couple day, but it’s possible they won’t.
Oh, big coronal hole at equator:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/10oct23/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
It was in middle of nearside yesterday- but I wasn’t looking at them, then. Caption:
“Solar wind flowing from this coronal hole could reach Earth on Oct. 12th. “
Solar wind
speed: 285.1 km/sec
density: 1.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
So, it seems, again, they have given sunspot number before
giving the daily picture of current sun.
So allowing me to guess rather seeing why it went from 129
to 120. It seems a small change of 9.
So one might guess the big sunspot group hasn’t gone to farside
{3451 and 3452 group}. Or it did leave and there was a lot new spots appear and spots getting bigger.
Solar wind
speed: 282.7 km/sec
density: 1.16 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
48-hr change: -0.3%
So, 3451 and 3452 group still on nearside, new spot: 3464, which grew as came to nearside. And a big spot not numbered coming from farside- perhaps one of those old spots returning to nearside.
Why sunspot number dropped, seems related to how they count it.
But as big spot comes to nearside, and 3451 and 3452 group leave, I guess sunspot number will go higher, and 3464 likely to continue to grow bigger, also. And if other old spots show up, also, …
What is the temperature on the morning of Oct. 7 in Nebraska and Kansans.
https://i.ibb.co/wJxbPsh/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-07-130623.png
That was at 5:56 AM.
Forecast for Nebraska today:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?daytime=day&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231007&iid=NE&pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram
I’d like to have it here today. 17 C, no sun, lots of rain this evening :–)
UAH’s NH temperature anomaly for September was +0.94 (Globe +0.90). Some of the reasons why:
1/ The NH used to radiate more heat to space than it absorbed from the sun.
2/ The difference was compensated for by heat transported north from the SH through (mainly the Atlantic) oceans and atmosphere.
3/ Around 2014 the amount of Absorbed Solar Radiation started to rapidly increase, surpassing Outgoing Longwave (Thermal or IR) Radiation to space, leading to a positive Energy Imbalance of the NH.
https://imgur.com/a/GF6Urd1
Good example of why the EEI is trash, Ark.
It’s also a good chance to see if you know anything about the issues, Ark. What is wrong with the graphic you provided?
(This has all been discussed before. Let’s see if you’ve learned anything.)
Energy balance has been exposed for the sham it is. We now know that radiation is a very inefficient means of dissipating heat, therefore solar in is a lot faster than solar out.
The alarmist energy budget is fraudulent.
So Watts out count less than Watts in???
Very strange Gordon..
What the hell is “solar out” referring to? Do we have a sun on Earth somewhere?
“Solar out” refers to the solar wavelengths that are REFLECTED.
Gordon wasn’t talking about reflection:
“We now know that radiation is a very inefficient means of dissipating heat, therefore solar in is a lot faster than solar out.”
But nice try defending his crap with more crap.
barry, please stop trolling.
The wave of Arctic air will move to east US.
https://i.ibb.co/KrRr2sc/gfs-z100-nh-f48.png
https://i.ibb.co/f4VQXdD/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Everything you ever needed to know about climate change deniers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsYXiqf7l_I&ab_channel=AwakenWithJP
What’s happening to the temperature in Antarctica right now?
https://i.ibb.co/8Yc8ZHn/gfs-spole-sat-t2min-d1.png
UAH Mean Global temperature for Sep 2023
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2023/10/07/uah-mean-global-for-sep-2023/
UAH Mean Tropics temperature for Sep 2023
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2023/10/07/uah-mean-tropics-for-sep-2023/
Nice of you to drop in Richard. Where you been hiding? I’ve had to straight Binny out on anomalies and statistics all by myself.
Holiday time in France.
Welcome back RLH.
Some stuff happened with global T since you’ve been gone…you may need to revise your cooling expectations…
I would not bank on your downward trending SG projection..
We will see what the long term projections are. Various short term features are present.
Short term features are NOT driven by CO2 (IMHO).
Everyone agrees with that – even if ‘skeptics’ still use it as a strawman argument.
Your SG projection is clearly going down. That clearly has little chance of happening. Thus it is not a useful projection.
So you are certain that the overall picture is an inevitable climb. Interesting.
SG projections are well established in other fie1ds than climate.
Any guess on what Meiv2 futures (and past) show?
“SG projections are well established in other fie1ds than climate.”
In other fields people understand that their projected endpoints flip flop around like the tip of whip.
As do I. I have even been noted for saying just that.
“Short term features are NOT driven by CO2 (IMHO).” I think most agree that global T is affected by several variables, including CO2, ocean cycles, aerosols, etc.
CO2 and various other variables do not operate on simple monthly differences.
I dunno what that means.
So what period do you think that CO2 operates on then? Measurably that is.
AGW is observable on multidecadal time scales. No one expects global T to follow global CO2 on monthly time scales. Other effects completely dominate on that time scale.
“Other effects completely dominate on that time scale.”
What would they be, pray tell?
Fool.
ENSO, the seasons, cloudiness, for example.
You should be able to reel this off easily for how long you’ve been here, but not much penetrates your one-track mind.
“No one expects global T to follow global CO2 on monthly time scales.”
So are you saying that the recent rise in global T is NOT caused by CO2?
Prior to this summer, global T was 1C warmer than decades ago.
The point is that present climate state has been influenced by CO2 over decades.
“CO2 and other variables do not operate on monthly differences”
Certainly ENSO and other ocean variables such as NAO and PDO can change over a few months.
Aerosols from shipping has changed a lot over the last year or so.
So you agree that the recent rise in T is NOT caused (mainly) by CO2.
Indeed, no one has suggested that the recent rapid T rise, is a response to a rapid rise in CO2.
A possible mechanism that has been suggested, along with ENSO, is a relatively rapid reduction in anthro aerosol pollution, which counters the warming effects of CO2.
With such a reduction in aerosols, more of the warming potential of CO2 is realized.
The polar vortex forecast for October is unfavorable for North America.
https://i.ibb.co/Z2sfR89/gfs-z100-nh-f384.png
The impact of the geomagnetic field in the north is already apparent.
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
JP Sears is quite the contradictory figure. He’s well known for his YouTube videos mocking alternative health and spirituality, but he also sells natural supplements, and is a life coach / spiritual mentor. He’s all about positive thinking and natural supplements, but he’s spending most of his time now railing against the mainstream media, the Deep State, and COVID restrictions.
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/jp-sears-get-ultra-spiritual-resist-the-government-and-promote-coronavirus-conspiracies
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Starship Secured Before Storm Hits | SpaceX Boca Chica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWE08fJZac4
Not sure what they talking about.
But you can see a Testa truck pulling Raptor engine.
Weather:
https://tinyurl.com/k5n3zh55
It stopped the extreme heating warning, and looks like it’s going to get wet and cold and have some lightening next week. They had road closure on Monday- maybe it’s cancelled.
China’s Doubling the Size of Its Space Station
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/chinas-doubling-the-size-of-its-space-station/ar-AA1hKyh4
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Headline, Drudge Report:
ISRAEL AT WAR
HAMAS SURPRISE ATTACK
AT LEAST 100 KILLED, 1,000 WOUNDED
MANY HOSTAGES TAKEN
YOUNG AND OLD SNATCHED OFF STREET
https://www.drudgereport.com/
Anyone who elects a coalition of ultra-aggressive politicians need not be surprised at the consequences.
Wiki:
“World Public Opinion summarised the election voting drivers as follows:
The decisive victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas in last month’s Palestinian legislative elections (winning 74 of 132 parliamentary seats) has raised the question of whether the Palestinian public has become aligned with Hamas’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and its stated goal of creating an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. Hamas has come under increasing pressure to renounce its goal of eliminating Israel, but Hamas leaders have refused.”
Only when the Israeli extremists in the government and in the Knesset stop treating the Palestinians as rightsless subhumans will Hamas lose its influence among them.
Is there any nation in the world you would like to wipe out?
I can’t think of any, but it would depend what these nations do, which could then, possibly, change my mind about it.
I don’t favor Iran getting nukes, because that could change my mind about it.
–So Much For Peace
The Palestinians who invaded Israel have focused on kidnapping civilians, mostly young women. This was facilitated by the fact that there was a rave for peace going on near Gaza that many young people attended. The Palestinians no doubt knew this, and planned to attack the event. They took a number of young women captive there.
This video has been seen millions of times. There is a naked young woman in the back of a truck, murdered (and God knows what else) by the Palestinians. The Arabs in the truck are yelling Allahu Akbar! God is great! Terrific religion theyve got there.–
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/so-much-for-peace.php
{I don’t know what a rave for peace is, but doesn’t sound good.}
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Glenn says:
“In other circumstances I would think this was just an effort to provoke, but in this case its just Palestinians being Palestinians. They dont do this sort of thing because its in their interest, they do it because its in their nature. Theyll stop when it becomes too painful to continue, and not before.
And maybe that whole rave for peace idea wasnt so good, and shouldnt be repeated. Peace comes when a war ends, and wars usually end when one side loses decisively. That should be the Palestinians.”
Well there lots Palestinians which are not the problem, but their govt is a problem. And so, does get back to the Palestinians being the problem.
But they can lose the war, but some could count it as winning the greater war, against evil.
SpaceX & NASA’s Bold Plan: What’s at Stake!?
Marcus House
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B57GDeirtJY
I don’t agree with his ideas and reason for a lunar base.
We don’t need a lunar base to explore the surface of
lunar polar region.
And also lunar polar region is a lot different than most of the surface of the Moon.
This irritated me, when people said we have already gone to the Moon- the lunar polar region is a different and even alien world.
It also very small area.
Bases makes sense on Mars for host of reasons, one them is it’s big area. If we can go to Mars, we should go to Mars, part of going to the Moon, helps answer, can we go to Mars. And Mars is quite different than the Moon and/or lunar polar regions.
Anyways, NASA has always been restrained in terms of it’s budget, NASA should explore the lunar polar region and determine if and where there is mineable lunar water. AND NASA doesn’t mine, things.
And once enough is known about whether there could be mineable water- which depends on many factors, just like on Earth. Or if you find oil on Earth even a lot of it, and in theory it’s mineable, it still doesn’t mean when it will be mined.
But if Congress insists NASA mines lunar water and insists on lunar base, then NASA should wait for them to pass spending bill to do it.
Or NASA should not waste effort doing their historically hideously bad sales pitch for it.
Instead, they should see it instead as green light to explore Mars as fast as they can. Or they finished their lunar task, now do the hard part, of exploring Mars.
Exploring Mars will make lunar water more mineable. Lunar water mining will make exploring Mars more doable.
Someone trying to mine lunar water and going bankrupt, is not a problem. This is common everywhere regarding anything. But if someone get really rich from mining lunar water- that’s not a problem either.
El Nino starting to fizzle
https://i.postimg.cc/13KSsVjY/GEM5-NEMO.png
I think what’s really fizzling is the credibility of climate alarmists.
Are you saying El Nino is ending already Eben?
Seems like you don’t want to commit. Understandable.
What’s your near-term prediction, Eben? Care to commit?
ONI have just reported the September value for NINO3.4 SSTs – 1.59 C.
That’s the highest value for an el Nino since 2016 on their metric.
No sign yet of any fizzling.
Also, the last 4 tri-monthly averages for the region….
AMJ 0.5
MJJ 0.8
JJA 1.1
JAS 1.3
Nope, no fizzle yet.
If next month’s tri-monthly average (ASO) is above 0.5, that will be a full blown el Nino by NOAA’s metric.
By the way, your graph, Eben, like most other forecasters, projects el Nino to last through the first quarter of next year.
barry, please stop trolling.
Where does
https://i.ibb.co/Z2sfR89/gfs-z100-nh-f384.png
come from?
Source
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
Heights
100 hPa
NH
f384 (hours)
The lazy MEI managed to finally enter the Nino region – but only with half a fingertip.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
His last visit there dates from February/March 2019.
And it seems that some here agree that Mr MEI won’t stay above the Nino treshold for long.
Virgin Galactic carries first Pakistani into space
by AFP Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Oct 6, 2023
–Adventurer Namira Salim became the first Pakistani to travel into space on Friday, riding aboard Virgin Galactic’s fifth successful flight in five months, the US company announced.
Salim, who previously traveled to both poles and has also parachuted over Mount Everest, was among the first customers to buy a ticket with billionaire Richard Branson’s space company after it was founded almost two decades ago.
“I love my title ‘first Pakistani astronaut,’ it’s like being a very special princess of the country. Maybe nicer than being a princess,” Salim told AFP back in 2012.–
Maybe.
Typical Willard comment –
“Good example showing why your comments are trash, Pupman.
Like a good old character clown, which would make you the eccentrique.”
The finest gibberish generator could do no better.
Mike Flynn,
Do you lack as much culture as you make believe?
More irrelevant and meaningless gibberish Willard?
Why are you seemingly so obsessed with Mike Flynn?
Strange, but understandable, given your intellectual level, I suppose.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Srsly.
What are you braying about?
You are Mike Flynn.
We all know it.
Cheers.
More irrelevant and meaningless gibberish Willard?
Why are you seemingly so obsessed with Mike Flynn?
Strange, but understandable, given your intellectual level, I suppose.
Carry on.
I sure will, Mike Flynn.
More irrelevant and meaningless gibberish Willard?
Why are you seemingly so obsessed with Mike Flynn?
Strange, but understandable, given your intellectual level, I suppose.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
Which part of “I sure will” you do not get?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard fantasized –
“Mike Flynn,
Only a Sky Dragon crank would still pretend that the greenhouse effect has not been observed, measured, and thus modelled. And the most clownish one is you.”
What a guy is Willard! Here’s his description of the GHE (I kid you not) – “Not cooling. Slow cooling.” Willard has created a model, which claims that slow cooling is warming – that is, temperatures climbing! No Willard, cooling, by definition, is falling temperatures. Getting colder, not hotter.
There is no GHE. Willard is just confused. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Willard believes that thermometers responding to man-made heat is somehow due to CO2! What a confused and ignorant fantasist is Willard!
He’s even confused about the origin of “SkyDragons”! Oh dear, not terribly aware, is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Do you not recall your own description?
Go on.
Earlier, Willard fantasized
“Mike Flynn,
Only a Sky Dragon crank would still pretend that the greenhouse effect has not been observed, measured, and thus modelled. And the most clownish one is you..
What a guy is Willard! Heres his description of the GHE (I kid you not) “Not cooling. Slow cooling.” Willard has created a model, which claims that slow cooling is warming that is, temperatures climbing! No Willard, cooling, by definition, is falling temperatures. Getting colder, not hotter.
There is no GHE. Willard is just confused. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Willard believes that thermometers responding to man-made heat is somehow due to CO2! What a confused and ignorant fantasist is Willard!
Hes even confused about the origin of “SkyDragons”! Oh dear, not terribly aware, is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Sky Dragon cranks slayed nothing.
So they can’t be slayers.
Sky Dragon cranks are, wait for it, cranks.
So Sky Dragon cranks it is.
Willard,
If you like. You can call an apple an orange, if you wish.
It remains an apple.
Mike Flynn,
I simply replaced “slayer” with “crank”.
Even you should be able to see that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Since mid-September, there has been a marked increase in sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/bdQkK7f/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
ren…I have been trying to tell the alarmists here that our climate depends on the Sun, the Earth’s orbit, and its axial tilt. The further we move along our orbit, at 18.5 miles per second, the colder it will get in the Northern Hemisphere for now. There is absolutely nothing CO2 can do about it.
In the next day we will move 18.5 miles/second x 86,400 second/day =
1,598,400 miles. A month from now we will be 30 days x 1,598,400 miles/day = 47,952,000 miles further along the way and a whole lot colder. Nothing CO2 can do to stop it.
Thank you for confirming that passenger jets can fly backwards at 18.5 miles/second.
Ent is perverting reality from early in the day.
And, not one of his cult will challenge him. Norman tried but realized that would go against their cult beliefs about Moon. So then Norman invented “square orbits”.
And predictably, not one of the cult has challenged “square orbits”.
The cult sticks together like glue. Some cults have even committed suicide together….
Silly Clint. :–)
When an airliner is being carried around Earth’s orbit at 18kmm/s it doesn’t matter which way it is pointing.
There is no need to get involved in this ‘fly backwards’ polemic.
I just want to make it clear that such chilling alarmism like…
“…there has been a marked increase in sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere.”
is no less stu-pid.
*
This below is not about CO2 at all, but about very simple numbers.
The ‘marked increase’ in sea ice in NH between September 15 and October 8, in Mkm^2:
2023: 0.85
2022: 0.99
2021: 1.13
2020: 0.90
2019: 0.79
2018: 0.47
2017: 1.07
2016: 1.01
2015: 1.54
2014: 1.10
2013: 1.53
2012: 1.07
2011: 1.05
2018-2022: 0.86
1981-2010: 1.39
That’s just ridiculous.
Especially when you look at the reality (from the exact same source as Palmowski’s):
1. Arctic
It’s nice to look at absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145h6VDx__f5LZYI9BeTwaZ4AjkXVKOIu/view
But deviations from a 30-year average tell us more:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
2. Antarctica
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
3.Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
*
I get LOL’ing when I read Robertson’s endless nonsense:
“I tried to tell the alarmists here that our climate depends on the sun, the Earths orbit and its axial tilt.”
It depends on the Sun, Earth’s orbit and its axial tilt every year, Robertson.
Try harder.
After all, you are very good at inventing things from scratch…
I have flown my plane backwards, in strong wind aloft I can slow it down enough to go backwards over the ground.
You could do that with an airliner too if you fly into the jet stream
“I have flown my plane backwards, in strong wind aloft I can slow it down enough to go backwards over the ground. ”
So have I, in a Tiger Moth and a Piper Cub. Great fun!
This originally arose during a discussion about frames of reference. Clint R finds it difficult to imagine how an aircraft can simultaneously move forwards through the air around it at 600 kt, and backwards at 18km/sec around the Earth’s orbit.
Wrong Ent.
You were trying to come up with a model of “orbital motion without spin”. Your cult can’t provide one because you don’t understand gravity. So your proposal would require a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth, but always pointing its nose at a distant star.
That nonsense tells us you know NOTHING about orbital motion or the vectors involved in flight.
Or, that you are willing to pervert reality to protect your cult….
Poor Pupman,
Unable to come up with what Babylonians discovered 4000 years ago:
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html
Well, that’s informative. You appeal to the authority of someone who guesses that someone else must have come up with an imaginary model 4000 years ago!
Reality definitely is not your preferred option, it would seem.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You appeal to the authority of someone who guesses”
How do you know?
Willard,
“it seems highly unlikely that the Babylonians managed to do so without developing a fictive model of any kind.”
It’s called a guess.
Mike Flynn,
Astronomers usually rely on numerical models to produce precise predictions. Babylonians produced precise predictions, called ephemerides. It is thus likely that they used numerical models.
Pupman can’t seem to understand a basic concept that Babylonians did: retrogadation.
Cheers.
Clint R corrected Entropic Man on the actual sequence of events…and EM promptly disappears. Sometime soon, he’ll be getting it wrong again, as if nothing was said…
… which would be the DREMT tactic.
Nobody honest would ever accuse me of leaving a discussion prematurely. I always stick it out until the bitter end.
From October 8 winter begins in Scandinavia and Russia.
Still blocking circulation over the Bering Sea. The Chukchi Sea will quickly freeze over.
https://i.ibb.co/BKnC7sq/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
Related…
We are sure about some things. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we are emitting a lot of it, and the planet is heating up. Case closed.
So, we know it is going to get hot, but we do not know exactly how hot it is going to get.
We cannot model clouds very well because they are simultaneously very large and very small. Clouds are formed when microscopic water droplets or ice crystals coalesce around tiny particles. But at the same time, they cover two-thirds of the earth’s surface. In order to really accurately model clouds, we would need to track the behavior of every water droplet and dust grain in the entire atmosphere, and there is no computer powerful enough to do that. Clouds are crucially important in regulating the temperature of the planet.
Clouds play this very large and dual role in the climate system. Low, thick clouds are good at blocking out the sun, making the planet cooler. High, wispy clouds like cirrus, largely let that sunlight stream through but because they reside in the upper reaches of the atmosphere where it is very cold, they lose very little heat to space themselves, and at the same time they block the heat coming up from the planet below.
Nothing sees more clouds than a satellite. Observations indicate that as the planet’s temperature increases, high clouds rise up. They move to the colder upper reaches of the atmosphere, and this means that they are trapping more heat, intensifying the greenhouse effect.
Observations also indicate changing atmospheric circulation patterns, and clouds seem to be moving from the tropics toward the poles, where they are relatively less effective at blocking incoming sunlight.
We have not observed, despite years of looking, any indication of the opposite. There is no observational evidence that clouds will substantially slow down global warming.
There are still uncertainties here. But uncertainty is not ignorance. We do not know everything, but we don’t know nothing.
Clouds will not stop global warming.
Ark, there is NO physical mechanism where CO2 can warm the surface. Clouds are a net cooling mechanism as ANY reflection of solar means less warming.
If your motivation were really about science, you would be speaking out about the nonsense here such as “passenger jets flying backward”, “ice cubes boiling water”, “square orbits”, and the rest.
You obviously aren’t motivated by science.
You keep talking about mechanism, Pupman:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/climate-mechanisms
It might not mean what you make it mean.
The sentence not mentioned: This energy is then reradiated in all directions, and the energy that is directed back toward the Earth warms the planet.
They’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes!
Funny you skip that one, Pupman:
What prevents that 70% from going out, and what does it do to the system?
Wow, the accounting fraud Sky Dragon cranks commit is higher than I thought.
The sentence silly willy forgot to mention: This energy is then reradiated in all directions, and the energy that is directed back toward the Earth warms the planet.
They’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes!
Willard, you peabrain, learn to read. Only about 70% of incoming radiation actually reaches the surface. All of it is lost to outer space during the night. That’s why the temperature falls.
Your ignorance is staggering, to say the least.
Mike Flynn,
“30% is reflected back to space”
Tell me how you read this.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
“30% is reflected back to space”.
Tell me how you read this.”
No. Why should I? Don’t you know what “reflected” means?
Look it up.
Mike Flynn,
“What prevents that 70% from going out, and what does it do to the system?”
Tell me how you read this.
You are a strange one, Wee Willy.
The surface cools at night. All of the heat of the day is lost to space. That’s why the surface cools.
You really have no clue at all, do you?
Mike Flynn,
A pot of boiled water cools off during the night.
It cools faster when you put the lid off.
Same as with the atmosphere.
Cheers.
What an odd sort you are!
Convinced a cooling pot outside will heat up if you put a lid on it!
The Wee Willy Wanker fuel-less stove. The miracle of the ages!
Let me know how you get on selling them!
[what a guy]
Mike, Mike,
I’m convince that a lid keeps the pot warmer.
What about you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
The pot still cools – no matter how convinced you are that it gets hotter.
Others may find your strange belief in the GHE less than convincing.
What about you?
Mike Flynn,
Greenhouse gases prevent radiation from going out of the atmosphere.
Cheers.
You are ignorant almost beyond belief Willard. You babble about mechanisms to explain something you can’t even describe coherently!
Here’s your explanation for the GHE “Not cooling. Slow cooling.”
Cooling. You said it, but you don’t believe it!
Tough titty.
What are you braying about, Mike?
You are ignorant almost beyond belief Willard. You babble about mechanisms to explain something you cant even describe coherently!
Heres your explanation for the GHE Not cooling. Slow cooling.
Cooling. You said it, but you dont believe it!
Tough titty.
So you don’t know what you’re braying about, Mike?
You are ignorant almost beyond belief Willard. You babble about mechanisms to explain something you cant even describe coherently!
Heres your explanation for the GHE “Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Cooling. You said it, but you dont believe it!
Tough titty.
It is alright if you do not know what you’re braying about, Mike.
You are ignorant almost beyond belief Willard. You babble about mechanisms to explain something you can’t even describe coherently!
Heres your explanation for the GHE “Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Cooling. You said it, but you don’t believe it!
Tough titty.
Keep braying, Mike.
One day you’ll know about what.
You are ignorant almost beyond belief Willard. You babble about mechanisms to explain something you cant even describe coherently!
Heres your explanation for the GHE Not cooling, slower cooling.
Cooling. You said it, but you dont believe it!
Tough titty.
An oven door insulates an oven. It slows the cooling of an oven. And as a result, the oven will get hotter with the door closed!
Swenson is just not intellectually up to the task of understanding this very basic stuff.
But the fact that the surface heats the atmosphere and the atmosphere’s temperature has fluctuated for billions of years is a long way from warming due to fossil fuels. There’s no logical extrapolation there.
What are you braying about, Troglodyte?
“Theres no logical extrapolation there”
None needed. We have physics.
No, you don’t. Your physics has no basis in reality.
A,
You are quite mad, and in denial of fact.
The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so.
Man-made heat makes surface thermometers hotter than they otherwise would be, Dr Spencer is endeavouring to establish the quantum of this effect, or hadn’t you noticed?
Try and describe this GHE which you claim exists. You can’t, can you? All you can do is babble about anything else, while avoiding acknowledging the fact that you obviously cannot provide experimental support for that which you cannot even describe!
Go on, put me in my place, and describe the GHE!
Fathead!
ark…”We are sure about some things. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we are emitting a lot of it, and the planet is heating up. Case closed”.
***
You alarmists may be sure of that but people who do science are not. Science requires proof and correlation is not causation.
When the IPCC created that correlation between CO2 and warming, they completely ignored a glaring fact. The Little Ice Age had cooled the planet between 1C and 2C and the period they chose as the beginning of the anthropogenic era was also one of the coldest periods in the LIA. It was obvious that the plant had to rewarm but they were forced to ignore that reality because they have a mandate only to find evidence of anthropogenic warming.
” In order to really accurately model clouds, we would need to track the behavior of every water droplet and dust grain in the entire atmosphere, and there is no computer powerful enough to do that. ”
Have to disagree with that.
We don’t need to track every molecule of gas in a container to know the thermodynamic properties of the gas: pressure, temperature, density.
Knowing the average properties of clouds is sufficient.
Let me get this straight.
1/ Hamas starts a war it cannot win.
2/ One of the best intelligence agencies somehow doesn’t see it coming.
3/ Palestine ends up with no electricity and water supply. Palestine gets all of its infrastructure from Israel for free, as a sign of goodwill from the Israeli government as part of a prolonged attempt by the Israeli government to reach a peace agreement. All Israeli taxpayers pay for Palestine to have electricity and water. Well, so much for that now.
4/ Benjamin Netanjahu, who up until recently faced huge protests, suddenly unites the whole country. Right now, the internal politics are less important to anyone, and people don’t really care about it that much. What they care about is protecting the nation from hostile terrorist invasion, which is Bibi’s forte.
5/ Israel gets the opportunity to solve the Palestinian question once and for all. Israel was working hard for years to reach a two-state solution for the Palestinian question, giving Palestinians independence. In the last elections in Israel millions of people voted for this. This is all gone now. Hamas single-handedly erased Palestinians’ chance at ever getting autonomy.
How are Palestinians ok with ιdιοts in Hamas leading them to certain death?
P.s.: the fact that it began one day after the 50-year anniversary of the Yom Kippur war is almost certainly not a coincidence.
> How are Palestinians ok with ιdιοts in Hamas leading them to certain death?
The same way 70% of the Muricans are OK with teh Donald trying to become a dictator, I suppose.
So, genius, why don’t you explain how The Donald is trying to become a dictator?
Thank you for asking, Troglodyte:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-presidential-power-security-state/
As long as it lowers your taxes, you couldn’t care less about anything.
So you don’t believe in putting America first?
Which country should America put before itself?
You’re not sounding very patriotic if you are an American, Willard. What is it you hate about America?
Willard,
Don’t you think its a bit radical to say Trump is a full-blown dictator?? He’s not a good dude no doubt about it, but that seems extra.
Mike Flynn,
I believe in calling you the first Climateball name you took.
And that is “Mike Flynn.”
Cheers.
Wingnut cannot formulate any thoughts on his own. You ask him a question, and he links a propagandist site. Yes, those propagandists are scared to death that if The Trump is reelected, he might do to them what they’ve been doing to him.
So you dont believe in putting America first?
Which country should America put before itself?
Youre not sounding very patriotic if you are an American, Willard. What is it you hate about America?
Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as “conservative” or “libertarian”, but which could be more accurately described as “bigoted narcissism”.
So you dont believe in putting America first?
Which country should America put before itself?
Youre not sounding very patriotic if you are an American, Willard. What is it you hate about America?
Mike Flynn,
There’s no need to turn the United States into a dictatorship to put it first. And please mind your “America” – it’s not America, not even half of it.
Long live and prosper.
No Wiltard, I’m happy to say I’m not progressive and never will be. Progressive ideas are nothing more than Marxist ideology. Why is it that you believe you own the fruit of other’s labor?
By the way, I’m not bigoted (except against leftists) or a narcissist.
So you dont believe in putting America first?
Which country should America put before itself?
Youre not sounding very patriotic if you are an American, Willard. What is it you hate about America?
By the way, what are “Muricans”? Are you ignorant or just thick?
> I’m not a bigot.
Sure, Troglodyte.
And Nixon wasn’t a crook.
Willard, you strange person,
What’s wrong with being a bigot? Don’t you support freedom of thought and expression?
No, of course not. You seem to be bigoted against anybody who dares to disagree with your peculiar views.
Go on – tell me how much you really love me.
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
Troglodyte is free to be as bigoted as he wants.
He is even free to deny that he has bigoted views.
And best of all, he is free to be wrong.
Cheers.
I ask Wingnut to give evidence that Trump wants to be a dictator, and he ends with I’m a bigot. Are there any other propagandists here who can decipher?
Perhaps Troglodyte speaks a little too much of wingnuttery for his own good:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/01/red-caesar-authoritarianism-republicans-extreme-right
Perhaps he should revisit republicanism.
Willard,
Got your gibberish generator spewing irrelevant garbage, I see.
Well done.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE that actually involves a rise in temperature, or CO2, or one causing the other – or any meaningful description at all?
If you haven’t, it doesn’t matter – I didn’t really think you could, anyway.
Troglodyte wasn’t talking about the greenhouse effect, Mike Flynn.
70%!!!
Wow, there was much more election fraud than they were telling us….
You’re interpreting that figure just as well as you interpret relative motion, Pupman.
Riddle me this – is the applied force on the Moon in its axis of rotation?
Willard,
“Riddle me this is the applied force on the Moon in its axis of rotation?”
What are you babbling about? What applied force? What axis of rotation?
Riddle me this – do you have the ability to think, or do you just hammer away on your keyboard hoping that something intelligent will appear?
Mike Flynn,
Riddle me this – why do you still deny being Mike Flynn, having been served descriptions of the greenhouse effect, or having yourself described it?
That’s because you’re the silliest Red Clown there is the Climateball world, that’s why!
Cheers.
Willard,
“Riddle me this is the applied force on the Moon in its axis of rotation?”
What are you babbling about? What applied force? What axis of rotation?
Riddle me this do you have the ability to think, or do you just hammer away on your keyboard hoping that something intelligent will appear?
Here’s your description of the GHE – “Not cooling. Slow cooling.” Nothing about warming, heating, or getting hotter. No wonder you want to run away and babble about the terrifying, awe inspiring Mike Flynn, who weighs so heavily on your peabrain.
A riddle indeed.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Heres your description of the GHE”
That’s not mine, Mike.
It’s yours.
Willard,
Riddle me this is the applied force on the Moon in its axis of rotation?
What are you babbling about? What applied force? What axis of rotation?
Riddle me this do you have the ability to think, or do you just hammer away on your keyboard hoping that something intelligent will appear?
Heres your description of the GHE Not cooling. Slow cooling. Nothing about warming, heating, or getting hotter. No wonder you want to run away and babble about the terrifying, awe inspiring Mike Flynn, who weighs so heavily on your peabrain.
A riddle indeed.
Actually, it seems that Willard’s description was “Not cooling, slower cooling.”
I apologise for the previous incorrect quote.
My only excuse is that laughter at the idiocy of Willard claiming that cooling results in heating, must have temporarily addled my brain.
Mike Flynn,
Tell me if you can recognize this:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/
Cheers.
Willard, you dolt,
All matter above absolute zero emits IR. All matter, especially matter at absolute zero can absorb IR emitted by other matter with a greater degree of hotness.
Tyndall, following on from Melloni and others, confirmed this – even for gases!
Don’t tell me you don’t believe it! No GHE though, that’s just ridiculous. You can’t even describe the GHE – except to say it results in cooling!
Bravo! A stroke of genius!
Not.
Mike Flynn,
Tyndall measured the heat absorbing properties of many gases.
The absorbing properties changes depending on the gas.
Those that absorb infrared better are called greenhouse gases.
Thank you for describing the greenhouse effect for us.
Willard, you dimwitted featherbrain,
The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters. You obviously haven’t heard of Kirchoff’s Radiation Laws. I’m not surprised. Learn some physics, and you might abandon some of your quaint SkyDragon cult notions..
You may call gases which absorb infrared anything you like. Greenhouse gases, furnace gases, SkyDragon-breath gases – it makes no difference. No GHE. that’s just being silly, and demonstrating ignorance.
You do it beautifully, though.
Carry on while I laugh at your strange ideas.
Mike Flynn,
Different gases have different absorbing properties.
Cheers.
Willard, you dimwitted featherbrain,
The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters. You obviously haven’t heard of Kirchoffs Radiation Laws. I,m not surprised. Learn some physics, and you might abandon some of your quaint SkyDragon cult notions..
You may call gases which absorb infrared anything you like. Greenhouse gases, furnace gases, SkyDragon-breath gases it makes no difference. No GHE. thats just being silly, and demonstrating ignorance.
You do it beautifully, though.
Carry on while I laugh at your strange ideas.
Mike Flynn,
Tyndall’s experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.
Do you dispute that?
Willard, you dimwitted featherbrain,
The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters. You obviously havent heard of Kirchoffs Radiation Laws. I,m not surprised. Learn some physics, and you might abandon some of your quaint SkyDragon cult notions..
You may call gases which absorb infrared anything you like. Greenhouse gases, furnace gases, SkyDragon-breath gases it makes no difference. No GHE. thats just being silly, and demonstrating ignorance.
You do it beautifully, though.
Carry on while I laugh at your strange ideas.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters.”
Are you suggesting that absorbing infrared radiation amounts to nothing?
Cheers.
Willard, you dimwitted featherbrain,
The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters. You obviously havent heard of Kirchoffs Radiation Laws. I,m not surprised. Learn some physics, and you might abandon some of your quaint SkyDragon cult notions..
You may call gases which absorb infrared anything you like. Greenhouse gases, furnace gases, SkyDragon-breath gases it makes no difference. No GHE. thats just being silly, and demonstrating ignorance.
You do it beautifully, though.
Carry on while I laugh at your strange ideas.
Mike Flynn,
You clown.
Repeating what you just said does not counter my point –
According to your logic, absorbing radiations amounts to nothing.
That’s kinda hard to believe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
If you can’t see it, that’s your problem.
Willard, you dimwitted featherbrain,
Maybe you could try responding to what I said, rather than your interpretation.
The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters. You obviously havent heard of Kirchoffs Radiation Laws. I,m not surprised. Learn some physics, and you might abandon some of your quaint SkyDragon cult notions..
You may call gases which absorb infrared anything you like. Greenhouse gases, furnace gases, SkyDragon-breath gases it makes no difference. No GHE. thats just being silly, and demonstrating ignorance.
You do it beautifully, though.
Carry on while I laugh at your strange ideas.
Keep repeating yourself, Mike Flynn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
Willard, you dimwitted featherbrain,
Maybe you could try responding to what I said, rather than your interpretation.
The best IR absorbers are also the best IR emitters. You obviously havent heard of Kirchoffs Radiation Laws. I,m not surprised. Learn some physics, and you might abandon some of your quaint SkyDragon cult notions..
You may call gases which absorb infrared anything you like. Greenhouse gases, furnace gases, SkyDragon-breath gases it makes no difference. No GHE. thats just being silly, and demonstrating ignorance.
You do it beautifully, though.
Carry on while I laugh at your strange ideas.
Mike Flynn,
You obviously have never described what you called “Kirchoffs Radiation Laws.”
Cheers.
Your gibberish generator is working fine.
What makes you think that Israel will dictate that Palestine will not exist (completely)?
Seems like a miscalculation on Hamas’ part. It has given Israel casus belli to bring down the hammer even more.
I hope Israel uses the international support they’re getting right now to f&%king reduce Gaza to rubble and deport all the f&%king Palestinians out of their lands. Even neighbors like Egypt and Jordan won’t take them since Palestinian co%kroaches are majority radical terrorist supporters who can’t resist destabilizing the places they go too.
It’s almost as if Hamas is a cult, huh?
“their lands” not Israel’s.
Walter,
Want in one hand.
Pee in the other hand.
See which fills up first.
I appreciate your genocidal intentions, but it might not be as easy as you think to kill a couple of million people as quickly as you would like.
A few of them might even fight back, and even America has not managed to win recently against any nation which decided to fight back.
The future is unknown.
> Palestinian co%kroaches are majority radical terrorist supporters
Citation needed, TYSON.
I hope they’re not a majority sock puppet too. That’d be worse.
ark…for once, I agree with you.
The polar vortex has moved over Scandinavia.
https://i.ibb.co/BfMRQ0L/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
Biden Admin: “We don’t know if Iran was involved.”
Hamas: “They were involved.”
Biden Admin: “We just don’t know.”
Hamas: “No really, they were involved.”
Biden Admin: “We may never know.”
https://instapundit.com/
From gb’s link:
John Ashbrook@JohnAshbrook
22h
A Hamas spokesperson told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel
https://bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67037895
US naval assets are moving and quite few Americans are hostages.
UAE Sides with Israel, Condemns Hamas for Nihilistic Destruction
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/10/08/uae-sides-with-israel-condemns-hamas-nihilistic-destruction/
“The Foreign Affairs Ministry of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) issued a statement Sunday directly condemning the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas for a bloody terror spree that has left over 700 dead since early Saturday, urging the region to avoid following the group toward nihilistic destruction.
The UAE is one of the worlds wealthiest and most influential explicitly Islamic governments. Abu Dhabis condemnation of Hamas and extension of condolences to the majority-Jewish victims of the Hamas rapes, abductions, and massacres on Saturday is a dramatic contrast in tone from neighboring Iran where the regime threw a street party to celebrate the killings, complete with a fireworks display and the eruption of pro-Hamas rallies and celebrations around the world, including in the United States.”
Bidens Twin Crises: Possible U.S. Hostages, Risks of Wider War
https://time.com/6321860/hamas-us-hostages-israel-biden-wider-war-iran/
“Deploying substantial new air and naval forces to the Middle East, President Biden and his top aides are scrambling to deal with twin crises unleashed by the hot war between Israel and Hamas: the possibility that American hostages may have been taken into Gaza along with Israelis during the deadly weekend assaults, and the danger that the conflict could spread in the region, potentially drawing the U.S. closer to conflict.”
Ah, quoting a tweet. Good to know where you get your “news” from.
Wiki says:
–Instapundit is a conservative blog maintained by Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee.
History and characteristics
InstaPundit was launched in August 2001 as an experiment, and a part of Reynolds’ class on Internet law. After the September 11 attacks, the site quickly became a highly popular blogwith Reynolds celebrated as “chief among the warbloggers”and was dubbed the “Grand Central Station of Bloggerville” in 2002 and reported to be “the most visited [blog] in the world” in early 2004. A 2007 memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee described Reynolds as one of the five “best-read national conservative bloggers.”
Common topics are politics, technology (such as nanotechnology), space exploration, human longevity, digital photography, individual liberty and gun politics, domestic policy, the media, and the blogosphere as a social phenomenon. Instapundit frequently discussed the war on terror from a supportive-but-critical viewpoint. Reynolds has also lent his support to the Porkbusters campaign, which purports to expose misallocation of federal funds.–
But he is actually a libertarian. I had it bookmarked before the 911
attack- cause remember going to his site during it- and he is quite interested human longevity, guns, and also future technology in general and space. Later, the news corporations came to the internet,
And he was involved in following, Rathergate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy#Aftermath
Ie: “The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on anachronisms in the typography, and the scandal quickly spread to the mass media”
You quoted a tweet that appeared on Instapundit.
Good to know where you get your “news.”
Also he is of the opinion the weight lifting by older people will extend their lives.
I don’t weight lift, but it might be a good idea.
Balance exercise, is also suppose to be good idea- and I guess it would related to weight lifting. I sometime check my balance {stand one leg- I am not good at it- I am doomed}.
gb,
We’re all doomed. Well, except for me – based on the trend, I won’t die. I haven’t in the past.
barry…you reveal a deep ignorance when you attack the messenger while ignoring the content of the message. I have attacked realclimate, SkS, and desmogblog as the messenger but I have spent years revealing their anti-science propaganda.
What is it you have against Instapundit? It seems to have disturbed you so much that you needed to post the same message twice.
Hamas are Arab terrorists, is that what you support?
> revealing
That’s quite a strong word from someone who never provides evidence for anything, Bordo.
Your “is that what you support” is funny coming from you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“What is it you have against Instapundit?”
I didn’t critique Instapundit. You’ve totally misunderstood. Try again.
barry, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Tell me if you can recognize this:
Tyndall measured the heat absorbing properties”
***
Do you ever read the articles to which you link? The article at your link is from a British bank official warning us that moving too quickly toward zero carbon emissions will mess up our economies? You root out an inane comment about Tyndall’s experiment re CO2.
> Do you ever read the articles to which you link?
I was linking to a blog comment, Bordo.
Search “Tyndall measured the heat absorbing properties” on that page:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/
Tell me who wrote it.
Alternatively: https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/#comment-831984
What’s this – the battle of the irrelevant links?
Do you get a prize for being the most cryptic peabrain?
It will definitely be a close contest.
“Tell me who wrote it?”
What, don’t you know?
Just how thick are you?
Indeed I know who wrote this, Mike Flynn.
Do you?
Well, that makes you a troll, I guess.
Posing a gotcha, when you already knew the answer! Typical for a fantasizing peabrained GHE cultist. What do you hope to achieve by calling me Mike Flynn? Nothing at all?
You’d be right in that instance at least.
You can’t help yourself can you?
Go on, demand another pointless answer to another silly gotcha!
[how dim can one cultist get]
Mike Flynn,
I quote your words.
You speak of a gotcha.
Does that mean your words are gotchas?
Cheers.
You peabrain, Willard.
You really are thick, aren’t you? Were you dropped on your head when you were small, or were you born with your mental defect?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
First snow on the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/RQ34sLN/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-09-103227.png
ENSO anomalies, week ending Oct 7.
1.2 … +2.6 (down 0.2)
..3 … +1.9 (down 0.1)
3.4 … +1.5 (no change)
..4 … +1.2 (up 0.1)
The Copeacabana, a nightclub where climate change science deniers can go to drown their sorrows.
That graph clearly shows the recent natural warming trend.
It also shows the combined impact of the HTE and EN in 2023.
Can’t deny those facts.
I deny that correlation = causation is a fact.
Apparently you are still unaware.
You have to be careful with the correlation/causation issue.
If the science matches, you’re on fairly safe ground. For example, we know that a warmer ocean outgasses more CO2. We also know that atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise ocean temperatures.
And K said: “Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe.”
Clint R is also way behind in learning about atm. physics. However since Clint R is usually making such laughable science gaffes, Clint does remain a great entertainer on a science blog.
You have NEVER linked to ANY peer-reviewed scientific paper which supports your claim.
AQ,
You can’t even describe the GHE!
Peer reviewed scientific papers cannot turn fantasy into fact. You may not be aware that even real Nobel Prize winners (unlike fake Nobel Prize winners like Michael Mann) have been forced to retract “peer reviewed scientific papers” – one, Gregg Semenza has just tallied his tenth retraction.
You really are a gullible GHE cultist, aren’t you?
Here’s an example of a “peer reviewed scientific paper” which is so poorly presented that there is no need for retraction “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature.”
Go on, tell everyone that you can’t find anything wrong with this “peer reviewed scientific paper”!
The sound you hear might be laughter – the derisive sort.
“If the science matches, youre on fairly safe ground.”
Well there’s your problem. Fake science need not apply.
Real science calculates the GHE of the water in the stratosphere from HT, and it is a rather small effect.
More precisely, the GHE is of no consequence in ANY part of the atmosphere.
Nate, you pinhead,
You can’t even describe the GHE! How do you expect anybody to take any notice of your unsupported assertions?
What is “a rather small effect”? Are you trying to sound wise, or just gibbering?
“Real science” calculates nothing. You obviously don’t understand what science is. Richard Feynman (a real scientists) agrees with me. He wrote “When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly.” You may care to look up the rest for context, but I doubt you will be bothered,
Carry on with your strange cult utterances. Someone might agree.
[he’s not the sharpest knife in the SkyDragon drawer]
Mike Flynn,
An oven door insulates an oven.
It slows the cooling of an oven.
And as a result, the oven will get hotter with the door closed!
Carry on.
“Nate, you pinhead,
You cant even describe the GHE! ”
Juvenile insults, then an extreme lack of science. Thats all we can expect from Mike Flynn.
Willard, you peabrain,
If an oven is cooling, it is not getting hotter!
You are probably confusing the temperature rise associated with the effect of insulating an internally heated body. Turn the power to your oven off, and close the door. It won’t get hotter. Put it in the sun – the oven will get hotter. Wait for sunset – it will cool, along with its contents.
Bad luck, Willard, your tiny brain obviously cannot absorb reality – neither CO2, H2O, nor any of your misnamed “greenhouse gases” can make thermometers hotter!
Even where the atmosphere is hotter than the surface, where a nighttime low level inversion exists, the surface still cools – quite dramatically, in some cases.
So no, Willard, your quaint attempts to divert attention from the fact that your description of the GHE (“Not cooling, slower cooling”) is just silly, won’t work.
The Earth is cooling, but people generate lots of heat producing energy of various sorts. To keep warm or cool, for example.
Nate, you pinhead,
You cant even describe the GHE!
Go on, demolish me – provide a description of the GHE. Or just complain that you think that I am really using the wrong pseudonym or something – as though that will make you sound more intelligent!
[laughing at pinhead]
Mike Flynn,
Where do you get the weird idea that the greenhouse effect generates heat?
Willard,
There is no GHE.
What particular form of mental instability leads you to think that something that doesn’t exist can create anything physical at all?
You are definitely strange.
Mike Flynn,
Greenhouse gases absorb infrareds more than all the other gases.
The greenhouse effect is the effect caused by greenhouse gases.
Cheers.
Well then, Willard, maybe you could describe the greenhouse effect.
Do you think it results in heating, or are you going to stick with “not cooling, slower cooling”?
That might seem better, as John Tyndall rightly established through rigorous experiment that reducing the amount of IR reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
As a matter of fact, some gases absorb IR so well that Tyndall found that blocking the heat source with a brass plate reduced the heat no more than the gas!
This is your GHE, is it? Preventing the Sun’s heat from even reaching the surface?
You seem confused. What is the supposed outcome of the GHE? Heating? Cooling? Both?
Man up, Willard. Take a clear and unambiguous position. Don’t be wishy-washy!
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you could acknowledge when you are being spoon fed.
Cheers.
Well then, Willard, maybe you could describe the greenhouse effect.
Do you think it results in heating, or are you going to stick with “not cooling, slower cooling”?
That might seem better, as John Tyndall rightly established through rigorous experiment that reducing the amount of IR reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
As a matter of fact, some gases absorb IR so well that Tyndall found that blocking the heat source with a brass plate reduced the heat no more than the gas!
This is your GHE, is it? Preventing the Suns heat from even reaching the surface?
You seem confused. What is the supposed outcome of the GHE? Heating? Cooling? Both?
Man up, Willard. Take a clear and unambiguous position. Dont be wishy-washy!
Man up, Mike Flynn –
Acknowledge that you have been given tons of descriptions of the greenhouse effect over the many years you’ve been clowning us here and elsewhere.
You yourself described it to us many times.
Well then, Willard, maybe you could describe the greenhouse effect.
Do you think it results in heating, or are you going to stick with “not cooling, slower cooling”?
That might seem better, as John Tyndall rightly established through rigorous experiment that reducing the amount of IR reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
As a matter of fact, some gases absorb IR so well that Tyndall found that blocking the heat source with a brass plate reduced the heat no more than the gas!
This is your GHE, is it? Preventing the Suns heat from even reaching the surface?
You seem confused. What is the supposed outcome of the GHE? Heating? Cooling? Both?
Man up, Willard. Take a clear and unambiguous position. Don’t be wishy-washy!
So you won’t man up, Mike Flynn.
Very well.
Well then, Willard, maybe you could describe the greenhouse effect.
Do you think it results in heating, or are you going to stick with “not cooling, slower cooling”?
That might seem better, as John Tyndall rightly established through rigorous experiment that reducing the amount of IR reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
As a matter of fact, some gases absorb IR so well that Tyndall found that blocking the heat source with a brass plate reduced the heat no more than the gas!
This is your GHE, is it? Preventing the Suns heat from even reaching the surface?
You seem confused. What is the supposed outcome of the GHE? Heating? Cooling? Both?
Man up, Willard. Take a clear and unambiguous position. Dont be wishy-washy!
“That might seem better, as John Tyndall rightly established through rigorous experiment that reducing the amount of IR reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.”
True.
But you conveniently always forget the rest of what he established:
“Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
Hint: ‘checks its exit’ is due to what you stated above: the atmosphere ‘reduces the amount of IR’ exiting the atmosphere.
Oh well!
Nate, you conveniently always forget the rest of the science.
When you see the word “atmosphere”, remember that means O2 and N2. Those two gases are 99% of the atmosphere, that is, THE atmosphere. So your Tyndall quote, disregarding his colloquial usage of “heat”, is correct:
“Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
O2 and N2 are very good at “accumulating solar heat”. CO2 is a minor coolant.
Just recently, you had a chance to observe the atmosphere getting heated beyond its ability to quickly cool itself. The combination of the HTE and EN overrode the cooling system. That’s why the PV at the South Pole is still operating, a month after it has usually shut down. Depending on how strong the EN gets, we could see a sharp drop in UAH Global in the coming months.
Earth knows how to cool itself. That’s one of the reasons “Alarmists” are so WRONG.
checks its exit is due to what Swenson stated above: the atmosphere reduces the amount of IR thta cn pass thru and exit the atmosphere.
That is due, as Tyndall found, to the ability of CO2 to abs.orb IR.
Tyndall Understood it 150 y ago.
With all the advantage of today’s education and information at your fingertips, you still don’t.
That takes real effort.
“Go on, demolish me provide a description of the GHE”.
Did that many times. You are very forgetful.
Tyndall explained it 150 y ago, as you saw in another thread. Did you miss it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545138
Sure can easily demolish your GHE denial
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545268
“O2 and N2 are very good at accumulating solar heat. CO2 is a minor coolant.”
False. Tyndall found that neither N2 or O2 are good at ‘checking the exit’ of IR from the atmosphere.
He clearly found that CO2 and H2O were very effective at reducing radiative heat transfer to space, and are not ‘coolants’.
“O2 and N2 are very good at “accumulating solar heat”.”
Exactly, Clint…due to their relative inability to radiate said energy away (compared to GHGs). They “hold on to the heat” better than GHGs.
…and, for a more detailed explanation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Which very clearly explains that there is a GHE!
Strange, that anyone would think that supports any of Clint’s opinions.
What is a climate change science denier? There is a difference between denying that ‘a’ climate can change and the current propaganda that a global climate is changing.
The hilarity of the current definition is that a 1C warming over 180 years can cause some kind of climate catastrophe.
“Denier” refers to the denial of the A, the G or the W in “AGW”.
It sometimes refer to those who keep harping about the “C” in “CAGW.”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Antonin Qwerty
If I remember correctly, you once looked for SSN data about the solar hemispheres. At that time I lacked interest for this data.
But recently, gbaikie posted this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543954
and now I wanted to know what’s the difference between them.
*
1. NH vs. SH since Jan 1992
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jUUf2kJw-hjCZ7uNl3DTmU-ZzXlj45_h/view
2. NH: Sc25 vs. SC24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xT0X8pHLPJWiroKMMS9V57XpKrM0Ja-p/view
3. SH: Sc25 vs. SC24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6j6ZvDWfAToWOvr_TnYW8UM3n-uiafB/view
That must have been a long time ago. I’ve been recording hemispheric data for a least all this year, probably quite a bit longer. I already has this graph in my spreadsheet:
https://tinyurl.com/Hemispheric-Sunspots
It’s quite recent, easy to find back:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538654
I simply misunderstood you at that time.
Iran have suckered Hamas into starting a proxy war with Israel.
With US help Israel may be able to beat down the puppet, but what is to be done about the puppet master?
well, it could be related to US giving Iran a very large amount of cash, Iran makes a lot missiles with the money, Iran gives a lot of missiles. Hamas using a lot missiles.
The only suckers are the US tax payers.
And very dumb and/or evil US politicians.
The only real task of the US govt is to prevent war.
But genocide is particular type war, you want to prevent.
What politicians can only do, is talk.
Talking is how you could prevent war.
But you have to be smart. And must want to stop wars.
A goal of weakening a weak superpower with nuclear weapon,
is very dumb.
Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is very dumb.
Equity is dumb- some crazies shouldn’t have nuclear weapons
particularly when want to use them to kill people.
The most significant peace keeper in the world,
certainly is not the UN, but rather US military.
But US military can be used, poorly.
The only reason to use it, is when politicians have
for very long time, have failed to do their jobs.
And politician are always failing to do their job-
power corrupts.
Corrupts means not doing the job you are elected to do.
Now, one instead, could point to how successful we have been
at preventing more wars. And you also see the opposite.
But rather arguing pointlessly the two sides of it, one could look at what has worked and what hasn’t worked.
I offer the idea, that CIA hasn’t worked.
>The only real task of the US govt is to prevent war.
Almost. Provide for the common defense, which includes securing the border. He can’t even do that.
War Against US and tangent Wars which effect US.
So, prevent wars against US {including terrorism and international crime] and prevent wars against allies [because it’s in US interest in regards to future wars which could include US {or allies lessen change of attacks against US]. Allies are easier thing as compared to non allies. For instance US made mistake of thinking Iraq and Iran war was something they shouldn’t stop- if either had been ally it would have a easier issue- but in my opinion it was not in US national interest to allow that war. Nor should they allow the Russia and Ukraine war- which could be resolved without a war.
When Trump says he could end, it seem plausible and would say there been no effort {worth mentioning] to do this. So, obviously, could try to resolve it. And seem obvious to everyone it will be done, it’s question of when [how much mayhem has to happen before it’s done, sort of thing}.
As far as border, I think we could allow a lot people in to US, we should have reasonable legal way of doing- and not allow a criminal Cartel “manage our borders”.
” related to US giving Iran a very large amount of cash”
False. They let them access their OWN money.
Israel doesn’t need US help to beat Hamas. Biden is showing what a tough, strong President that he is. I hope something doesn’t happen to that new carrier.
Doubt that Iran has suckered anyone besides getting themselves sucked in to being invaded.
Kinetic and Radiation Atmospheric Temperature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLR0X1YvTUo
Glad he mentioned the it about thermister temperatures being unreliable in thinner air. I was met with disdain by some alarmists when I mentioned that before.
There will be no shortage of precipitation in California this winter.
Pretty sure everyone commenting here knows the effects of El Nino on each side of the Pacific.
AQ,
El Nino has no “effects”. It is a name given to a pattern of observations. Claiming that a pattern has “effects” is about as silly as claiming daily maximum temperatures are creating heat!
Have you got anything sensible to say?
El Nino is an oceanic event which IS OBSERVED through changes in temperature and atmospheric pressure. It is not the observations themselves. Claiming that it is the observations themselves is about as silly as claiming that a diet of Big Macs and KFC IS Trump’s extensive waistline measurement.
Do you have any more nonsense to claim?
AQ,
It’s a pattern of observations, as you agree. In a chaotic system (as the atmosphere, aquasphere and lithosphere are), there is constant, and unpredictable movement of the composing elements.
You may have noticed that temperature and pressure observations are unpredictable. Even the IPCC agree that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
You may believe in some mysterious heat source (“hidden heat”j emerging from the ocean depths, and making the Earth hotter at irregular intervals, but that would make you as silly as people like Kevin Trenberth and his fellow GHE believers.
A redistribution of heat within a chaotic system creates no additional heat, if that is what you are implying. You can’t describe the GHE, so you seem to imply that CO2 causes additional heat in the oceans, although you haven’t got the guts to come out and subject your implied nonsense to scrutiny!
What has fast food to do with the GHE? Or insulation, overcoats, ovens, or the rest of the nonsense that the average pinheaded GHE cultist sprouts? You’re a strange lot, that’s for sure!
“Its a pattern of observations, as you agree.”
Deliberate misinterpretation from the opening. No point reading further.
Well gee.
I’m sure everyone will be exceptionally affected by your decision.
“Everyone” and “exception” in the same sentence. You are the expert at writing self-contradictory sentences.
Well gee.
/sarc
I’m sure everyone will be exceptionally affected by your decision.
/sarc off
[chortle]
Still going? Looks like you, by exception, are indeed negatively impacted by my choice not to read further. Your only mistake is believing you are “everyone”.
Well gee.
/sarc
Im sure everyone will be exceptionally affected by your decision.
/sarc off
[chortle]
“You may have noticed that temperature and pressure observations are unpredictable. Even the IPCC agree that it is not possible to predict future climate states.”
Science has figured out how to predict El Ninos with high success rate, several months in advance. As they did with the current one last Spring.
No surprise that Swenson’s theories are falsified by experiment, yet again!
Nate, you dingaling, “science” predicts nothing. People predict. At least the IPCC is realistic, and admits that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
A “high success rate” is a pointless statement. I would not use an airline which claimed it had a “high success rate” of delivering passengers intact to their destination! Would you?
You talk rubbish. Typical SkyDragon cult wishful thinking.
The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Humans generate as much ephemeral heat as they can, one way or the other. Dr Spencer is endeavouring to establish the quantum, and I applaud his efforts, although I assess the task as being difficult, if not impossible.
Do you hire Willard’s gibberish generator, or do you produce your own gibberish?
The world wonders.
Swenson’s ‘theory’ that science can’t predict things is falsified by experiment!
Feynman says he’s wrong. Oh well!
Now he’ll just deny it.
The observation is that during the previous winter there was the same circulation as now. This simply means a blockage of the polar vortex over the Bering Sea and has nothing to do with El Nino.
https://i.ibb.co/cXzVxhD/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
Stephen P Anderson
Are you really that unthinking??? Wow when you get into the right-wing cult you really lose all ability to think. Really sad1
YOU: “So, genius, why dont you explain how The Donald is trying to become a dictator?”
I doubt you even know what a dictator is.
Here is some reality for you:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship
“Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.”
I fail to see the relationship between Trump and your definition of a dictator from Britannica. In fact, I found his presidency to be a breath of fresh air compared to the mindless nonsense that passes for government with the Democrats.
When Norman attacks someone, you immediately know that person is effective. Norman hates reality.
Stephen P Anderson
Evil Trump followers are doing these most heinous acts and you think Trump is not trying to be a dictator? Read the definition again.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/10/01/trump-police-shoot-shoplifters-california/71021289007/
The last one would be suppression of civil liberties. Everyone gets their day in court. You can be arrested, shooting denies the basic rights.
I am really saddened you are part of a radical and ruthless movement in this USA. I can see really dumb people falling for such a horrid human as Trump but alleged intelligent people (Chemistry and math of which I see no evidence of either from you, you sound like a raving right-wing lunatic devoid of thinking and only peddling right-wing lies and talking points)..
You need more I will provide such. If you are not completely gone you may come out of your deluded thinking.
Norman,
I see that you are opposed to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
That’s your right, and it’s my right to disagree.
Or do you think otherwise?
norman…”I can see really dumb people falling for such a horrid human as Trump…”
***
Under the ‘horrid’ label, you have included mathematician Claes Johnson, microbiologist Stefan Lanka, and Peter Duesberg, who discovered the first cancer gene. It seems anyone who opposes your peculiar life view is deemed horrid.
Honourable mention in your horrid classification extends to Tony Heller, who holds double degrees in electrical engineering and geology. Even though Intl valued him highly on their i7 project, in your eyes he is a scumbag.
Gordon Robertson
You are not correct. I did not call Claes Johnson a horrid person. I called him a crackpot. His phony physics will not harm people. Lanka is horrid as his false claims will kil and cause suffering.
Gordon Robertson
Also wrong on Tony Heller. Never said anything about him. I do not mind raising questions, which he does. Lanka, his false claims are most dangerous.
Norman,
If people wish to believe claims, that is their right.
Who are you to tell people what they are allowed to believe?
You probably believe in a GHE which cannot be described!
Good for you! I believe you are a peabrain for your strange belief.
Good for me?
Was Svante Arrhenius a horrid human? He was a board member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, an organisation established in 1909 which pursued the study and promotion of eugenics. Twelve years after this Society was established, the Swedish government set up the State Institute for Racial Biology. From 1934 until 1976 a state-approved racial purity program led to the forced sterilisation of approximately 63,000 people, mostly women.
None of that affected his scientific work, resulting in the Arrhenius Equation. Maybe it affected his unscientific speculation about the role of CO2 and glaciation.
And what about the Swedish government? All horrid humans?
Exactly, Mike Flynn.
Yet here you are, a horrid clown and having no scientific work under your belt.
What does that tell you?
Willard, at least your gibberish generator seems to be functioning.
Unlike your brain.
Carry on.
Thank you, Mike.
I sure will.
What about government? All horrid humans?
Google: eugenics when did it start?
“Discussions of eugenics began in the late 19th century in England, then spread to other countries, including the United States. Most industrialized countries had organizations devoted to promoting eugenics by the end of World War I”
Goggle comstock act of 1873 is it constitutional
“The brainchild of a zealous and devout New England Congregationalist, Anthony Comstock, the Comstock Act (17 Stat. 599) was passed after little debate in March 1873, in the last days of Ulysses S. Grant’s first term as president. The act prohibited the dissemination of any “article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever for the prevention of contraception or procuring of abortion” through the U.S. mail or across state lines.”
Govt shouldn’t do mail. And govt shouldn’t do climate change.
Norman, are you serious? Shoplifting is stealing. Try shoplifting in my town. There’s a possibility you could be shot. There’s not much shoplifting that goes on here except in the woke stores like Walmart.
Also, Reuters, the AP, and most of the rest of the media are part of the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, as are you.
Norman,
Did Trump have the FBI and DOJ go after Biden? Did he have state prosecutors inundate him with outrageous prosecutions to interfere with the election? Did he have the IRS target leftist non-profits? Did he have state courts change election laws so the Republicans could cheat? Did he allow millions of illegals into the country so they could illegally vote Republican in future elections? No, Biden did all that. The only dictator here is Biden. So stop your BS!
Stephen P Anderson
You must have been sleeping during Trump’s first impeachment. Do you know what it was over? He was pressuring Zelensky to get dirt on his rival Biden.
And after 5 y of digging they still cannot find any dirt on Biden that Trump was seeking!
Trump fired his FBI director, because he would not cow-tow to Trump’s political desires for him to investigate, not him, but his rivals.
Then he fired his Attorney General after the 2020 election, for similar reasons.
It seems that Stephen is good at projecting Trump’s obvious unethical behaviors onto Biden.
Oh really? The media ignores all the evidence on Joe. There’s his famous video of withholding a billion dollars unless Zelensky fired the prosecutor. Now, that was a felony. Also, Trump didn’t order his DOJ to go after Biden. Biden and Obama had the most opaque and corrupt administration in our history. There was absolutely nothing illegal, immoral, or wrong about the phone call. He had every right to do it. How did Biden get his millions? He’s been in government all his life.
Then we had the leftist media and Democrats start accusing Trump of colluding with Putin as soon as he was elected. They manufactured the file that was created by two former Russian operatives. The only ones colluding with the Russians were the Democrats.
I want to know. What is it about the Deep State and the government that you leftists love so much? You hate capitalism and want to control it. Right?
Trump fired his FBI director because he was corrupt, working with the Democrats and part of the Deep State. He fired his AG because he was impotent.
Who was working under Comey? McCabe, Strozk, Page, Baker, etc. It was a very corrupt FBI. The FBI should be broken up and reorganized.
The media and Democrats accused Trump and Putin of colluding and stealing the election when, in fact, the last election was stolen. Dinesh DSouza showed us how the Democrats did it in 2000 mules. They used Zuckerberg-funded non-profits to harvest “mailed” ballots and stuff ballot boxes. The Democrats are concerned that they won’t be able to pull the same trick.
Sure Stephen. The facts aren’t on your side so you just dismiss them as Leftist facts. And fantasize that just about everybody must be part of the conspiracy.
Thats why authoritarians can persuade the gullible masses.
Stephen P Anderson
You are a fanatic radicalized by total lies of right-wing media. You do know Fox had to pay out millions for defamation. They lost because of emails from Tucker Carlson admitting he was lying.
You believe the election was stolen even though in close states they recounted votes numerous times. When you listen to the babbling right wing liars they can make any false claim they imagine (and gullible minds like yours blindly believe without question, without doubt…really sad!) but then when taken to Court and you need real evidence there was none.
I am not sure half the accusations you have on Biden are correct. The far right who you blindly follow lie often without shame.
They recounted the same false ballots and you know it Norman. Once the ballots are opened you can’t tell a false ballot from a real ballot. You’re a lying propagandist, nothing more.
I don’t understand what the attraction of leftist ideology is for you two. Are you being promised seventy-seven virgins once your leftist utopia is realized? Where is your leftist utopia that’s at the end of your rainbow? Where has it ever been?
According to CBS News, the laptop is verified as real not modified.
“10% held by H for the big guy”
Whoever the big guy is, he trusts “H” with his 10%. Using 20 shell companies to launder money seems like something that should be investigated. Joe knows what he is doing. He knows how to cover his tracks.
Remember deep throat from Watergate: Follow the money!
Stephen P Anderson
I am not a lefty only a thinking person that can see how horrid Trump is in many ways.
Here is how Trump treated the average working American. Guess you must love him for his clever way to enrich himself at the expense of others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
Stephen P Anderson
It is unlikely I can convince you of anything but maybe you will consider the testimony of a Marine General John Kelly who actually served under Trump.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/oath-john-kelly-raises-serious-allegations-trump-rcna93367
“Last fall, the week before Thanksgiving, Kelly told The New York Times that Trump, during his presidency, told his chief of staff to use the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department to target his critics and perceived political foes.”
You said ” Did he have the IRS target leftist non-profits?”
He was more broad. He wanted to go after his critics and political foes. Worse than non-profits. More direct dictator.
Kelly? LOL.
Stephen P Anderson
Not sure what your intent was with the LOL concerning General Kelly. Maybe elaborate if you can. Show some signs of thinking ability. What makes you laugh at Kelly. Give some specific and thinking items. I would like to know.
Norman, did you give up trying to pervert science to just resorting to pure perversion?
Rachel Maddow? LOL.
Norman,
Kelly is like Milley. They are establishment. Trump isn’t. They don’t like Trump. We don’t like them.
Stephen P Anderson
Basically you are deep in Trump Cult and have lost all semblance of rational thought. Willard was right about you. You are a caveman…”Trump good Kelly bad!”
What a totally thoughtless mind you have.
Norman,
I am cult Trump. Trump is the only thing standing between you guys and us. That’s why you hate him. Trump loves our country and the Constitution. You don’t. You are an Obama cultist-hope and change. You are a leftist propagandist, a Marxist. We don’t need our Constitution to change to something that you want.
Norman,
By the way, I look good in my Trump mugshot shirt. “Never Surrender.” I’m retired US military and I don’t have any reverence for John Kelly or any other turncoat. What are you?
“I dont have any reverence for John Kelly or any other turncoat.”
I never like Homeland Security, but lately it’s somehow managed to have gotten a lot worse- what is a reason to like John Kelly?
He might be a competent soldier, but no evidence he is better than the worse Vogon, ever, as bureaucrat.
I am still liking Bill Nelson as NASA’s top bureaucrat.
So, I like Bill Nelson a lot more than John Kelly.
Stephen P Anderson
I was wondering how a Trump lover thought. Now you have shown me clearly that you don’t think.
Really sad. A conman dictator like Trump that grifts you for money and you worship him like he is a god.
Trump does not love country or Constitution. He is a total me only person a lying grifter. You are willing to send your money to the cult of Trump.
I am not a leftist but I see you as much of an enemy of the US as I see the radical left.
You are completely radicalized so you only see extreme left or right . I am a middle road science type person who wants evidence.
The extreme right and left are both bad in my view. Communist is far left, the evil South American dictators were far right.
It is obvious you are too far into the Trump-Savior Cult to hope for rational thought from you. I am sad this can happen to people but you are just as bad as the far left, no better and just as radical with no free thought of your own.
One day when you wake up and see Trump for what he is, a manipulating, lying, power hungry jerk, let me know. Some have come out from under the darkness that his shadow casts. You are not there yet. Maybe after you give him a few more thousand dollars and he does nothing for you, then you will know what most know about Trump. Including people who worked closely with him for 17 months (General Kelly) and saw his horrid behavior on a daily basis. General Kelly is not a turncoat, he is a hero whisle blower that you are too deluded to see.
“Trump loves our country and the Constitution.”
Uhh, if so, then he would not have demanded that his Vice President violate the Constitution!
But he certainly did.
He would not have encouraged people to submit fake Elector Certificates that were not authorized by their States.
But he certainly did!
C’mon Stephen, quit ignoring inconvenient facts.
Nate,
You need to read and understand the Constitution instead of blabbering nonsense. The state legislators decide who the states’ electors are and not the courts. The VP’s role is not ceremonial. He doesn’t just rubber-stamp the electors especially if they’re questionable. You need to read some history. The Democrats committed many unconstitutional acts to win the last election.
“The state legislators decide who the states electors are.”
Exactly.
The current President doesnt get to appoint them, Stephen!
“The VPs role is not ceremonial. He doesnt just rubber-stamp the electors especially if theyre questionable. ”
Here’s what it actually says in the 12th amendment, Stephen:
“The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed”
FYI, the Vice President is the ‘President of the Senate’.
Note that it says nothing about this person doing anything other than opening the certificates and counting!
What if there are two slates of electors? Who decides about which slate to count?
>Note that it says nothing about…..
You leftist propagandists are funny. I argue that the Constitution doesn’t expect the VP and the Congress to be just automatons about the Electors, and you agree, and then you turn around and argue the opposite. If you understand how the Constitution was written, you’d know the founders didn’t expect the VP to be an automaton and the Congress only sit there quietly. In that article, there were implicit checks and balances about choosing the electors from the States to Congress. What if Congress believed several states sent bad slates of electors so that those bad states decide the election? Did you know that whole slates of electors have been thrown out in the past?
Norman,
You keep confusing Trump with Biden and conflating reality. You might seriously consider getting your brain checked.
“I argue that the Constitution doesnt expect the VP ”
You suggested I needed to read the Constitution.
As I showed, the Constitution is absolutely clear about what the VP is expected to do. It expects him to count the votes.
But clearly facts don’t matter to you Stephen.
Nate,
If all the VP does is open the bag and count them then where is the check? You claim to understand the Constitution and our system.
According to the Constitution, which you claimed matters, that is all the VP does. Obviously that is why Pence refused Trumps demands.
Congress OTOH has other powers..
I’ve asked you several questions, and you keep giving me the same dumb answer. That’s why Pence isn’t a contender in the Republican primary. We see him for what he is.
You asked me to read the Constitution to find what the VPs role is. I did exactly that, Stephen. You clearly don’t like the answer given by the Constitution, and think it is a “dumb answer”.
Its plainly obvious that the facts about what the Constitution says doesnt matter a bit to you.
Just as it didn’t matter at all to Trump.
— RFK JR. MAKES IT OFFICIAL: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announces hes running as an independent after being snubbed by Democrats.–
https://instapundit.com/
It was good to clear that up. There is majority of independent voters- because both parties continue to screw up.
One might say Dems do it a lot more- but it’s a tough call.
A tough call indeed:
> Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision or judgment. Today’s announcement is deeply saddening for us. We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country.
https://twitter.com/KerryKennedyRFK/status/1711419719683559659?s=20
If RFK Jr. doesn’t have the same “values, vision and judgment” of JFK, that would be a good thing….
Not sure why you’d consider lying as a good thing, Pupman.
Oh, wait.
Lying? That’s something you leftists know a lot about, huh Wingnut?
How do you know if politicians are lying?
Their lips are moving.
How do you know if “climate scientists” are lying?
They’re calling themselves “climate scientists”.
Don’t tell me you’re a politician, Mike Flynn.
OK. I won’t.
But if I was a politician, would I be telling the truth?
Exactly.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Blocking the polar vortex over the Bering Sea is causing cold air to flow into California and the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/MZ0BrGV/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Cold fronts are descending over California from the north, which will bring snowfall in the high mountains.
Related…
Israel has the most sophisticated surveillance and intelligence systems in the world.
In 2017, Trump gleefully blabbed Israel’s top secrets to Ρutin’s Pals. Israeli intelligence worried that the intel could end up in the hands of Iran.
TRE45ON: https://imgur.com/a/F1mTRKY
Alon Arvatz, a former member of Israel’s Unit 8200, which is responsible for the military’s signals intelligence, said “they [Hamas] obviously learned how the intelligence is being collected, and they learned how to avoid it.”
“Israel has the most sophisticated surveillance and intelligence systems in the world.”
Which turned out to be unfit for purpose.
There must be a moral in there somewhere, but maybe you could help me out by pointing it out.
Sure, but first, answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer sh!ts little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
A,
Are you testing Willard’s gibberish generator for him?
Or are you just naturally silly?
In that story, Mike, horses, cows, and deers generate something entirely different.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Does lightning strike on Venus? Maybe not, study suggests
by Staff Writers
Boulder OC (SPX) Oct 04, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Does_lightning_strike_on_Venus_Maybe_not_study_suggests_999.html
–Venus may be a (slightly) gentler place than some scientists give it credit for.
In new research, space physicists at the University of Colorado Boulder have jumped into a surprisingly long-running debate in solar system science: Does lightning strike on the second planet from the sun?
The team’s results add strong new evidence suggesting that, no, you probably wouldn’t see bolts of lightning flashing from Venus’ thick, acidic clouds-or, at least, not very often.
“There’s been debate about lightning on Venus for close to 40 years,” said Harriet George, lead author of the new study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP). “Hopefully, with our newly available data, we can help to reconcile that debate.”–
…
–“It’s very rare that new scientific instruments make it to Venus,” said Malaspina, assistant professor at LASP and the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences. “We don’t get a lot of chances to do this kind of interesting research.”
…
If Venus’ whistler waves have a similar origin, then the planet might be a monster of lightning, experiencing roughly seven times more strikes than Earth. Scientists have also spotted lightning on Saturn and Jupiter.–
7 times more than Earth or perhaps, nada.
Big difference.
Nate and some of the other GHE cultists cannot accept reality. They correctly quote John Tyndall “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”, but do not understand it.
Tyndall pointed out that only 70% of the Sun’s radiation actually reaches the surface, due to the presence of the atmosphere.
He also pointed out that the same atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling at night, and points out that at night, without an atmosphere, human life in England, for example, would be unsustainable. Temperatures would fall to those experienced on the Moon!
He was also aware that without an atmosphere, the surface would be far hotter – just like the Moon – over 100 C.
Once again, cultists turn “a tendency to accumulate heat” (using 19th century meanings), into “surface getting hotter”. As clear as night and day!
At least some of the cultists appear to be reading what Tyndall wrote, rather than just believing what somebody else said about his writings. That’s a start.
By the way, Tyndall disputed Kelvin’s calculations about the age of the Earth, but agreed it had cooled from a molten state. No heating due to any GHE there!
I like to mention that we are in the space age, but it would more correct to saying we might be in the beginning of the space age.
And Age refers to long period of time, thousands even millions of year into the future.
And also we in an Ice Age, the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which has been going on for last 33.9 million years- and it might continue for many more millions of years.
And once or if we become a spacefaring civilization, we will have access to infinite amounts energy {a far as human population is concerned or infinite if we had population of more than 1 trillion people and for millions of years.
When or if we become spacefaring depends on a few factors. We currently can’t live anywhere but on Earth. And things like artificial gravity could make this possible.
We also don’t know if water is mineable other than on Earth.
And there are perhaps unknown, which we don’t know about which could prevent this, are delay it for many decades, therefore, we haven’t actually yet begun the space age.
People assume, artificial gravity works, that water is mineable in space, and there isn’t any unknowns that could prevent it from happening anytime soon.
In terms being in an Ice Age, it doesn’t seem to me, that there enough evident Earth has colder than it has been, in the last million years. In terms being a spacefaring civilization, it would be quite easy for the civilization to make Earth colder or a lot warmer, or make small areas on Earth much warming or cooler than it is right, now. Or it Would be political choice.
Another thing is the Governments have spent trillion of dollar, saying they doing something about climate change. And quite obvious that they failed to do this over the many decades, and there is no reason the government can do anything about it, in coming decades, despite what they are promising with trillions of dollar wealth spend on it.
Anyhow, we going to explore the lunar polar region fairly soon, and we probably will be testing artificial gravity within the next 5 years.
Fotons For Dummies
https://youtu.be/k581_XpaTnU?t=827
“If you live in Fairbanks and like snow, it has been an October of plenty so far! Just shy of another half inch at our office today at UAF brings the season total to 7.1″. The climatological normal seasonal snowfall to date is 4.2″. How are you enjoying this snowier than normal start to October?”
And it’s only October. No melting ice from here on in.
The tropical storm passed over Mexico very quickly and is heading toward Florida.
https://i.ibb.co/HDRL9RJ/goes16-ir-gom.gif
A typhoon in the Philippine Sea has become a super typhoon. It does not threaten land.
https://i.ibb.co/18y77r0/himawari9-ir-15-W-202310111000.gif
I just noticed something odd that occurred in September 2023. The atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from August to September from 419.7 to 422.0 ppm. This is the first occurrence of this happening since at least 1979.
Good news. The El Niño is likely helping — outgassing extra CO2.
If we’re serious about “greening the planet”, we should all work together to get up to 600 ppm. 1000 ppm is probably not realistic, but no harm in trying….
Well, China is the world leader in that regards, and despite it’s falling population {it should be noted}. A lot countries population are falling, but largest populations are still rising. US population and Canadian population is increasing solely due to immigration.
And China and Japan {and South Korea} are falling due to lack of immigration due to their cultural values. The South Korea regard future fall in population as serious threat to their national security, and might do something about it. I would suggest ocean settlements.
September 2023: 418.51 ppm
September 2022: 415.91 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
If you just look these number the yearly increase is 2.6 ppm
But due to seasonal variations Sept 2023 is down from Aug 2023.
But Oct should/could be around 2.5 ppm increase compared to Sept, and coming months be in upswing, going up many months, then reach higher peak than last peak, and fall again.
Nope. That’s not right. September 2023 was 418.5 ppm. I’m not sure what I was looking at when I said 422.0.
It happens every year. Fall it goes up, spring it goes down. Its all about greenery in the NH.
bdg…what’s the error margin and how is it calculated? These studies and information outlets seldom offer that, like when NOAA declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability, which was hidden.
When you consider the size of the atmosphere and the fact that the CO2 molecule, being heavier, naturally sinks to the bottom of a mixed gas like air, it’s highly unlikely that the amount of CO2 can be pegged any better that +/- 50 ppmv. I think that’s being generous.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Daytime temperatures on the Moon are approximately in radiative equilibrium. For slowly rotating bodies with low thermal inertias like the Moon, heat diffusion models predict surface temperatures at the equator within ∼1 K of radiative equilibrium between local time hours 8 and 16 (i.e. incidence angles < 60) (Vasavada et al., 2012, Bandfield et al., 2015). Maximum temperatures therefore occur at noon and will depend on the albedo while being sensitive to the orbital and celestial geometry. The minimum temperatures will occur just prior to local sunrise and are dependent on the thermophysical properties of the near-surface.
Maximum and minimum global surface temperature maps are shown in Fig. 18. The mean temperature at the equator is 215.5 K with an average maximum of 392.3 K and average minimum of 94.3 K (Fig. 19), representing an average change in temperature of ∼300 K. Average maximum and minimum temperatures in the polar regions (poleward of 85) are 202 K and 50 K respectively with a mean average temperature 104 K. Mean maximum temperatures in the south polar region are ∼11 K warmer than the north polar region, however the average minimum temperatures are the same at both poles. This discrepancy is likely due to differences in the distribution and configuration of the topography which is the dominant control of polar temperatures on the Moon. The south polar topography is more rugged, displaying a larger range of elevations (Smith et al., 2010). The maximum solar declination of 1.54 results in surfaces that are permanently shadowed down to roughly 60 latitude (McGovern et al., 2013, Siegler et al., 2015). Though a larger surface fraction of the south polar region is in permanent shadow compared to the north polar region, the larger topography range responsible for this results in generally more favorable illumination conditions for equator facing slopes than in the north (Mazarico et al., 2011b).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869
If my online calculator is correct, 215.5 K is -57C.
Sky Dragon cranks who believe that without an atmosphere, the surface would be far hotter (“just like the Moon”), may have some explaining to do.
The atmosphere is only a minor player. The elephant in the room is the thermal mass of oceans.
You’ve got a lot to learn, silly willy.
Yes, the oceans, which cover 70% of the surface and the degree of direct sunlight. Dry air is transparent to solar radiation. Only oxygen in the stratosphere and areosols in the troposphere can trap some of the sun’s radiation. The stratosphere stops a great part of the shortest UV radiation, so we can exist.
Yes why, the oceans. What is known to be everywhere in the universe where there’s no atmosphere.
You guys are brilliant.
On planets that have no atmosphere, radiation and temperatures take on extremes between day and night. Earth doesn’t have a thick troposphere either.
“Earth doesnt have a thick troposphere either.”
If Earth had more atmosphere, it would have a more uniform temperature, and might have a warmer average temperature, but Earth would be colder. Not colder in sense of having -50 C or colder,
but 15 C air temperature would be colder.
“What is known to be everywhere in the universe where theres no atmosphere.”
Brilliant example of the Willard gibberish generator in action.
Asked for the reason for global warming, it responds “Not cooling, slower cooling”!
[derisive snorts]
When confronted with the fact that the Moon is a tad colder than he recently presumed, Mike Flynn stumbles, falls on his face, and laughs for the crowd.
What a buffoon!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Maximum temperature on the airless Moon exceeds 125 C. Maximum temperature on the Earth is less than 100 C.
The atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Sun’s rays from reaching the surface.
Your gibberish generator is functioning well.
Mike Flynn,
The mean temperature at the equator of the Moon is 215.5 K with an average maximum of 392.3 K and average minimum of 94.3 K.
Do you know of any place on Earth where it’s less than 100 C during night time?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Maximum temperature on the airless Moon exceeds 125 C. Maximum temperature on the Earth is less than 100 C.
The atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns rays from reaching the surface.
Your gibberish generator is functioning well.
Why are you babbling about an average minimum? Is this your GHE in action “Not cooling, slower cooling”?
Go on, tell me how the GHE makes thermometers hotter by making them colder! Tut, tut, Willy, maybe someone believes you – in some alternate universe, perhaps.
Yes, Mike. The atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns rays from reaching the surface. And the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also prevent some heat from going out to space during the night.
You always miss that bit, yet you always rely on the best example of this phenomenon: deserts.
What a joker.
WRONG silly willy.
Your mis-named “greenhouse gases” don’t “prevent some heat from going out to space during the night”.
Radiative gases emit energy to space regardless of day/night.
You don’t understand any to this, child.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Why is it colder on clear nights than on cloudy nights?
Low clouds have a warming effect, especially at night.
But clouds ain’t made from CO2.
What will you try next?
Clouds are made of the same thing as greenhouse gases, Pupman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
At least you’re not a chemistry denier.
Yeah, you don’t understand any of this. Maybe one more time, with emphasis:
Low clouds have a warming effect, especially at night.
But clouds ain’t made from CO2.
What will you try next?
I’m glad you agree that greenhouse gases exist, Pupman.
Riddle me this –
How does your “ocean absorbs heat” work in a desert, or for that matter in a city?
“Low clouds have a warming effect, especially at night.”
Why do they?
Strange that you get that, while you deny that the GP has a warming effect on the BP!
Oh good, here comes Nate to play in the street with silly willy.
Please slow down — Children at Play!
Can’t answer my riddle, Pupman?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Daytime temperatures on the Moon are approximately in radiative equilibrium. For slowly rotating bodies with low thermal inertias like the Moon, heat diffusion models predict surface temperatures at the equator within ∼1 K of radiative equilibrium …”
***
The temps are not in thermal equilibrium for the simple reason that incoming solar enters a lot faster than the lower temperature Moon can emit them. The quote states they are in approximate equilibrium and approximate is good only in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Radiation at cooler temperature is a poor means of heat dissipation. That’s why the Earth is hotter than it should be, radiation simply cannot rid the surface of heat as fast as it is created by solar energy.
Enter conduction/convection. Both remove heat from the surface and dissipate it naturally as the heated air rises, 260 times better than radiation. The Moon lacks both and gets a lot hotter, just as the Earth would without them, despite radiation.
The second part of the quote reveals how incorrectly programmed models output garbage (GIGO).
Cool story, Bordo.
The paper provided measurements. It’s not a model-based estimate.
Nice try!
Wee Willy Wanker,
Gordon quoted part of your reference “heat diffusion models predict . . . “.
You don’t like it, bad luck.
You don’t like the measurements, showing that allowing more radiation to reach a thermometer makes it hotter, bully for you!
Maybe if you deny reality hard enough and often enough, it might go away – is tha5 what you think?
[shakes head sadly at ignorant nitwit]
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting that heat diffusion models have been incorrectly programmed?
Buffoon.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Gordon quoted part of your reference heat diffusion models predict . . . .
You dont like it, bad luck.
You dont like the measurements, showing that allowing more radiation to reach a thermometer makes it hotter, bully for you!
Maybe if you deny reality hard enough and often enough, it might go away is tha5 what you think?
[shakes head sadly at ignorant nitwit]
Bordo’s claim about heat diffusion models being incorrectly “programmed” is ridiculous, Mike.
But so are you.
So do continue.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
You are absurdly wrong. Why must it be so with you. I will ask again and again you will not answer (but your asshole buddy probably will butt in, it is what assholes need to do…if you get the pun), Do you understand emissivity? No you do not.
You are 100% wrong to suggest and instrument intentionally designed to greatly reduce the effects of radiant heat transfer is comparable to Earth’s surface with an emissivity over 0.95.
Not sure why your brain is so unable to learn and think, maybe you are really old and can only regurgitate the same old ideas. I guess an old dog cannot learn new tricks.
On your Moon thinking. Bad logic. First the Moon spins very slowly so the same surface area is exposed to direct sunlight much longer than on Earth. Second the surface of the Moon only gets high enough where it absorbs the solar input of around 1300 W/m^2 than the surface is hot enough that it radiates away the same amount of energy in the IR band as it is receiving in the visible land of EMR. You really don’t know any actual science do you. One thing I am sure of is that you never have taken a college physics class. There is no way you could pass any test with your ignorant unscientific ideas. You would have flunked out. Making up ideas is not science. It works for you and your asshole buddy, the rest of us need actual evidence of some kind.
I haven’t consider ocean settlements near South Korea.
So, I thought I would.
The ocean is fairly shallow:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Schematic-of-the-bathymetry-of-Yellow-Sea-and-the-location-of-YSG1-The-background_fig1_309642395
And South Korea average yearly air temperature, is… about 13 C
or warmer than expected and it would reflect the ocean near. I wouldn’t put in Yellow Sea, or not west, but south of South Korea.
And near or at 100 meters or more of ocean depth.
Where put would have with transportation issues. And where you would put a sub-orbital spaceport- which also favors south.
But also other transportation means. One needs ferry and also want to close to medical and other land infrastructure {shopping or whatever}. Oh almost forget, you want good waves to surf, also.
Another transportation thing is hyperloop type {tunnels/pipes in the water] so going places in South Korea but also going to Japan. It’s like a high speed train travel but going tens of meters below ocean surface. Or if in shallow water you have dig tunnel or go above the ocean {interfering with oceanic surface transport}.
Anyways these would be high density residential living which don’t have cars driving onto or within the ocean settlement- it’s bikes or walking. And any cars would be parked and used on the mainland- so not a car ferry. though one can have airport and park any flying {I assume electrical} planes for short distance travel.
The ocean settlement would have do waste water treatment, and non residential “ocean settlement” could waste water treatment and electrical powerplants {including and mostly thinking of nuclear powerplants] which would be say 2 km or more away from residential ocean settlements. Or airports {other medical helicopter service] and powerplants and other infrastructure other ferry service are not close to residential area. And want parks and public beaches and lakes in residential ocean settlements.
So, in terms South Koreans, the ocean settlements would be about a sub-orbital spaceport. And the sub-orbital spaceport would further away from residential ocean settlement than say wastewater treatment, electrical powerplant and/or airport {or these could between the suborbital spaceport and residential ocean settlement. But from mainland you might travel first to residential ocean settlement on the way to spaceport {or not}. Other than Spaceport, ocean settlement could related to water waste treatment for towns and cities on Land. And also electrical power production for towns and cites on land. And a surfing area for people living on the mainland.
–NEVER UNDERESTIMATE JOES ABILITY TO F*** THINGS UP: The U.S. Money Trail With Iran Is Worse Than You Think.–
https://instapundit.com/
{: as President, Obama, said.}
More about Biden:
“BIDENOMICS WORKING AS WELL AS CARTERNOMICS: 1970s-style stagflation may be at risk of repeating itself, Deutsche Bank warns.”
My weather, today, high, 69 F and low 43 F.
Tomorrow is warmer and colder: 79 F and 42 F.
I got to bring my lemon tree in.
But just for a day or two, according to forecast.
What more annoying is it’s quite windy, 26 mph, today and
much less windy tomorrow. It’s near noon, and cold and windy.
I am a day late, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S08UUImvXZs
Israel Prepares For Invasion – Update 10.10.2023
I just started listening to it
Still listening. But one should keep in mind North Korea is puppet state of China- anything North Korea does is caused by China.
And they say they going to talk about North Korea and South Korea- but I wanted to mention this obvious fact about North Korea.
Whatever it’s doing {I haven’t heard about yet} is completely China’s doing.
Israeli Military Takes Out High Ranking Hamas Leader – War Rages On
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rme_KQ9lmmA
So, this is just 30 mins old.
And Biden goes on right side war.
And they mention, again BLM, is on wrong side.
So, just started listening and they started by saying something good about Joe Biden our US commander in chief.
This quick two-minute quiz gives you a solid indication of how vulnerable you may be to being duped by the kind of fabricated news that is flooding online spaces.
The test is being deployed to determine how susceptible Americans are to fake headlines.
Younger adults seem to be worse than older adults at identifying false headlines, and the more time someone spends online recreationally, the less likely they are to be able to tell real news from misinformation.
You can test yourself at: https://yourmist.streamlit.app/
So, first I googled: Dr Rakoen Maertens
first link didn’t work
Second one got me to:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/susceptibility-to-misinformation-is-consistent-across-question-framings-and-response-modes-and-better-explained-by-myside-bias-and-partisanship-than-analytical-thinking/1121D46E918815B2CD7A9C6C237464A2
So, it’s something, anyhow.
Now I might do the test. Mainly because first link didn’t work:)
Good try!
📈 Your MIST-16 results: 13/16
Veracity Discernment: 62.5% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)
Real News Detection: 87.5% (ability to correctly identify real news)
Fake News Detection: 75.0% (ability to correctly identify fake news)
Distrust/Navit: +1 (ranges from -8 to +8, overly skeptical to overly gullible)
👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is good! You might be a bit trusting when it comes to the news.
Well, headlines are generally are not the story- I expect some or a lot of hyper. So don’t trust headline which the writer may not have made- or can’t judge by just the headline.
🎉 Congratulations!
You’re more resilient to misinformation than 81% of the US population!
📈 Your MIST-20 results: 18/20
Veracity Discernment: 80% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)
Real News Detection: 80% (ability to correctly identify real news)
Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)
Distrust/Navit: -2 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)
👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit skeptical when it comes to the news.
I am generally skeptical, so I accept the result. I think it was probably more of a test to see if you have a liberal leaning/acceptance. I try to stay inform, but mostly fake news is more easy to intensify for a skeptic.
Only my second try:
🎉 Congratulations!
You’re more resilient to misinformation than 96% of the US population!
📈 Your MIST-20 results: 20/20
Veracity Discernment: 100% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)
Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)
Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)
Distrust/Navit: 0 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)
👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.
That makes two of us (mine first try) – less than 60 seconds –
You’re more resilient to misinformation than 96% of the US population!
📈 Your MIST-20 results: 20/20
Veracity Discernment: 100% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)
Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)
Fake News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify fake news)
Distrust/Navit: 0 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)
👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You are neither too skeptical nor too gullible when it comes to the news.
Fairly pointless, but no doubt the authors have to get funding from somewhere. Otherwise, they would have to work for a living. Only joking.
archie…what do you mean by fabricated news? I presume that is based on your current belief system.
Better to discard all belief systems and not know, then you are free to investigate.
Gordon Robertson
Too bad you do not take your own advice. You peddle your belief systems about heat transfer and radiant energy emission.
You think radiant energy can’t go both ways and will not research your incorrect thoughts and change them.
You don’t understand that dipole motion works and there is a whole science based upon it. No you just continue your very limited knowledge of Bohr model (and it is just a MODEL an idea of how electrons move up and down energy gradients).
You research nothing and only peddle your beliefs. You don’t even attempt to reject any of your made up beliefs.
Norman, how many “square orbits” are there in our solar system?
Clint R
Better question is what makes you an asshole? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Yes child, your immaturity is more important to you than science.
No problem….
Clint R
Sounds like you will just stay an asshole. I think it happened to you when you were a toddler being potty trained. Something happened there and you grew into a full scale asshole.
Yes child, your blatant immaturity is more important to you than science.
No problem….
You all fell for a fake test
From my perspective, there are three categories of questions. Some of the questions are obviously real, some are obviously fake, and others require knowledge of the subject. The choice of what questions to ask in any such “test” will depend on what the testers are trying to achieve and have some impact on the results.
that was fun
Congratulations!
You’re more resilient to misinformation than 89% of the US population!
📈 Your MIST-20 results: 19/20
Veracity Discernment: 90% (ability to accurately distinguish real news from fake news)
Real News Detection: 100% (ability to correctly identify real news)
Fake News Detection: 90% (ability to correctly identify fake news)
Distrust/Navit: +1 (ranges from -10 to +10, overly skeptical to overly gullible)
👉 Your ability to recognize real and fake news is great! You might be a bit trusting when it comes to the news.
I believe that during the winter in the northern hemisphere, the falling in northeast Pacific jet stream will push equatorial precipitation toward Australia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
kooling ahead
https://youtu.be/JKR006-lwJA
This problem was presented a couple of weeks ago. None of the cult was able to answer correctly:
Two bricks, side-by-side at 288K and emissivity 1, would be emitting 390 W/m^2. An ideal IR thermometer right above the two bricks would indicate that value.
If one brick was at 273K emitting 315 W/m^2, and the other was at 303K emitting 478 W/m^2, what would the same instrument indicate?
a. 273K
b. 288K
c. 289K
d. 303K
e. 344K
Where are you Nate, Norman, Willard, bob, Folkerts, barry, Ent, Ant, Ark, and hateful Ken? You tr0ll here constantly, claiming a knowledge of science. So, let’s see it.
(Answer and discussion by Saturday.)
clint, please stop tr0lling.
Somebody is impersonating me again. Not sure why that’s deemed to be acceptable. Pretty sure other people would be up in arms if someone commented using their name.
Hey, you impersonate a member of my “moderation team”. What’s the difference? -Roy
I don’t expect anybody to believe that you actually have an “Emergency Moderation Team”, Dr Spencer. I assume that people can tell it’s a joke.
> Hey, you impersonate a member of my moderation team. Whats the difference? -Roy
Gaslighting Graham won’t take the hint.
Little Willy sees an opportunity to start an anti-DREMT thread, so leaps into action immediately.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham should take the hint:
“Hey, you impersonate a member of my moderation team. Whats the difference? -Roy”
I’m not Roy.
I know you’re not Roy.
This is a classic response:
“Hey, you impersonate a member of my moderation team. Whats the difference? -Roy”
First, it shows how tolerant Roy is of fakers and his dedication to free speech. I have been wondering why someone who represents Roy would be preaching anti-science, and now I know the answer. Like many of the low-life who take advantage of the freedoms on this site, you do a lot of harm. Too many people cannot tell the difference between fake and real.
Are you talking to me, Tim S?
Tim S appears to be addressing the one who is impersonating DREMT. I’m basing that on his use of “low-life”.
Ah, that would make sense…since posting using someone else’s identity is probably the lowest thing you can do online. It makes a mockery of the whole site, making people question if anyone’s posts are really from the person they claim to be.
[TS] I have been wondering why someone who represents Roy would be preaching anti-science, and now I know the answer.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Are you talking to me, TS?
[PUPMAN] TS appears to be addressing the one who is impersonating Gaslighting Graham.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Ah, that would make sense…
Well, yeah, that’s what made me wonder if he was talking about me (not that I do represent Dr Spencer in any way, but if Tim S thought I did…)
…but I don’t “preach anti-science”, I’m not a “lowlife” and I don’t “do a lot of harm”. So it seemed more like he was describing you, Little Willy.
TS comments on a quote in Gaslighting Graham’s comment.
Gaslighting Graham wonders TS is talking about another comment.
Classic Gaslighting Graham.
Is it you who keeps impersonating me, Little Willy?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice, Little Willy.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows the response already.
But he’s willing to do everything to deflect from the idea that TS was referring to his impersonator makes no sense whatsoever.
Fine. I guess Tim S was talking about me. He should have been directing his ire at the impersonator, though. Or you, assuming the impersonator isn’t you.
Are you the impersonator?
Since Gaslighting Graham knows what TS should talk about, perhaps he should personify Dr. Roy’s Ventriloquist Team too.
TS has a point regarding fakers like Gaslighting Graham, Pupman, and Mike Flynn.
I am allowed to express the opinion that what the impersonator does, and what you do, is far worse than my supposed crimes. Thus, in my opinion, Tim S should be directing his ire towards you. That does not mean I am speaking for anybody. It just means I am expressing that opinion.
Are you the impersonator? The more you dodge the question, the more suspicious you look.
Gaslighting Graham is allowed to gaslight again.
#5
Are you the impersonator?
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham impersonates himself.
Besides impersonating a moderator, it should go without saying.
#6
Are you the impersonator?
Here could be one theory –
Gaslighting Graham goes on a round of PST.
He mindlessly PSTs Pupman.
Big mistake.
So he creates another scene.
Sounds plausible to me.
More plausible than I put a sock, that’s for sure.
#7
Are you the impersonator?
Suppose Roy himself took Gaslighting Graham’s “borrowed” nickname.
Would he be an “impersonator”?
#8
Are you the impersonator?
If Roy himself used Gaslighting Graham’s “borrowed” nickname, I think I would say that Gaslighting Graham is the impersonator.
#9
Are you the impersonator?
[note how Little Willy always refuses to answer any question, no matter how straightforward]
Roy’s comment clearly presupposes the belief that Gaslighting Graham is an impersonator.
(Readers will note that Gaslighting Graham will *still* pretend we’re in speaking terms by asking a leading question to which he already knows the answer.)
#10
Are you the impersonator?
[readers will wonder why, if we are apparently not on speaking terms, we spend so much time locked into pointless back and forths]
Deep down Gaslighting Graham knows that Roy’s comment criticized his impersonation.
(Readers will notice how he will ignore that criticism and keep deflecting.)
#11
Are you the impersonator?
[Dr Spencer suggested I was impersonating a member of his moderation team, yes. I explained why I didn’t think that was the case (the "Emergency" is a bit of a giveaway that it’s not to be taken seriously). That’s the end of that]
Roy’s criticism applies even if regulars know that he is impersonating a moderator for adolescent lulz.
He is still impersonating. So he *is* an impersonator.
(Readers will note how Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.)
#12
Are you the impersonator?
[don’t care. Never going to change my name. Deal with it]
Gaslighting Graham could take this opportunity to reflect on Roy’s suggestion that he should stop impersonating a moderator.
(Readers will note that I am speaking to them, not to Gaslighting Graham, who has a “message” to preach. ROFLCOPTER.)
#13
Are you the impersonator?
[I don’t see where that suggestion was made, nor do I accept that in any serious sense I am "impersonating a moderator". What readers will note is that, exactly as I said, Little Willy saw an opportunity to start an anti-DREMT thread, and ran with it]
[ROY] Hey, you impersonate a member of my moderation team.
is a criticism. It implicates that Gaslighting Graham should try to find a more decent handle.
#14
Are you the impersonator?
[happy with my name, thanks anyway]
(Readers will notice how, now that he can’t play dumb anymore, Gaslighting Graham deflects once again.)
#15
Are you the impersonator?
[Dr Spencer criticised me, I responded. There is nothing more to be said]
(Readers will note that Gaslighting Graham responded “happy with my name, thanks anyway,” which goes on the reveal the little Machiavellian that he is.)
I’ve asked you the question 15 times, and you failed to answer. Unbelievable.
[ROY] Hey, you impersonate a member of my moderation team.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Happy with my name, thanks anyway.
Unbelievable indeed.
That was a response to you, not Dr Spencer, Little Willy. I am not changing my name because you want me to.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Nothing else needs to be said.
Little Willy gaslights again.
Nothing else needs to be said.
Looks like Mike Flynn has more things to say.
So I helped him out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546348
Big whoop.
> freedoms on this site
For what it’s worth, Pupman has been banned many times from this site. He came back with under other socks. Then Roy got tired. Same for Dug.
Mike Flynn is a different case. He has been only told off, and he obliged. But then he returned under various socks. His inimitable style always outs him.
So our Dark Triad trio of Sky Dragon cranks is composed of three sock puppets.
Bordo is a special case. He makes so outrageous claims that it’s hard to believe anyone could take him srsly. A bit like gb. We would leave him alone (except for Binny) if he stopped pulling people in. And even then most commenters ignore him most of the time.
So here we are, Gaslighting Graham trying to gaslight his way out of Roy’s indirect request.
Ah, Little Willy, the hero of his own story, the “ninja” bravely battling against the evil Dark Triad and the Forces of the Sky Dragon Cranks (in reality, just perfectly decent people who happen to disagree with him about the science behind AGW).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He and his buddies ain’t no ordinary contrarians. They’re cranks who deny the greenhouse effect. At least when they are not describing it.
We need better contrarians, and Sky Dragons ain’t it.
“The science behind AGW” does include the GHE, yes.
Most contrarians believe in AGW.
Roy believes in AGW.
Only cranks do not.
Super tolerant, Little Willy.
Roy has written dozens of posts asking contrarians to stop falling for Sky Dragon cranks crap.
Sky Dragon cranks persist.
Dr Spencer is tolerant. You are not.
Sky Dragon cranks are more persistent than Roy.
Perhaps “Sky Dragon Cranks” feel that the message that there is no GHE is an important one.
“Message”
ROFL
What’s funny about that?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546217
OTT? If anything I’m under the top.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546231
Huh? The linking stopped working there, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His “message” obviously carries some kind of apostolate.
LMAO
“But Religion”, Little Willy?
And here is where Gaslighting Graham playing dumb meets Gaslighting Graham playing dumb:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546255
Wrong.
A fixed point meets another fixed point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546254
If you say so, Little Willy.
When silly willy isn’t playing in the street, he’s trying to write some kind of gossip column.
Kids these days….
Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this –
Why are you still on a website whose owner banned you multiple times?
The riddle, silly willy, is why do you have such an adolescent fascination with me?
The riddle is rather who’s responding to whom here, Pupman.
When you write comments calling people out, expect them to respond. Yes, you do seem to have an adolescent fascination with Clint R, Swenson, Gordon and myself. I would call it an obsession.
DREMPT,
He’s strange, for sure. Trying to convince all and sundry that I should be using a pseudonym of Wee Willy’s choice – God alone knows why! Wee Willy certainly doesn’t – or if he has a reason, he’s keeping it secret.
But hey, Wee Willy’s failures at mental gymnastics, (claiming the GHE can be described as “Not cooling, slower cooling”), gives people even just a little brighter than Willard an opportunity to feel good about themselves!
Even people like Wee Willy were created for a reason – God definitely moves in mysterious ways.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s what obsession looks like:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/25/unprecedented-arctic-warming/#comment-404627
By 2013 you were already pestering people about a description of the greenhouse effect.
By the same time you already knew the answer.
So what are you braying about?
Yes, he’s a strange one, Swenson. He’ll probably demonstrate how obsessed he is by linking to some comment from years ago that he believes to be written by you.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
False.
Here is the tell:
“he believes to be written”
Well, you do believe it to be written by Swenson. Yes?
Readers will recognize that Gaslighting Graham’s “believes” minimizes all the evidence I provided that established beyond any reasonable doubt tbat one of our Dark Triad is indeed the one who commented at Judy’s under the name “Mike Flynn” more than a decade ago.
“Dark Triad”. Lol.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546211
What’s funny is how completely OTT you are.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546221
No, you’re definitely OTT, Little Willy. Referring to people you dislike as a "Dark Triad" (to deliberately associate them with negative psychological traits) is way, way OTT.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546243
(Readers will know how Gaslighting Graham is still replying to himself.)
My criticism of you has nothing to do with religion, Little Willy.
It took a while for Gaslighting Graham to display his Machiavellian self, but here it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546241
Wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546279
If you say so, Little Willy.
“Mike Flynn is a different case. He has been only told off, and he obliged.”
Oh come on, Wee Willy, you claimedMike Flynn had been banned. That’s why you tried your hardest to manipulate Dr Spencer into “banning” me! Unless you had some other cryptic and obscure reason, I suppose.
As an example of being a complete and utter peabrained SkyDragon cultist you would be hard to beat! Luckily, I have no interest in entering that particular race.
Are you still sticking with your GHE description “Not cooling, slower cooling”? How about still claiming that the Earth’s surface, being subject to 30% less solar radiation than the Moon, gets hotter – for some magical reason based on “not cooling, slower cooling”?
“So here we are, Gaslighting Graham trying to gaslight his way out of Roys indirect request.” Really? How’s that social engineering working out for you? Can you name one person who values your opinion?
I thought not, you funny little fellow. Keep the laughs coming. I enjoy a bit of unintended humour from time to time. Others no doubt have their own opinions. It’s a free world – from time to time.
Carry on carrying on.
swenson…”Oh come on, Wee Willy, you claimedMike Flynn had been banned”.
***
Wee willy is pretty dense. He posts the name Mike Flynn all the time and it posts OK. You can’t do that with anyone who has been banned.
Mike Flynn,
I said that Roy told you off. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
And that right after he told Pupman off:
Pupman got his name blacklisted. You had the decency to disappear for while. But then you came back.
So what are you braying about?
I don’t object to being associated with some of those commenters from the past, although I don’t know about all of their comments.
I do reject the nonsense from Dxug Cxttxn. Not only was he obsessed with Spencer, but he didn’t have a clue about 2LoT. I had to do some research to find about the Postman guy, that silly willy and Norman keep mentioning. It turns out he is a Canadian blogger that viciously attacked Roy, years ago. I don’t understand why some Skeptics strive to attack other Skeptics. It’s not just for the money, as Gordon and Ken aren’t making any money by attacking Skeptics here. Maybe it’s just a Canadian thing?
Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/comet-ison-time-lapse-video-take-2/#comment-93013
Dis U?
Who cares?
Silly willy, why would you play here all day, avoiding any chance to learn some science?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545862
Isn’t that kinda childish?
Can’t answer my riddle, Pupman?
Tell me if you want me to find previous times you tried to spam your current puzzler.
“I dont expect anybody to believe that you actually have an Emergency Moderation Team, Dr Spencer. I assume that people can tell its a joke.”
Its all a joke, unless someone plays a joke on narcissist. Then its becomes a serious crime, apparently.
I wonder if anyone is going to be able to focus on the actual comment that started this thread. Clint R’s question about the bricks.
They are running from it. They pretend they know science, but they’ve never been able to answer simple problems.
(Answer and discussion tomorrow.)
Clint’s question about bricks has been ably answered multiple times on many different threads. It has nothing to do with climate anyway.
Like I said, they’re running from it.
… while laughing, having ably answered.
The dog ate Ball4’s answer, and he can’t find it any more. Pity.
There is no dog, it’s a real pity Swenson can’t even understand the earthen GHE physics, nor understand the top post measuring earthen warming. Sadly, that means Swenson would not then ever ably find or understand correct answers to Clint’s added brick questions.
Ball4,
Have you borrowed Willard’s gibberish generator?
Earthen GHE physics?
Keep babbling.
Mike Flynn,
I doubt B4 means that the greenhouse effect is made of clay.
I think he is referring to the greenhouse effect we can witness on Earth, as compared to (say) the greenhouse effect on Venus.
Hope this helps.
I wonder if Mike Flynn will tell Pupman that he’s just attempting to be annoying by pretending to be seeking knowledge.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this
Why are you still on a website whose owner banned you multiple times?”
Oooooooh! Trying a spot of social engineering, are you? What’s up? Dr Spencer not interested in your attempts at manipulation? You are so incompetent, you couldn’t even get yourself banned! How pathetic is that?
Nobody would mind, if you could actually describe the GHE which you claim other people have – your silly “Not cooling, slower cooling” just makes you look as unintelligent as you are.
Keep it up.
> your silly “Not cooling, slower cooling”
This line is all yours, Mike Flynn, but perhaps you prefer:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/18/uncertainty-in-arctic-temperatures/#comment-415569
Since you yourself wrote this, you must agree that reducing the rate of cooling of an object then it is going to be warmer than it otherwise would have been, and if it is still receiving a constant heat source then its temperature will increase in absolute terms.
At least that’s why I suppose you have not replied to Andrew Adams.
So what are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this
Why are you still on a website whose owner banned you multiple times?”
Oooooooh! Trying a spot of social engineering, are you? Whats up? Dr Spencer not interested in your attempts at manipulation? You are so incompetent, you couldnt even get yourself banned! How pathetic is that?
Nobody would mind, if you could actually describe the GHE which you claim other people have your silly Not cooling, slower cooling just makes you look as unintelligent as you are.
I agree with Mike Flynn that “Interposing any matter between the source of energy (the Sun), and the target (the Earth), reduces the amount of energy available to the target.”, because it is a fact.
That’s why the surface of the Moon can reach over 125 C, while the Earth, receiving about 30% less radiation, does not get above 90 C or so.
Keep babbling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I agree with Mike Flynn.”
Of course you do. You’re Mike Flynn!
Now, generalize:
(P1) Interposing any matter between the source and the target reduces the amount of energy available to the target.
(P2) The source can be the energy that exits the Earth, and the target can be the atmosphere.
What should we conclude?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this
Why are you still on a website whose owner banned you multiple times?”
Oooooooh! Trying a spot of social engineering, are you? Whats up? Dr Spencer not interested in your attempts at manipulation? You are so incompetent, you couldnt even get yourself banned! How pathetic is that?
Nobody would mind, if you could actually describe the GHE which you claim other people have your silly Not cooling, slower cooling just makes you look as unintelligent as you are.
I agree with Mike Flynn that “Interposing any matter between the source of energy (the Sun), and the target (the Earth), reduces the amount of energy available to the target.”, because it is a fact.
Thats why the surface of the Moon can reach over 125 C, while the Earth, receiving about 30% less radiation, does not get above 90 C or so.
Keep babbling.
Willard,
You wrote –
“The source can be the energy that exits the Earth, and the target can be the atmosphere.
What should we conclude?”
Don’t you know?
Are you trying to describe the GHE as “Not cooling, slower cooling”, without actually admitting how silly that is?
You can “conclude” anything you like – no matter how crazy!
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Don’t you know?”
Yes, I do. But do you?
Cheers.
Wondering Wee Willy,
So you are just attempting to be annoying, by pretending to be seeking knowledge, is that it!
If you believe someone doesn’t know something, why not help them out by providing some facts? A peabrain like you is not interested in being helpful at all.
Typical SkyDragon cultist – all obscurity and hidden meanings!
Be a man – say what you believe, and be prepared to defend it, like me! Or just skulk and slime your devious way, if you prefer.
[laughing at inept peabrain]
Mike Flynn,
My own conclusion is that between the energy that escapes the Earth and space. The atmosphere reduces the amount of energy escaping to space.
If you knew that, then it’s hard to understand why you keep asking for a description of the greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
wee willy…”The atmosphere reduces the amount of energy escaping to space”.
***
Yes, but the atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and only 0.04% CO2.
Yes, Bordo.
Less than 1% of the atmosphere consists of radiative gases.
Yet this is the part upon which life depends.
Little Willy, please stop tr0lling.
–Scientists found CO2 on Europa. Heres why its important
JWSTs discovery lends credibility to theory of possible life on Jupiters icy moon. —
https://www.astronomy.com/science/scientists-found-co2-on-europa-heres-why-its-important/
Here’s a head-scratcher. Went for a walk at 4 pm two days running. Same conditions… clear sky, no breeze or wind. On day one the Sun felt warm and comfortably bright. On day two the sunlight was glaring and felt significantly warmer than the day before. I walked the same route both days.
I am not imagining that. I was dressed exactly the same clothes-wise but on day 1 I would not have felt like shedding clothing due to the solar warmth but today it felt uncomfortably hot, something I am not complaining about since it is unusual to get such warmth this time of year.
So why is it that on two identical days the solar radiation is so noticeably different?
Gordon,
Off you go and read Professor John Tyndall’s book. He was struck by the same sort of observation, and concluded (rightly) that “aqueous vapour” was preventing the Sun’s rays from reaching him, even though he could see no clouds or any visible impediment.
He has written at some length about the phenomenon you have noticed, and much more.
Tyndall was a very clever fellow, and I am in full agreement with him on his thoughts about “aqueous vapour”. Does this indicate I am clever, or just gullible?
Have fun.
I have no problems with Tyndall’s theory of aqueous vapours, I am wondering why solar energy is experienced so differently on subsequent days at the same hour of day with clear, blue skies on both days. Especially in mid-October at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada.
There was no observation of high cirrus on either day, just clear sky, but the experience of solar energy was markedly different, both as sensible heating and visual experience. On day two I was squinting to block the glare yet the day before that was not necessary.
I am forming my own theory that solar output varies slightly. Feel free to nominate me for a Nobel in advance. The Swedes will likely balk at the notion but they are a dour lot.
4 pm is not during peak solar hours.
Not best time for lizard to warm up- but you are mammal.
Your health and mental state could affect how you feel.
Lots of very high clouds can’t be seen. So amount sunlight
could vary, though it’s doesn’t matter much.
Air temperature and humidity affects mammals.
Can extreme heat make parts of the Earth too hot for humans?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/12/can-extreme-heat-make-parts-of-the-earth-too-hot-for-humans/
Is related.
Also something I didn’t mention:
“As both articles note, time of exposure to high wet bulb temperatures is important, but clearly a four-hour golf game is OK, with lots of water and frequent breaks in the shade with a light breeze. ”
Wind and drinking enough water, matters.
gb…are you trying to say I am ‘mental’? You would not be the first to observe that. Of course, your observations would be subject to peer review. Some claim I am temperamental…10% temper and 90% mental.
I did take into account that my local biological system may have been experiencing differently, but it’s not as if I had been taking an illegal substance and my pupils had become dilated and sensitive to light. It was definitely brighter at my retina on day two. It felt a lot hotter in my skin as well and I am not running a fever.
I would not have noticed had the sensations not been so pronounced.
Moods can swing.
Its probably a matter of hydration.
Drink more water.
norman…”You think radiant energy cant go both ways and will not research your incorrect thoughts and change them.
You dont understand that dipole motion works and there is a whole science based upon it”.
***
I did not claim radiant energy cannot go both ways between bodies, I claimed it can only transfer heat from the hotter body to the cooler body as per the 2nd law. I used Bohr’s theory only to demonstrate why.
It is you who fails to grasp the difference between radiation and heat.
Don’t know what you mean by dipole motion.
Gordon Robertson
I know you do not know what dipole motion is. This is some of the reasons it is obvious you never studied higher levels of physics.
You are correct that only heat can transfer from hotter to colder but you fail completely in understanding that the AMOUNT of heat transferred from a hot body is dependent upon the energy the cooler body emits back to the hotter body. You can’t seem to understand this and your incorrect use of the Bohr Model (which is just a model and an idea and proved to be incomplete and needed modification).
Let us test your Chemistry of why the Bohr model is incomplete. Do you know what a p-orbital is? I doubt it but you can’t use Bohr orbiting electrons to explain a p-orbital which was found from experimental evidence of molecular shapes. Then there are other orbitals that are even worse for Bohr Model. Bohr greatly advanced science with his ideas but they were incomplete.
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=phy204-lecturenotes
This will help you understand dipole motion (called moment but it is the motion of charges in space in a cyclic manner, charged parts of a molecule moving closer to each other than further apart at some frequency based upon the bond strengh).
“You are correct that only heat can transfer from hotter to colder but you fail completely in understanding that the AMOUNT of heat transferred from a hot body is dependent upon the energy the cooler body emits back to the hotter body.”
You realize that the Sun is a small portion of the Sky relative to Earth. And Earth is small portion of the sky relative to 11 km up?
Dipole motion??? There is no motion, a dipole is a reference to electric charge. Norman, you are a hacker trying to argue with someone who has formally studied this theory in-depth. Furthermore, the authors of the paper to which you link are as much hackers as you.
Where do I begin? They show a picture of a cathode ray tube and call it a vacuum tube. The word vacuum tube is reserved for much smaller tubes that amplify voltages applied to a grid. The purpose of a CRT is to display information on a display face and their is essentially no comparison to a vacuum tube other than the fact both tubes are evacuated.
However, the authors are seriously confused re the difference. They claim the anode is near the cathode but modern CRTs use a high positive charge on the sides of the tube, near the face plate as an accelerating anode. All modern CRTs use the same setup.
But why have they introduced the CRT? They are trying to convince us that electrons can be diverted by a charge or a magnetic field. That is the premise of their argument re dipoles.
They simply don’t get it. It is the charge on electrons that are the basis of dipoles. I explained it in detail for you, Norman, but you lack the background to understand what I am saying. Dipoles are about electronegativity, a concept introduced by Linus Pauling, who rated the negative charges about atoms, due their affinity for attracting electrons to them.
In a CO2 molecule, which is normally linear, you have two oxygen atoms bonded to a central carbon atoms by ELECTRONS. However, the electrons are shared via covalent bonds and the electrons in the bonds will favour the oxygen molecule over the carbon molecule, hence spending more time near the O-ends of the molecule. That creates a dipole bond, with the -ve end at the oxygen ends. That’s electronegativity a la Pauling.
The authors of your article are oblivious to electronegativity, likening the charges on the water molecule to CRT tube action. In fact, with the water molecule, they talk about charges in a dipole without explaining where the charges came from…electrons!!!
There was no need for the authors to go into a convoluted description of electrons motion, comparing them to a mass in Newtonian motion. Other than the obvious attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively-charged electrons, their argument is useless. No one has any idea how the orbital action works and trying to specify it based on Newtonian and electrostatic fields is futile.
The explanation of orbital motion from Bohr was a stab in the dark, but it works. His theory was followed by other equally inane theories as to how electrons orbited nucleii with various numbers of electrons and protons involved. Heisenberg muddied the water by claiming no one can position an electron about an atom. Based on the, Schrodinger created an equally inane differential equation to explain this uncertainty, but it works too, for the required purposes.
Feynman summed it aptly, claiming that quantum theory works but no one knows why. However, it has become the basis of electronics theory as well as atomic theory in chemistry.
The claim that quantum theory or Einsteinian relativity has replaced Newtonian physics is a load of hooey. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian theory, all that is missing is instrumentation to measure at the atomic level.
I see you mention Pauling and chemical bonds, Gordon. But then you talk about the Bohr model ‘working’.
Bohr’s model was inadequate to explain chemical bonds. Pauling understood that.
Thus Pauling used Shrodinger’s equations to explain and understand chemical bonds, not Bohr’s model.
Shrodinger’s equation explains the shapes of orbitals, e.g. like the peanut shape of the p-orbital, and this is required to understand the shapes of molecules.
norman…”You are correct that only heat can transfer from hotter to colder but you fail completely in understanding that the AMOUNT of heat transferred from a hot body is dependent upon the energy the cooler body emits back to the hotter body”.
***
The energy emitted back is not heat, it is electromagnetic energy, and at the lower frequency produced by a cooler body, it will be ignored by the electrons in the hotter body.
Gordon Robertson
You are stuck in bad science and will not work to extract yourself so you are not honest that you research anything. You just keep the same old beliefs regardless of their flaws.
Dipoles are the permanent charges of molecules based upon Chemistry. There will be a positive end and a negative end. The bond strength will determine the frequency that these charges vibrate at. This frequency will determine what IR energy will be absorbed and emitted by a given molecule. You don’t accept this science but it is experimentally verified and you would just be a mindless denier to say it is wrong without attempting to understand it.
You can’t admit your basic understanding of EMR interactions is incomplete. And it is NOT just electrons needed to generate EMR. It is the energy gradient that will produce a given frequency of EMR with electron interactions. The positive charge of the nucleus of an atom is actually a part of the process.
Gordon Robertson
When a vibrating surface molecule of a solid emits IR, it goes to a lower energy state (vibrates less intensely). Now it can receive energy from anywhere, IR from external source or kinetic energy from an internal source. If it receives energy from external the internal energy is maintained. The internal energy vibrations from below the surface have multiple of many different vibrational energy states from (again a spectrum of energy states).
The point source of all this false physics seems to come from Claes Johnson. He is the only source I could find that made up this idea in a paper he published. He does not understand science or physics though he might be a brilliant mathematician that does not mean he is qualified to create new physics theories without any evidence or support for them and ones that go against established experimentally verified science.
https://tinyurl.com/4ef67y5n
This is the Claes Johnson paper. Clint R says he does not get it from this source (when you claims a hot surface cannot absorb radiant energy from a colder one) but it is the only source I have found and Clint R never uses real science so he will not give any source for his ideas.
Gordon Robertson
Since you never took any real college level courses in science (I have taken both Chemistry and Physics at the higher level) it is really hard to get you to understand anything about real verified science (experimentally verified…in your limited view of science you think it is all just theory with no evidence to back it up..wrong!)
You claim to understand what temperature is but you don’t seem to understand the concept of what it means.
Temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic energy of particles in a substance.
Start with real science and not the blog version.
https://tinyurl.com/5n79d596
Gordon Robertson
https://tinyurl.com/3eyxazk4
This simulation of molecular motion in a gas may give you an AHA! moment and you may finally understand real science and not the false version you currently believe as factual.
As in a gas is so with a solid surface only the molecules are not free to move about as in a gas. But on a solid surface you have some parts of it vibrating with more energy than other parts. It is a spectrum of energy. That is why a surface will emit a spectrum of EMR because it has a whole range of energies and many more various charges that vibrate at many different frequencies. Electron transitions are mostly for Near IR, Visible, and UV…below these are mostly caused by lower energy changes in plus minus charges.
A hot surface has cold spots that can absorb the EMR emitted by a colder body. None of you so called skeptics understands any of this and can’t seem to get it even when you are exposed to it.
Real skeptics learn the material quite well so when they find errors or flaws in the system they are some really good questions. So far you, Clint R, DREMT, Swenson, Stephen P Anderson all seem devoid of enough real science to muster valuable questions. People who taken real science try to get you fellows to understand it but it seems a hopeless task.
Norman,
Here you go, demonstrate your brilliance.
Argon is a noble gas – monoatomic, no argon dipole molecule to be seen.
Tell everybody why the specific heat of argon is close to that of carbon dioxide.
You might address what sort of radiation argon absorbs and emits, if not infrared!
Dipole motion? The peas in your brain are obviously rattling in tandem, giving you dreams which are unaffected by reality. Others may form their own views.
Swenson, you should know argon is matter so Ar atoms absorb and emit radiation, ref. Planck’s Law. Perhaps Swenson can explain how that can occur physically but I doubt it.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Related…
Israelis are rightfully livid right now and they’re going to come down hard on Gaza.
Gaza City is going to get Dresden’ed, and never be allowed to be rebuilt.
Likely 30% of the Gaza strip population will be evacuated to Egypt and never be allowed to return.
Israel is going to use this catastrophe to send a message to the whole Arab world that will echo for generations.
Anything short of that and the Israeli public is going to riot.
Given the tunnel systems Hamas has, a Gaza ground invasion will be brutal house to house combat, with traps setup for tanks/apcs, and heavy IDF losses early.
However, cutting it off, starving them out, and bombing the sh!t out of them, the same way we inflicted a Carthaginian peace on Japan without setting a single boot on their island, is the blueprint.
Israel’s been looking for an excuse to trim the weeds in their own backyard for a long time now, and they are not going pass it up.
This is a song that some of the boys will have sung to their mothers as they will have gone bravely off to World War III…
That Carthaginian peace, as you call it, was imposed to save Allied soldiers from an enemy who proved as bad as Hamas, likely worse. The Japanese army took no prisoners and they butchered innocent civilians, as well as captured Allied soldiers. It was feared that their no surrender policy would cost a further 100,000 Allied casualties, at least, and that the price was unacceptable.
There are similarities. The Japanese based their atrocities on the Bushido code, the code of the Samurai, although I cannot imagine the Samurai behaving like animals. Hamas and their rabble base their treachery on Islam code, although Muslims world-wide are quick to distance themselves from terrorism. However, they continue to suppress women, making me wonder about their sincerity.
Well done, guys:
ALMA Al-SHAAB, Lebanon (AP) An Israeli shell landed in a gathering of international journalists covering clashes on the border in south Lebanon on Friday, killing a Reuters videographer and injuring six other journalists.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-shelling-border-journalist-killed-87fef20431c31b29ac56e51e14a22000
The problem comes when the ‘refugees’ make their way to our countries complete with their demonstrated lack of basic humanity and unwillingness to integrate into our communities.
I vote no immigrants from Palestine coming to Canada.
Nay not worry, Kennui:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-war-live
I do hope for you that troglodytes are considered civilized.
This pretty much says it all:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcSAj915VHPt3ubF20v9sCA/community?lb=UgkxqzB3budjr7ibTVqDVBXbX4SVlk5dgHRL
I did not know you were a white nationalist, Kennui.
For some reason your guru does not mention:
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/plainfield-stabbing-hate-crime-charges/
Troglodytes are the peak of civilization.
If ‘White Nationalist’ means I get to live out my life without fear of random attack from Islamic nutbars, count me in.
Hamas is the epitome of Muslim Nazism.
How many jihadist attack did you witness on the Victoria island this year, Kennui?
You’re turning into a caricature of the Sparta meme.
“with their demonstrated lack of basic humanity and unwillingness to integrate into our communities.”
What was said about the Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants a century ago.
Then more recently the Asian immigrants.
Basically this epithet is applied to any except WASPS.
Doesn’t matter what was said about them. You cannot point to random war crimes widely supported by Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Asian immigrant communities. No matter how mean spirited your comment might be they were not supportive of reprehensible actions of murderous rapist thugs such as Hamas.
Ken, with this
“their demonstrated lack of basic humanity” you are assigning a certain behavior to a race.
That is the essence of racism.
And it was done to all the other groups previously.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. People who join Hamas exhibit the same irrational lack of basic humanity. I’m not assigning that behavior; I’m just observing the fact. Hamas is a death cult; not a race.
But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, go ahead. The term has been so misused (as it is by you here) it is meaningless.
“war crimes widely supported by Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Asian immigrant communities. ”
Well, there was the IRA, the Italian, Jewish and Irish mobs, whose behaviors were often assigned to their whole race.
Bias is not always bad if it is based on verifiable trends. On the other hand, that should not lead to stereotyping. The good people of Gaza who do not agree with Hamas should not be discriminated against.
Some say that Hamas is ISIS. They do have some similarities. I am not aware of any group, large or small, that believe they have not just the right, but the duty to kill people who have different beliefs. There seem to be alarmingly large populations who share those beliefs, and act on it.
Some say they behave like animals, but that is not really true. Most animal do not torture, and they usually kill with some purpose.
Ken.
You began with “I vote no immigrants from Palestine coming to Canada.”
Now you are restricting it to “People who join Hamas”
That is an improvement, since most Palestinian immigrants will not be members of Hamas.
Earlier, the strangely obsessed Willard wrote –
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
He seems to be attempting a spot of social engineering, annoyed that Dr Spencer is not adhering to Willard’s desires.
It doesn’t seem to be working out all that well for Weepy Wee Willy. His opinions don’t seem to carry much weight with anyone, and his Mike Flynn obsession seems to have taken over his life! Oh well, when some SkyDragon cultist truly believes that the GHE can be described as “Not cooling, slower cooling”, what can you expect?
Willard is what he is. He lives in a richly bizarre fantasy world, detached from reality.
Good for him. At least he has no power or influence.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s where we stand:
[ROY] Hey, you impersonate a member of my moderation team.
is a criticism. It implicates that Gaslighting Graham should try to find a more decent handle.
Here’s the response we got from your fellow Sky Dragon crank:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Happy with my name, thanks anyway.
What are you braying about?
Earlier, the strangely obsessed Willard wrote
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
He seems to be attempting a spot of social engineering, annoyed that Dr Spencer is not adhering to Willards desires.
It doesn’t seem to be working out all that well for Weepy Wee Willy. His opinions dont seem to carry much weight with anyone, and his Mike Flynn obsession seems to have taken over his life! Oh well, when some SkyDragon cultist truly believes that the GHE can be described as “Not cooling, slower cooling”, what can you expect?
Willard is what he is. He lives in a richly bizarre fantasy world, detached from reality.
Good for him. At least he has no power or influence.
Mike Flynn has nothing much to contribute. He will ask for for a description he already has. A description he already provided.
He will copy-paste comments.
He will bray.
Mike may not be amusing, but at least he is our buffoon.
Earlier, the strangely obsessed Willard wrote
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
He seems to be attempting a spot of social engineering, annoyed that Dr Spencer is not adhering to Willards desires.
It doesn’t seem to be working out all that well for Weepy Wee Willy. His opinions dont seem to carry much weight with anyone, and his Mike Flynn obsession seems to have taken over his life! Oh well, when some SkyDragon cultist truly believes that the GHE can be described as “Not cooling, slower cooling”, what can you expect?
Willard is what he is. He lives in a richly bizarre fantasy world, detached from reality.
Good for him. At least he has no power or influence.
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd exults and shouts Mike Flynn’s name.*
Earlier, the strangely obsessed Willard wrote
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
He seems to be attempting a spot of social engineering, annoyed that Dr Spencer is not adhering to Willards desires.
It doesnt seem to be working out all that well for Weepy Wee Willy. His opinions dont seem to carry much weight with anyone, and his Mike Flynn obsession seems to have taken over his life! Oh well, when some SkyDragon cultist truly believes that the GHE can be described as .Not cooling, slower cooling”, what can you expect?
Willard is what he is. He lives in a richly bizarre fantasy world, detached from reality.
Good for him. At least he has no power or influence.
The crowd chants:
ENCORE! ENCORE! ENCORE!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Climate News
Climate Politics
Earthquakes Blamed on Humans in New Climate Alarm Letter from Pope Francis
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/13/earthquakes-blamed-on-humans-in-new-climate-alarm-letter-from-pope-francis/
“In matters of Catholic dogma the Holy Father in Rome is deemed infallible, but when it comes to more earthly matters surrounding climate change, Pope Francis is mostly talking through his Pontifical Posterior. “
European elections: Ashes, ashes, the Greens fall down
Beege Welborn 8:01 PM on October 13, 2023
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/10/13/european-elections-ashes-ashes-the-greens-fall-down-n584628
Linked from:
https://instapundit.com/
European elections: Ashes, ashes, the Greens fall down
Beege Welborn 8:01 PM on October 13, 2023
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/10/13/european-elections-ashes-ashes-the-greens-fall-down-n584628
Linked from:
https://instapundit.com/
“Two European Union member countries held elections this past weekend and the results are just beginning to come into focus.
From my cynical viewpoint, they look pretty darn good.”
Solar wind
speed: 526.9 km/sec
density: 0.07 protons/cm3
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 126
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.79×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
“Sunspots AR3460 and AR3464 have ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic fields that harbor energy for M-class solar flares.”
I see no spots coming from farside. And the sunspot number 4354 is leaving farside. Spot number not likely to change much in day or two.
It is already down to 91
Right!:
Solar wind
speed: 517.4 km/sec
density: 0.03 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 91
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.79×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
48-hr change: -0.3%
I see small spots coming from Farside, nothing leaving to farside.
3460 will be first to go to Farside in 1 or 2 days.
3465 might grow more. 3464 and 3463 seems to be weakening.
Solar wind
speed: 359.9 km/sec
density: 0.28 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 100
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.01×101^0 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
When back up to +19.00 and think it’s going back down again
and evenually be getting to Neutron counts around +0.0.
It seems so far, monthly count is +120 spots, but it still seems
likely Oct will be below 120 spot number for Oct.
And a this point seems quite unlikely to get spotless day within a week, but maybe get one before end of month.
Not sure we have seen any old spots, yet, but I suppose some old spots could return to nearside.
Solar wind
speed: 368.2 km/sec
density: 0.54 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 92
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 145 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.01×10^10 W Warm
Updated 15 Oct 2023
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Low
48-hr change: -0.0%
Updated 16 Oct 2023 @ 0700 UT
New moderate size spot coming from farside {southern hemisphere}.
And 3460 is leaving nearside.
Solar wind
speed: 314.5 km/sec
density: 1.68 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.01×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
48-hr change: +0.5%
Solar wind
speed: 323.6 km/sec
density: 9.46 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 57
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.06×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Low
This is another time where they give sunspot number before
giving the picture of the sun. So I can try to guess, what happened.
It’s somewhat shocking. I can’t imagine why.
But still got to try…
Well rather then leave and they are leaving to farside, I would say,
3460 and 3466 faded before they left the nearside.
So, it’s related to how they count sunspots- which I am not “good at”.
But it’s got to be more than that. I guess the biggest spot, 3465, faded a lot, but didn’t completely disappear {in the middle of nearside}. So that’s my guess, and will get picture within hours.
Solar wind
speed: 333.2 km/sec
density: 7.84 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 57
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.06×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Low
There are 3 numbered spots. There was 7 numbered spots.
3465 didn’t fade as much as I guessed, but disappearing two seemed to faded to nothing countable as a sunspot number. Also spot in northern hemisphere coming farside didn’t get a number, yet. I don’t know why, but if they [3 small spots] don’t fade, they should get number tomorrow.
Nothing is coming or going to farside.
Solar wind
speed: 385.8 km/sec
density: 2.56 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 54
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Low
The tiny spots are still there and not given a number- or there is
still 3 numbered spot. And nothing coming from or going to farside.
In 3 or 4 days, 3464 will go to farside. 3465 is +5 days, and I think it has chance of fading before reaching farside. The last spot, 3468 is a week or more, and it doesn’t seem it will fade within a week or more.
Or spotless before end of Oct seems unlikely, mainly because of 3468
unlikely to fade and of course, spots could just appear on nearside and spots likely to come from farside in +2 days.
As far as Oct not being higher than 120, is beginning looking like a good guess.
And the Nov guess, falling dramatically, has kind of started, early. Or have days of 50 spot number is what meant by dramatic drop, but I also expect to have some spotless days, also. And I haven’t seen it, yet.
I think there is fairly good chance of spotless days in Nov.
The hole in the Ozone layer above Antarctica is currently one of the biggest on record according to European satellite measurements.
The ozone depleting area reached 26 million square kilometres on 16 September 2023, an area three times the size of Brazil, according to the European Space Agency.
European Space Agency satellites have been measuring global ozone data for almost three decades. The recent measurements were taken by the Copernicus Sentinel 5P satellite, launched in 2017 as part of the agencys environmental monitoring mission.
While the news appears bleak, the reasons for the large size of the hole are yet to be established.
The ozone hole is known to fluctuate depending on the strength of winds in the Antarctic region, and generally reaches its maximum size between mid-September and mid-October.
Ozone levels usually return to normal by the end of December, the European Space Agency says.
Water vapor from Hunga Tong is likely what is destroying the ozone layer.
This “ozone hole” nonsense is still largely misunderstood. It is used by the cult to scare the public, so that unneeded policy can be imposed on society.
Most people do not understand that the “ozone hole” is a natural phenomenon. The satellite images always shown are at the South Pole, where the Polar Vortex is active. The “hole” is caused by the uprush of air from the troposphere, which is depleted of ozone.
Ozone is an extremely unstable molecule, AKA, a great “oxidizer”. Other gases do not deplete ozone, ozone depletes other gases!
If you want more ozone, feed Earth’s flora more CO2 so the plants can produce more O2. Sun will take care of the rest….
Metal asteroid Psyche has a ridiculously high ‘value.’ But what does that even mean?
https://www.space.com/psyche-metal-asteroid-composition
“The asteroid’s absurd “value” could foreshadow future contributions to the budding space mining industry.”
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Venusians in distant future {+40 years} could be really rich.
But it’s not going to directly shipped to Earth- unless you expect some radical global political change.
And I would be against it.
NASA: We’d Have 30 Minutes’ Warning Before a Killer Solar Storm Hits Earth
https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-wed-have-30-minutes-warning-before-a-killer-solar-storm-hits-earth
“Scientists have long been aware of the problem and haven’t sat idly by. At this point in our species’ exploration of the Solar System, plenty of satellites are looking at the Sun that can be used to identify these solar outbursts.
Some of those satellites include ACE, Wind, IMP-8, and Geotail, which supplied data to the NASA team. But, as any AI researcher can tell you, in order to develop a predictive model, you have to tell it what it is meant to predict.”
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Well, that could save trillions of dollars.
Or not.
Israel War Update LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ReTf0wIkk
52K views Streamed 16 hours ago
It’s 3 hours of it. I probably won’t watch it that long.
I think it’s going to get “interesting” quick after the holy day.
So, before, I wake up tomorrow, I expect I will miss, a lot of it.
So, I guess I will wake up early- rather stay up for 3 hours.
Gordon Robertson
You survived a slow game of golf on a hot day using a golf cart, shade, wind and water.
Would you have survived cutting the greens that day, or tending the crop on which your food supply depends?
Probably set your air conditioner too low and freeze to death.
It’s here America, it’s Annular Eclipse Day!
https://imgur.com/a/SYxG1OX
https://imgur.com/a/GjGjWo3
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Answer and discussion of “bricks” problem.
The problem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545862
As usual, the cult is unable to solve simple physics problems. Typically, most don’t even try. They represent themselves as knowledgeable about physics, but can’t solve simple problems. None of them was able to correctly answer this simple problem.
Responsible adults may recognize this problem as being somewhat of a model of Earth. Two bricks, with an average temperature of 288K, might be analogous to Earth. One average temperature for both polar spherical caps (25% area each), and one average temperature for midsection (50% of area).
The cult should have immediately chosen “e. 344K” as their answer. That’s the solution if you believe the fraud by Folkerts. The two fluxes arriving would be added, and the temperature would correspond to that flux being emitted. Notice that silly willy’s “Mighty Tim”, didnt use his own fraud, yet STILL gets the wrong answer!
Let that sink in. Folkerts’ nonsense would result in a surface with average temperature of 288K measuring 344K! I guess the 56K difference is due to the GHE.
So answer “e. 344K” is WRONG.
Answers a. and d. Are wrong because those are the temperatures of the individual bricks.
Now, it gets even more interesting.
Both “b. 288K” and “c. 289K” are correct. Christos V. Answered correctly when the problem was first submitted, but I didn’t want to discuss it yet. The key was the “ideal IR thermometer”. That clarification means “b. 288K” was the answer wanted.
“The cult should have immediately chosen e. 344K as their answer.”
I don’t know which ‘cult’ you are referring to, but this is not the answer that scientists would choose. It is not the answer I chose.
Only someone who completely misunderstands radiative heat transfer would think that anyone would choose 344 K as an answer. Clint is STILL confusing EMITTED flux (which does NOT add) with ARRIVING flux (which does add). And he must think everyone else shares his confused misunderstandings.
Folkerts gets caught in his fraud and tries to spin his way out. It reminds me of the drug addict that gets caught in possession of cocaine.
Cop: What are you doing with cocaine?
Druggie: It’s not my cocaine.
Cop. It was in your pocket.
Druggie: (Crickets.)
Cop: Book em, Danno.
> Book em, Danno.
Nice tell, Pupman.
Yes, nice and clear. I always like to use easy-to-understand analogies because children don’t know science.
Folkerts has been using the “arriving/emitting” schtick ever since he got caught. That’s why the simple problem was designed so his tricks do not apply.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Is there a greenhouse effect on Venus?
Silly willy, do you STILL not have a description of the GHE?
You’re just playing in the street again, huh?
You should ask Mike about that one, Pupman.
In return, you could tell him about TV shows from your youth.
“If one brick was at 273K emitting 315 W/m^2, and the other was at 303K emitting 478 W/m^2”
“The cult should have immediately chosen e. 344K as their answer”
Clint is suggesting that since 315 + 478 = 793, then his opponents would choose 344K because that emits 793 W/m^2.
After insisting viociferously that he never mixes up emitted fluxes with arriving fluxes, Clint does exactly that here!
He suggests that the emitted fluxes would be the arriving fluxes, and his opponents would need to sum them to determine the total arriving fluxes.
What a f*king loser he is.
Child Nate was unable to answer the question. So, he relied on Folkerts, making the same mistake!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint, as the thermometer is “right above” the bricks, would that make the view factors between the thermometer and the bricks close enough to one that there would be no material difference between the emitted flux and the absorbed flux? Seems like that would nullify Tim’s objections.
Exactly DREMT. Knowing that the cult would attempt the “arriving/emitting” schtick, the problem was presented so they would only trap themselves.
Even Folkerts used the emitted for arriving.
People need to think through the implications of what they are saying.
View Factor = 1 with a brick means only ONE BRICK is in view from the surface!
No other bricks can be in view, thus no flux emitted by other bricks can reach the the same point on the surface, because it is BLOCKED by the first brick!
Oh well!
As usual, Clint’s problem, as stated, makes no sense.
Its no wonder Nate couldn’t answer the simple question. He doesn’t understand ANY of this.
As we have come to expect, Clint has no science rebuttal, just insults!
Nobody buys his crap.
Child, pointing out your immaturity is NOT an insult. It’s reality.
No science. It is clear that you have no answers.
And trap themselves they have, Clint. Fun to watch.
DREMT, You actually stumbled onto the correct answer. The view factors between the thermometer and the brick*s* is 1. So the view factor from each brick is 0.5.
The 273K brick emitting 315 W/m^2 provides 0.5 x 315 = 157.5 W/m^2 to the thermometer.
The 303K brick emitting 478 W/m^2 provides 0.5 x 478 = 239 W/m^2 to the thermometer.
Together they provide 157.5 + 239 = 396.5 W/m^2. (Because as we all know, fluxes arriving AT a surface add!)
And 289 K it the temperature that would provide this 396.5 W/m^2 flux.
The bricks are presumably right next to each other, Tim. In which case you could treat the bricks (plural) as effectively being one object. Why can’t the view factors between the thermometer and the bricks (one object) thus be nearly equal to one?
“Why cant the view factors between the thermometer and the bricks (one object) thus be nearly equal to one?”
The view factor of the two bricks combined can (and will) be 1.
* If you are directly above the 273 K brick, the view factor of that brick is 1 (and the other is 0), and arriving flux is 315 and the thermometer reads 273 K.
* If you are directly above the 303 K brick, the view factor of that brick is 1 (and the other is 0), and arriving flux is 478 and the thermometer reads 303 K.
If you are near the boundary, the view factors add to 1. The flux is a weighted average of the 315 flux and the 478 flux. You use the view factor of each, find the flux from each, and
add them. You get a flux between 315 and 478, and you get a temperature between 273 K and 303 K.
At some point, people need to actually crack open a textbook and read up on view factors, rather than pondering on blogs.
Tim, it seems to me that if you’re agreeing that view factors are close to or equal to one between the bricks (treated as a single object) and the thermometer, then the arriving fluxes from the bricks at the thermometer are going to be close to or the same as the emitted fluxes from the bricks. So you should be looking at an answer closer to e).
I guess it also depends on how wide we’re treating the thermometer as being. Is it as wide as a brick? Or is it as wide as the two bricks put together? If the latter, and it’s very close to the two bricks, then I don’t see how you can argue that the arriving fluxes won’t be much the same as what was emitted. VF between brick 1 and the first half of the thermometer will be at or close to one, and VF between brick 2 and the second half of the thermometer will be at or close to one. VF between the two bricks (treated as a single object) and the whole thermometer will be at or close to one.
See what I mean?
“Or is it as wide as the two bricks put together? If the latter, and its very close to the two bricks, then I dont see how you can argue that the arriving fluxes wont be much the same as what was emitted.”
the arriving power (W) will be the sum of the power (W) emitted by each brick. But then to find W/m^2, we would divide by the double sized AREA of the receiving double-sized brick.
So the W/m^2 received will be reduced by 1/2. It will be the average of the two emitted W/m^2.
“I guess it also depends on how wide were treating the thermometer as being. ”
DREMT, the original statement was “An ideal IR thermometer right above the two bricks would indicate that value.”
The obvious, intuitive meaning of “right above” is a small detector above the boundary between the two bricks and a small but finite distance above the two bricks. That is how IR thermometers work — you hold them above the surface and aim the the surface. The “width” is a few mm perhaps.
If that is NOT what you mean, then you need to clarify before any detailed discussion can take place. There is no point discussing if we have different and/or changing geometries. You seem to be imagining a thermometer that is in contact and/or covers the entire bricks. That is NOT how a typical IR thermometer works.
Tim, you are aware that I’m not Clint R, right? Clint R set the problem, not me. I’m not sure how view factors between the bricks (treated as one object) and the IR thermometer could be at or close to one unless the IR thermometer is as wide as the bricks, and close to them. I get that this would be unusual for an IR thermometer, but how would view factors be at or close to one if the thermometer was thin in comparison to the bricks? I don’t get how that would work. The only way you can get view factors at or close to one is with two large, flat surfaces very close together or having one object completely surrounded by another object (without touching). Or is there some other way that I’m missing?
Tim,
If you want to keep the sensor small, then VF=1 simply means that a brick or (a portion of two bricks) takes up the whole field of view of the sensor, whether that is 180 degrees (without lens) or less (with a lens).
Below, for simplicity, I made the sensor brick-sized, so that VF = 1 would have a simple geometry of two flat plates close together.
In that case, if it is centered on the boundary between two bricks, it will receive half of the emitted flux of one brick and half of the emitted flux of the second brick, agreeing with your VF = 0.5 for each brick and measuring a flux = average of the two emitted fluxes.
Folkerts continues the evasion even after getting caught red-handed.
DREMT is exactly correct, if Folkerts wants to play the “view factors” card, the actual value would be at least 0.09. The 0.5 value is just more fraud. Try using the more correct value and see what happens!
This simple problem was designed so that there is no escape from reality.
Oops! That should be the actual value would be at least 0.9.
“The view factors between the thermometer and the brick*s* is 1. So the view factor from each brick is 0.5.”
Yep, view factor from multiple sources simply SUM, just as the fluxes do.
Nate doesn’t know how to arrange a brick so that it has a view factor of 1.
That’s just more proof he doesn’t understand ANY of this.
“A brick”? If ‘a brick’ has a view factor of 1, then no other brick is in view. Then your problem as stated makes no sense!
For simplicity, assume our thermometer is the size of a brick, then if it is up against another brick, ALL of the flux of the second brick is received by the thermometer, then VF = 1, and no other brick can be in view.
In Tim’s scenario, if the ‘brick thermometer’ is up against two bricks with the boundary right in the middle, then it will receive half of the flux of one brick and half from the other.
The VF for each is thus 0.5. The fluxes from each half-brick get summed, as he explained.
As promised, a short historical review of Pupman’s riddle.
Vintage 2023-01, two minutes apart:
Norman’s response is rather good:
Roy did many experiments over the years. One earlier instance is from 2013-08:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/
Pupman may or may not have commented on that page. However, he commented on another of his experiments, vintage 2016-08:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/suggested-backyard-experiment-to-measure-the-greenhouse-effect-of-more-carbon-dioxide/#comment-220288
He did not mention fluxes on that page, however.
I rather like the prosody of that comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/first-week-of-2017-record-cold-48-states-going-below-freezing/#comment-232298
I did not find comments from that sock on earlier pages.
And so there it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316173
Norman seems to have identified Pupman’s sock already then.
Oh, and in case I forget:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/suggested-backyard-experiment-to-measure-the-greenhouse-effect-of-more-carbon-dioxide/#comment-220289
More than seven years ago. Time flies.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I have commented in the past that attempting to refute basic science is wrong. In the same way, claiming that a 300% variation in the climate model results represents convincing science, is also wrong, even if 98% of scientists think that is correct.
I was curious, so I did a search. The first result that came will not post. bummer!
It was a website that describes the attributes of people who engage in that activity online. Use your imagination!
There are many posted articles, but they all have the term T R O L L in the title and they will not post a banned word.
Nonetheless, people using admittedly false user names and posting obviously false information will endless debate nonsense. The debate on the other side includes someone with a website showing a list of attributes claiming to correctly stereotype all with opposing views. There are many others with different behaviors.
So the question remains why people would behave this way. Why would people endless debate back and forth with pet names for each other? What purpose does this serve?
Tim S fills up a bit more blog space with his sanctimonious drivel.
Tim…you seem to presume that basic science is correct in the first place. I was taught in electrical engineering classes that electrical current flows positive to negative. When I asked the prof about it he claimed it is conventional current flow, meaning it is based on an incorrect idea from the 1920s that a mysterious positive test charge is the main current carrier in a copper conductor.
That theory falls flat on its face in an evacuated vacuum tube. It operates by boiling electrons off a heated filament wire (cathode) and having them drawn through a vacuum to an anode operating at a much higher positive voltage. That is a diode and the current flow of electrons cathode to anode is regulated by resistance in the external circuit.
According to conventional theory, some mysterious positive charge leaves the anode and flows through the vacuum to the cathode. Sheer nonense.
I fear you have too much faith in the meaning of basic science, I am not arguing that much of it is correct, in fact, I think it is, but some is plainly bs, like current flowing positive to negative, based purely on an incorrect anachronism.
However, I am sure that if you examine most theories in basic science you will find some holes. I was taught the Newtonian f = ma, which describes the effect of a force on a mass and the rate at which the mass reputedly changes position wrt time. It was not till recently that I read Prinicipia on that and the first thing I noted from Newton is his disclaimer…”IF” a force can move a mass… We are taught that any force acting on a mass will accelerate it and that is a lie.
Not the electrical current story again, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1368767
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1524712
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1357214
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/yes-virginia-there-is-a-climate-crisis/#comment-1515737
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502657
This post merely reinforces that you lack abstract thinking, Gordon.
Electrons flow from negative to positive. Current flows from positive to negative. These ideas are not contradictory, they are complementary.
And it is not based on an “incorrect idea” that there are positive charges moving in a a conductor.
Conventional current is based on the idea that if one region has an excess of something (money, charge, water, air, thermal energy, etc) and that excess flows somewhere else, then the current is FROM the region with excess. The fact that this is physically accomplished by moving negative electrons is immaterial.
Little Willy, Tim, please stop trolling.
Can you hear mother freedom ringing her bell?
Also…
I don’t want to see Allied forces get killed in such a war but if some of them want to, they should be given a free license to hunt down these terrorists and eliminate them once and for all. If they flee to a country that protects them that country should be dealt with.
That’s how Glasgow, Scotland was cleaned up decades ago. There were terrorist criminal operating and what it took was an enforcer, Percy Sillitoe, given almost carte blanche authority to deal with terrorist razor gangs, to clean them up. The Middle East terrorist know no fear because they hit and run to safe havens. The things is to remove the safe havens then hunt them down.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
The NASA GISS Septemer monthly anomaly is out.
1.47C, the highest monthly anomaly they’ve ever recorded.
In context that is relative to the 1951-1980 baseline of 14.0C.
The pre-industrial baseline is 13.8C so September 2023 was 1.67C above pre-industrial and 0.17C above the Paris Agreement 1.5C target.
The Paris Agreement did not include the Hunga-Tonga volcano.
Clint R
When an engineer designs a structure they calculate the maximum expected stress and then add a safety margin to cope with the unexpected.
Should those making climate policy do less?
Unlike the engineer designing a structure, Those making climate policy have no clue about how the climate is structured.
‘Safety Margin’ has no application in discussion about climate.
Proper engineering is based on reality. Climate policy is based on cult agenda.
Engineers design structures that withstand climate change.
Preparing for the worse one can afford makes more sense than preparing for the best.
Withstand climate change?
Surely you meant to say something else, but your intellectual disability got in your way.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It always changes.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
You mean the highest average Giss ever fudged. How can you trust anyone who would declare 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood?
What’s wrong with declaring a probability?
For those like yourself who are weak on probability.
You take the mean of your data and express it as an anomaly. If it is a larger figure than all previous means, you have a record.
All means come with a range of uncertainty, confidence limits.
For GISS annual anomalies the 95% confidence limits are about +/-0.05C. Thus the September 2023 anomaly is fully defined as 1.47C+/-0.05C. There is a 95% probability that the real world anomaly is between 1.42C and 1.52C.
How likely is this to be a new record?
The previous anomaly record was 1.24+/-0.05C set in February 2020. That was probably between 1.19C and 1.29C.
Briefly, if the 95% confidence limits do not overlap you can be 95% confident that you have a new record.
The February 2020 upper limit was 1.29C; the September 2023 lower limit was 1.42C. The probability that this is a new record is larger than 95%.
For 2014 the new record was larger than before, but by a smaller margin. Hence the lower probability.
Ent, what is the probability a conventional passenger jet can circumnavigate Earth while keeping its nose always pointed to the same distant star?
Riddle me this, Pupman –
What is the probability that you are not this guy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322629
The correct answer Ent, is “zero”.
There is zero probability a conventional passenger jet can circumnavigate Earth while keeping its nose always pointed to the same distant star. Passenger jets do NOT fly backward, regardless of all your massive efforts to claim they do. You love trying to pervert reality, but reality always wins.
Now, watch the cult children try to defend you….
The answer, Pupman, is near zero:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543396
Riddle me this –
When did you start using CAPS LOCK as argument?
You would need to fly round the Equator (24,000 miles) in one sidereal day (23 hours 56 minutes).
That would require an average ground speed of 1003 mph.
Too fast for an airliner but a B1B Lancer with air-to-air refuelling could do it.
Circumnavigating above 30N or 30S latitude an airliner would have enough speed, but still not the 24 hour endurance. How about one of your flying command post 747s?
The issue is about circumnavigating Earth while keeping the jet’s nose always facing the same distant star. It can NOT be done. So you have NO viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
What perversion will you try next, Ent?
Yes it can very easily done
You just need an aircraft with wings that can rotate 360 degrees.
Kind of like an Osprey, except the whole wing would need to rotate, not just the engines and propellers.
Do it out on highway 61.
bob, there is zero probability a conventional passenger jet can circumnavigate Earth while keeping its nose always pointed to the same distant star. Passenger jets do NOT fly backward, regardless of all your massive efforts to claim they do. You love trying to pervert reality, but reality always wins.
Hey Pupman, riddle me this –
How would you describe the movement of an object that does not keep its “nose” toward the same fixed star?
Here’s a hint – find the axis that would help you measure that movement.
Sorry silly willy but we already know you don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
You’re just throwing crap against the wall, as usual.
That’s not even a good dodge, Pupman.
Riddle me this –
Why are you trying to turn a physics problem into a geometry puzzle you’re about to lose, and have you ever heard of headwinds?
Silly willy, we already know you don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”. So you’ve got NOTHING.
You’re just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
What childishness will you try next?
Clint R, bobdroege
You are not visualising the true situation.
The aircraft flying West along the Equator at 1000mph is moving in the opposite direction to the Earth’s rotation.
Since the surface is rotating Eastwards at 1000mph the two motions cancel out. The aircraft is effectively stationary while the Earth moves beneath it. Since the aircraft is stationary it remains pointed at the chosen star with no need for changes in pitch or roll.
Unbelievable!
The funny thing is the Moon ignorati like Nate, bob, Bindi, Norman and Ken, will swallow Ent’s nonsense hungrily.
Pupman still does not get EM’s or Bob’s counterexamples. More than that, he still does not realize that his puzzle provides an elegant refutation of Moon Dragon cranks’ position. As soon as he invokes a fixed star, he ded.
Thanks, Pupman!
Clint R.
I can give you an example.
Concorde pilots flying Westwards across the Atlantic in the evening flew towards our nearest star and saw it hover on the western horizon, exactly as you describe.
It is not just believable and possible, it has been done many times.
Yes Ent, that’s another example of your preference for your beliefs over reality.
I could tell people that you make up stuff to support your beliefs, but they may not believe me. So, thanks for the proof.
Clint R,
“bob, there is zero probability a conventional passenger jet can circumnavigate Earth while keeping its nose always pointed to the same distant star. Passenger jets do NOT fly backward, regardless of all your massive efforts to claim they do. You love trying to pervert reality, but reality always wins.”
For one, I suggested something other than a conventional passenger jet.
Second, we aren’t saying passenger jets fly backwards, we are saying they move backwards relative to a point above the Earth.
Third, you are the one claiming N2 and O2 reflect IR, and the Moon doesn’t rotate, so who is perverting reality?
Gaze into the mirror, dude.
A conventional passenger jet does NOT fly backward.
O2 and N2 molecules reflect 15μ photons.
Moon does NOT spin.
So your cult is perverting reality, bob.
Clint R,
Great Perverter of all things Scientific.
“A conventional passenger jet does NOT fly backward.
O2 and N2 molecules reflect 15μ photons.
Moon does NOT spin.
So your cult is perverting reality, bob.”
I never said a conventional passenger jet flies backward, I said it moves backwards when it can’t keep up with the rotation of the Earth.
Yeah, right, show some evidence that O2 and N2 reflect 15u photons.
You can’t do it, can you?
And you owe me a proof that the Moon doesn’t spin.
You can’t do that either.
Put up or shut up.
Ent,
“Clint R, bobdroege
You are not visualising the true situation.
The aircraft flying West along the Equator at 1000mph is moving in the opposite direction to the Earths rotation.”
Conventional passenger jets don’t go that fast.
I would not call the Concorde a conventional passenger jet, and they don’t fly them anymore.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, bob.
That’s always a good learning technique. Now repeat the quote 10 times per hour until you have its memorized. Even though you may not understand it, people will think you’re smart when you use it.
“circumnavigate Earth while keeping its nose always pointed to the same distant star?”
Pretty clearly a moving of the goal posts after people showed that planes can fly backwards wrt the ground.
In any case none of it is relevant to the Moon which has no front or back, no wings, doesn’t fly through the atmosphere at all.
It is all just a another Clint red herring.
I don’t mind putting a nose on the Man on the Moon, Nate. As soon as Pupman defines pure translation as keeping straight toward a fixed star, Moon Dragon cranks lose.
This nonsense was started by Ent, in his failed effort to come up with a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
Nate, silly willy, and bob, have been unable to understand, or keep up with, the issue. Children often have difficulty with reality.
Bobdroege
Conventional passenger jets dont go that fast.
“I would not call the Concorde a conventional passenger jet, and they dont fly them anymore.”
No problem. The same result van be achieved by flying West at any latitude. Just choose the latitude at which the local rotation velocity matches the cruising speed of your aircraft.
Clint R,
You should yourself try and quote me correctly.
“Passenger jets do NOT fly backward, regardless of all your massive efforts to claim they do.”
I never claimed passenger jets fly backwards, Harrier jump jets yes I have claimed they fly backwards, because they can.
You try to win arguments by gaslighting people, just like DR EMPTY.
“There is zero probability a conventional passenger jet can circumnavigate Earth while keeping its nose always pointed to the same distant star.”
At the right latitude and the right speed, a passenger jet can hang motionless with respect to the Earth as it spins underneath.
The only reason it could not circumnavigate the Earth under those conditions is that it would run out of fuel.
bob falsely accuses me of gaslighting.
Just for fun.
You don’t need an aeroplane.
You can stay facing a star by walking at 3mph clockwise in an 11.5 mile radius circle centred on the North Pole.
Good thing Clint R,
“Thats always a good learning technique. Now repeat the quote 10 times per hour until you have its memorized. Even though you may not understand it, people will think youre smart when you use it.”
Now where is that “proof” the Moon doesn’t rotate?
Should be good for a laff.
Yes, I refuted bob’s argument because it’s not even necessary to challenge half of it. The only reason he thinks he has a point is because he erroneously believes “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR. You, me and Nate know better, though.
DR EMPTY,
“Of course you would think the ball has to rotate about an internal axis, you think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR!”
You are not addressing the point that objects moving in concentric circles must move apart because they are moving at different speeds.
And remember the caption to your favorite giff, which says that the Moon on the left is rotating, and the Moon on the right is not rotating.
Game over, you have lost again.
"You are not addressing the point that objects moving in concentric circles must move apart because they are moving at different speeds."
I don’t need to. The best outcome you could possibly hope for is that you might have uncovered some reason to describe the motion of the ball on a string as "curvilinear translation in a circle plus rotation on an internal axis". It would never be "rotation about an external axis plus rotation on an internal axis".
"And remember the caption to your favorite giff, which says that the Moon on the left is rotating, and the Moon on the right is not rotating.
Sure it does. Note that it doesn’t say that the MOTL is "rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis", though. Or that the MOTR is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis." Since they know better than that. Shame you don’t, still.
DR EMPTY,
“Sure it does. Note that it doesnt say that the MOTL is “rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis”, though.”
Astronomers don’t use rotation about an external axis for orbits because orbits are not circular, they are always elliptical.
But they say the Moon rotates, go find an Astronomer and argue with him, see how far you get.
I’m not discussing the moon, bob.
Yes you are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1547990
…not discussing the moon, bob.
Even more fun.
The radius of the Moon is 1080 miles and it’s sidereal period is 27.3 days.
You can remain stationary relative to a star by driving Westwards along the Moon’s Equator at 11mph.
On Earth you can remain stationary relative to a star by flying Westwards while the Earth rotates beneath you.
On the Moon you can remain stationary relative to a star by driving Westwards while the Moon rotates beneath you.
The Moon rotates!
The moon “orbits”. Thus it changes orientation relative to a fixed star as it does so.
So there we have it. That declaration ‘settles it’! :>
…moon “orbits”. Thus it changes orientation relative to a fixed star as it does so.
“moon orbits. Thus it changes orientation relative to a fixed star as it does so.”
Which means it rotates as it orbits.
This has been settled long long ago.
My response refutes Entropic Man’s argument. Simple as that. As to the whole debate, the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the GIF below.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4).
The above three points are now beyond debate. They’re settled.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Correctly:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt the string. It is instead orbiting about a central axis, located at the other end of the string and changing orientation wrt to the room.
2) “Rotation about an external axis (orbiting) with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the wiki GIF wrt to the central object.
3) The moon issue thus is completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.
All wrong, Ball4, except that all motion is relative. In the case of motion like the “moon on the left” or “moon on the right”, the motion of the MOTL is relative to the motion of the MOTR, and vice versa. To elaborate, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTL, then the MOTR is orbiting in one direction whilst rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction, once per orbit. Whereas, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR, then the MOTL is orbiting in one direction whilst rotating on its own axis in the same direction, once per orbit.
An object can not change its orientation without rotating on an internal axis.
That should settle the question, but alas, it’s the internet.
Anyone can say anything they want and declare themselves correct.
In the case of motion like the “moon on the left” or “moon on the right”, the motion of the MOTL is relative to the motion of the MOTR, and vice versa thus an observer on MOTL observes no spin on MOTR’s own axis. To elaborate, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTL, then the MOTR is orbiting in one direction whilst rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction, once per orbit wrt to the right center object. Whereas, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR, then the MOTL is orbiting in one direction whilst rotating on its own axis in the same direction wrt the room, once per orbit.
4) The moon issue thus is completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.
Ball4 is incorrect, I am correct.
bob, points 1) to 3) are correct. That’s not a “declaration”, that’s the result of six years of hard-won arguments, support from various sources, and mathematical proofs. You can debate point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon, if you think they’re wrong.
“if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the MOTL, then the MOTR is orbiting in one direction whilst rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction, once per orbit.”
As Lewis Carroll noted:
“if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isnt, it aint. Thats logic.”
…is incorrect, I am correct.
bob, points 1) to 3) are correct. That’s not a “declaration”, that’s the result of six years of hard-won arguments, support from various sources, and mathematical proofs. You can debate point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon, if you think they’re wrong.
DR EMPTY,
“bob, points 1) to 3) are correct. Thats not a declaration, thats the result of six years of hard-won arguments, support from various sources, and mathematical proofs. You can debate point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon, if you think theyre wrong.”
You have no support from any sources.
You have 6 years of making up your own definitions.
You have no mathematical proofs.
You have failed to debunk my mathematical proofs.
1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.
2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is the Moon on the right. Just like the caption on the giff you refer to.
3) Everything has to be looked at with reference frames, ignoring them leads to failure. The Moon definitely rotates with respect to an inertial reference frame.
"You have no support from any sources."
Wrong, as anyone who’s honest, and has followed the debate over the years, can attest.
"You have 6 years of making up your own definitions."
False accusation.
"You have no mathematical proofs."
The mathematical proofs relating to points 1) and 2) come from Ftop_t.
"You have failed to debunk my mathematical proofs."
You’ve never offered any.
Now, you can debate point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon, if you think they’re wrong.
“”You have 6 years of making up your own definitions.”
False accusation.”
Fact Check:
For years you have been shown DEFINTIONS of ORBIT from many legitimate sources. All agree that it is a PATH thru space. Or the action of following a PATH thru space.
Example:
Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary orbit
the curved path through which objects in space move around a planet or star”
NONE, not one, mention orientation, or rotation being a part of ORBIT.
NONE proscribe that the orientation of the body must follow the orbital path.
NONE define ORBIT as a ROTATION.
That definition was made-up by you.
So the accusation is quite TRUE.
Ah, I see Nate commented. I don’t read his comments, but I’ll assume he had the integrity to challenge you on what you said about point 2), bob, as I happen to know (from back when I used to read his comments) that he disagrees with you and agrees with me on it.
Someone who consistently makes up their own definitions, then denies they have made-up their own definitions, has no integrity.
…I see Nate commented. I don’t read his comments, but I’ll assume he had the integrity to challenge you on what you said about point 2), bob, as I happen to know (from back when I used to read his comments) that he disagrees with you and agrees with me on it.
12:47 pm: “The mathematical proofs relating to points 1) and 2) come from Ftop_t.”
No such proof or DREMT would have delivered such.
Ftop_t proved DREMT’s 1) and 2) are wrong using graphics! Ftop_t graphically proved: 4) The moon issue thus is completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative. Use the site search engine for easy verification.
Better:
12:47 pm: “The mathematical proofs relating to points 1) and 2) come from Ftop_t.”
Ftop_t proved DREMT’s 1) and 2) are wrong using graphics! Ftop_t graphically proved: 4) The moon issue thus is completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.
Ball4 does his “lying” thing.
DR EMPTY,
All Ftop did is prove you can program two revolutions at the same time.
You never looked under the hood to see what his program does.
“Youve never offered any.”
That’s a false statement.
Here I’ll do my proof that a ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Take a ball 2 inches in diameter on a string 11 inches long.
The far side of the ball moves in a circle with a circumference of 81.7 inches, but the inside of the ball moves in a circle of 69.1 inches.
They move around your hand in the same amount of time, so the outside is moving faster than the inside, so the outside of the ball must move away from the inside of the ball, since it is moving faster.
But it doesn’t because it rotates on its axis, and the inside of the ball moves 2 * 3.14159 * 2 = 12.6 inches, just the right amount to catch up with the outside of the ball.
Debunk that, since you didn’t do it last time.
DR EMPTY,
I read Nate’s post.
FYI he agrees with me, as he should, because I agree with Cassini, who was the first to be right on this issue.
bob, Nate agrees with you that the moon rotates on its own axis…but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about my point 2):
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the GIF below.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You described it as motion as per the “moon on the right”, whereas Nate agrees with me that it is motion as per the “moon on the left”…and Tim disagrees with all three of us. Tim doesn’t believe that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” even exists as a motion!
“But it doesn’t because it rotates on its axis…”
It doesn’t because it is rotating about the external axis, and not on its own internal axis. There you go, bob. Your argument is debunked.
… because (MOTL) is rotating about the external axis, and not on its own internal axis wrt the central object.
All motion is relative.
All Ball4s are repetitive.
DR EMPTY,
Are you going to address my proof that the ball on a string is rotating on its axis?
I am waiting.
Probably have to wait as long as I have waited for Clint R to prove the Moon is not rotating.
Debunked at the end of my 8:59 PM comment, bob, with a few simple words.
“whereas Nate agrees with me that it is motion as per the moon on the left”
DREMT doesnt read my posts but claims he knows my beliefs.
So allow me to speak for myself.
Nate agrees with Bob that DREMT has been making up his own definitions for years, and yet still denying it.
Nate agrees with Bob that the Moon rotates on its own axis, and DREMT disagrees, because of his made-up definitions.
Nate disagrees with DREMT that the MOTL can be described as orbiting without axial rotation.
Nate disagrees with DREMT that Orbits are rotations.
DREMT thinks that an ORBIT that is both circular and has synchronous rotation, DEFINES what an ORBIT is.
Whereas Nate understands that is simply one, rare and specific TYPE of orbit, and thus cannot be a GENERAL definition of ORBIT.
Nate responds again. Presumably he’s set bob straight on the "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" issue, since I know he agrees with me, and disagrees with bob, on that one, specific issue.
> the outside is moving faster than the inside
Exactly, Bob.
I wonder why Gaslighting Graham thinks he can address that with geometry alone.
I recall DREMT claiming that he was not here to play games. That he was here for serious debate.
But here he is playing the:
Who said what way back when game.
Try to get your opponents to fight game.
Pretend you are not reading Nate’s posts while reading Nate’s posts game.
Try to humiliate Bob game.
He makes clear that playing these games is much more important than getting at the truth about the Moon’s orbit or anything else.
bob can debate Norman on 1), Nate on 2), and Bindidon on 3). All three issues have been settled, and as far as I’m concerned are not up for debate. That’s why I’m passing on the mantle to those that agree with my position on them. They can debate bob, or anyone else, if they wish. All they need is a lick of integrity to do so.
Nice try DR EMPTY,
But you failed to address it.
Sorry try again.
Right DR EMPTY,
“All they need is a lick of integrity to do so.”
Pass it off to those who have integrity, because you have none.
Addressed and debunked in a few simple words, bob.
If they have more integrity than me, let them prove it. For the first time ever in the history of the entire debate, let “Spinner” argue against “Spinner”.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Rebuttal isn’t refutation.
I agree. Refutation is refutation, which is what I provided. Over the years, I’ve provided irrefutable evidence that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. That’s why Nate agrees. With that understood, it ought to be obvious that the refutation to bob’s argument is, the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis. That’s why the paths of the atoms comprising the ball are moving in concentric circles about the external axis, and that’s why if you "take a ball 2 inches in diameter on a string 11 inches long, the far side of the ball moves in a circle with a circumference of 81.7 inches, but the inside of the ball moves in a circle of 69.1 inches".
You can understand bob’s confusion, however, because he believes that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTR. That’s why he thinks he has a point.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here’s what he calls a “refutation”:
That is pure contradiction.
That is NOT (h/t Pupman) a refutation.
I just elaborated, though, Little Willy, for those that needed further explanation.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here’s what he said:
I proved that this was FALSE.
It was a refutation for those that understand and agree with the settled point 2). Which I think includes you, IIRC.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, and he’s still stuck with the fact that one does not simply refute “the outside is moving faster than the inside” by geometry alone.
Actually, yes you do. That you can’t understand why is most amusing. Please continue.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
No wonder the Moon Dragon crank model of the motion of the Moon has no physics.
OK, I will explain. I don’t need to refute that the outside of the ball moves faster than the inside, because I agree that it does. That’s because the particles comprising the ball are moving in concentric circles about the external axis. They are doing so because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis.
Kind of hard for you to support bob when you directly disagree with him, Little Willy. I’m sure you’ll give it a good go, though.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Refutation is refutation, which is what I provided.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I don’t need to refute that the outside of the ball moves faster than the inside
Yes, I refuted bob’s argument because it’s not even necessary to challenge half of it. The only reason he thinks he has a point is because he erroneously believes “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR. You, me and Nate know better, though.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Perhaps he could tells us why the Moon has two speeds depending on which side we look at it?
I’m not discussing the moon, Little Willy. I have mentioned three points, that are correct regardless of who is right overall about the moon issue. Those that disagree can discuss 1) with Norman, 2) with Nate, and 3) with Bindidon. That’s it. I have nothing more to add.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, again trying to espace the fact that this is a PHYSICS problem.
We know why a ball on string has two sides with different speeds. What is needed is how the Moon can have the same speed differential. Moon Dragon cranks hold that the Moon stopped spinning completely.
The string should not make any difference.
Sheesh. When’s bob getting back?
DR EMPTY,
“OK, I will explain. I dont need to refute that the outside of the ball moves faster than the inside, because I agree that it does. Thats because the particles comprising the ball are moving in concentric circles about the external axis. They are doing so because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis.”
Yes, but that means they are moving at different speeds, and thus should be moving apart, but they are not.
So it has to rotate around an internal axis.
Of course you would think the ball has to rotate about an internal axis, you think "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTR!
Correct your confusion on that, and all will be clear. I’m sure Nate will be along to help you, soon.
DR EMPTY,
This
“Of course you would think the ball has to rotate about an internal axis, you think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR!”
is Gaslighting
When you tell me what I think.
It’s obvious that the Moon on the right is not rotating.
We’ll go back to the fact that the Moon is not rotating on an external axis, because it moves in an ellipse, not a circle.
You will have to admit you have lost this argument for the umpteenth time.
You told me what you think, bob. You said:
"2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is the Moon on the right."
You’re wrong about that. Sorry.
I’m not interested in discussing the moon.
“Ive provided irrefutable evidence that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. Thats why Nate agrees.”
Someone who claims not to read my posts claims they know my opinion!
What I have said is that the MOTL CAN BE described as
a. rotation around an external axis
OR
b. translation on an orbital path with internal axial rotation.
And I have made this point many times:
Description (a) is valid, by happenstance, to one specific, rare type of orbit, a circular orbit with 1-1 synchronous rotation.
Only description (b) is applicable universally to ANY orbit, and that is why only (b) is used by astrophysics.
Anyone suggesting that (a) is used by or useful to astronomy is spreading misinformation.
There you go, bob. Nate’s commented again. Presumably he’s once again setting you straight, since I know (from back when I used to read his comments) that he agrees with me on 2).
Its unclear what minor semantic issue DREMT is using to distract from HIS years long failure to convince people to accept his looney Moon theory.
His bizarre insistence that everyone else including: astronomers, physicists, and engineers have been all wrong about the Moon, for centuries, while HE, a non-scientist, has figured it out.
Just so it’s absolutely clear, bob thinks "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTR, and Nate thinks "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL. The two positions are diametrically opposing. They are in complete, absolute and utter disagreement on the issue. They couldn’t be more at odds with each other.
DREMT tells everyone what they believe. Then tell us that we disagree.
Quite bizarre.
Here’s bob:
"2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is the Moon on the right."
Here’s Nate:
“[Quoting me]:“Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.”
TRUE“
They disagree, but have an amazing integrity deficit when it comes to arguing with each other.
Ball4 said: “Rotation about an external axis (orbiting)…”
Ball4 clearly accepts that “rotation about an external axis” is just another way of saying “orbiting”. Some “Spinners” violently disagree. They will never argue amongst themselves about it, though.
“Spinners”: whatever you do, never argue amongst yourselves. Never scrape that integrity together.
DREMT is desperate to score imaginary points in the ‘get you opponents to fight’ game.
So desperate that he needs to go back months or even years to find some semantic differences in their posts.
To what end?
Certainly cannot be to support his failed ‘Moon doesnt spin on its axis’ theory.
“Spinners”: whatever you do, never argue amongst yourselves. Never scrape that integrity together.
Maybe you are unaware, people don’t like to be bullied.
As to the whole debate, the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the GIF below.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4).
The above three points are now beyond debate. They’re settled.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Just a reminder for anyone thinking that a rotating rigid body has a single definite axis of rotation:
“Rotations of rigid bodies are described with respect to their center of mass (CM) located at O or with
respect to any other point O’, in particular, a support point or a point on the so-called ‘instantaneous axis
of rotation’.”
https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/dgaranin/Mechanics/Mechanis_of_rigid_bodies.pdf
DR EMPTY,
Go argue with wikipedia,
This is the caption to your giff
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. Except for libration, this results in the Moon keeping the same face turned toward Earth, as seen in the left figure. The Moon is shown in polar view, and is not drawn to scale. If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
The issue is not resolved in your favor until you can edit that wikiepedia post you are citing.
DREMT always leaves out important details of what he really means since correctly the moon has inertial spin on its own axis:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt the string. It is instead orbiting about a central axis, located at the other end of the string and changing orientation wrt to the room.
2) “Rotation about an external axis (orbiting) with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the wiki GIF wrt to the central object.
3) The moon issue with details included thus being completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.
I don’t need to edit the caption to the GIF because the caption to the GIF does not say that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTR. The motion of the MOTR can be described (by “Spinners”) as “curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”, however.
Ball4, as I said: if anyone disagrees with my points 1) – 3), they can argue point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon.
I already know DREMT 9:36 am would prefer a commenter hide disagreeing with DREMT by deflecting to a discussion with commenters a,b,c,d… so forth.
Lol. That’s not the way it works DREMT. Just add in the meaningful details to get the relativity you mean communicated correctly and you will be fine. All motion is relative.
You disagree on point 3), so your best bet is to go and argue that with Bindidon, Ball4. Now, I already know that none of the "Spinners" have any integrity, so such an argument will never happen. That’s OK.
DR EMPTY,
“I dont need to edit the caption to the GIF because the caption to the GIF does not say that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the MOTR.”
Yeah you do, because the caption says the Moon is rotating about its axis, you are saying it is not.
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.”
Remember, you guys made up the “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” phrase, no one else uses that terminology.
Your position is clearly contradicted by the caption of your cherished giff.
bob, I literally just explained it to you. What’s the problem? Don’t you know the difference between curvilinear translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis!?
DR EMPTY,
There is no difference between curvilinear translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis.
Neither allow a change in orientation.
Unfortunately, that’s where we disagree.
And I am correct and you are wrong.
“Just so its absolutely clear, bob thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR”
As a Rigid Body, the MOTR has no rotation. Its orientation is fixed. But is orbiting an external point.
But its COM is a point. And that point can be described as rotating around an external axis.
“There is no difference between curvilinear translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis.
Neither allow a change in orientation.“
Wrong, bob. Madhavi specifically warns against confusing the two, and you just made that mistake! Oh well.
That’s wrong DREMT 3:27 pm, Madhavi specifically warned: “Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
No mention of, and no Madhavi figure for, bob’s: “curvilinear translation in a circle”.
Yes, Ball4…"rotation about an external axis" is rotation.
Of course it is DREMT.
“the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string.”
Well according the Rigid Body Kinematics, found in textbooks, it is not ‘settled’.
“Rotations of rigid bodies are described with respect to their center of mass (CM) located at O or with
respect to any other point O, in particular, a support point or a point on the so-called instantaneous axis
of rotation.”
The point is the ball on the string CAN BE described as rotating with respect to its COM, if useful to do so.
Astronomy finds it useful to do so for orbiting bodies.
“2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the moon on the left in the GIF below.”
Again, this is simply ONE WAY to describe this motion. It is NOT correct to say this IS THE MOTION.”
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4).”
One can declare this all they want, however the entire motivation for the ‘moon is not spinning’ springs from the public’s naive view of the Moon not rotating, because most people are unaware that they are observing it from a rotating frame of reference.
This point-of-view can be clearly seen in the oft-linked ‘The Moon is Not Rotating’ Youtube video with the mechanical device representing the Moon in orbit.
"Of course it is DREMT."
Glad you agree that bob made the mistake Madhavi warned against, then.
Right DR EMPTY,
I didn’t make that mistake, you are constantly making that mistake.
It’s simple,
Curvilinear translation is not rotation about an internal axis.
Read your Mahdavi again.
Specifically about curvilinear translation and orientation.
Take a close look at the curvilinear example, it shows no change in orientation of the curvilinear translating object.
"Curvilinear translation is not rotation about an internal axis."
Exactly, bob. Now you’re starting to get it.
"Take a close look at the curvilinear example, it shows no change in orientation of the curvilinear translating object."
Exactly, bob. Yet the "rotation about an external axis", or simply "rotation" example (Fig. 2(b)), does.
So, as I said, "rotation about an external axis" and "curvilinear translation in a circle" are two different things. Your mistake is to confuse the two.
bob made no mistake DREMT.
Of course he did, Ball4. "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is one way of describing motion like the MOTL. "Curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis" is one way of describing motion like the MOTR.
You should not confuse the two by saying that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTR, as bob does, or by saying that "curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL.
DR EMPTY,
Here is your mistake
“Exactly, bob. Yet the “rotation about an external axis”, or simply “rotation” example (Fig. 2(b)), does.”
Now compare that with what is actually in Mahdavi.
“while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Dr. Mahdavi does not call that rotation about an external axis, because it is not.
It is just rotation.
Or rotation about an internal axis.
Which is what the Moon is doing, as well as the ball on a string.
He defines all general plane motion as the sum of up to three motions, the only one allowing a change in orientation is rotation.
So it’s easy to conclude that if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating.
Class dismissed.
bob made no mistake DREMT. Listen and learn from Madhavi. There is no picture illustrating bob’s words so DREMT is thus so confused.
Nah, bob. That would be a very silly way to read it. The rectangle is clearly rotating about an axis that is external to the rectangle, located at point O. That it’s connected to point O by a rigid rod just helps make it clear that it’s physically impossible for the rectangle to rotate on its own internal axis. Hence we know the "rotation" referred to is "rotation about an external axis".
However, Madhavi is only one of several pieces of evidence that have been offered to you over the years. Whilst you, on the other hand, have never provided any evidence that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion as per the MOTR.
That’s how we all know that you’re wrong, and I’m right.
DR EMPTY,
“Nah, bob. That would be a very silly way to read it. The rectangle is clearly rotating about an axis that is external to the rectangle, located at point O. That its connected to point O by a rigid rod just helps make it clear that its physically impossible for the rectangle to rotate on its own internal axis.”
That’s an even sillier way to interpret that diagram, the whole rectangle includes the part that connects to the point O. There is no rigid rod, it’s all part of the plate.
The internal axis goes through point O, which is part of the plate.
“Hence we know the “rotation” referred to is “rotation about an external axis”
We know this is false because the plate is changing its orientation, so it cannot be only rotation about an external axis like 2a.
“However, Madhavi is only one of several pieces of evidence that have been offered to you over the years. Whilst you, on the other hand, have never provided any evidence that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTR.”
Yes I have, and in fact I just did in my last post.
[Me] “He defines all general plane motion as the sum of up to three motions, the only one allowing a change in orientation is rotation.
So its easy to conclude that if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating.”
The Moon on the right is not changing its orientation, therefore it is not rotating.
The Moon on the left is changing its orientation, therefore it is rotating on an internal axis.
[DR EMPTY]”Thats how we all know that youre wrong, and Im right.”
Yeah Right
You’re Bent.
"That’s an even sillier way to interpret that diagram, the whole rectangle includes the part that connects to the point O. There is no rigid rod, it’s all part of the plate. The internal axis goes through point O, which is part of the plate."
bob, point O is external to the main body of the rectangle. It’s also not the case that there needs to be any physical connection between a body and the axis of rotation, either. "The axis of rotation need not go through the body". Google that phrase. An object can rotate about an external axis. When it does so, the particles making up the body of the object are moving in concentric circles about the axis of rotation. Same as with internal axis rotation. Why would it be any different!?
"We know this is false because the plate is changing its orientation, so it cannot be only rotation about an external axis like 2a." bob, 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis). Not rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis).
"So its easy to conclude that if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating."
Yes, but about which axis, bob? That’s the whole point!
So it’s easy to conclude that if something is changing its orientation in a frame, then it is rotating about an internal axis.
DREMT, point O is internal to the body of the Madhavi 2 (b) object which is the whole point. Sure, you could draw the same motion without a connection to O just as if a rectangle were orbiting O & spinning once about its cg per orbit at the same time in the frame shown.
No, Ball4. If something is changing its orientation in a frame, then it is rotating about some axis. You are wrong. I am right.
If the object in 2 (b) is not connected to O, thus orbiting an external axis, the object can be spinning on an internal axis or not spinning on an internal axis in the frame as it orbits O.
These are the pictures Madhavi does not show & bob discusses so apparently & unfortunately DREMT only looks at pictures.
Sophist Ball4 deliberately switches from talking about “rotation about an external axis” or “curvilinear translation in a circle” to just using “orbiting”, immediately obscuring the entire point. He knows that he can’t say the disconnected rectangle would be “rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own internal axis”, so he avoids that and keeps the terminology non-specific. Clever. But transparent.
DREMT, point O is internal to the body of the Madhavi 2 (b) object which is the whole point. Sure, you could draw the same motion without a connection to O just as if a rectangle were in “rotation about an external axis” O & spinning once about its cg per “rotation about an external axis” O at the same time in the frame shown.
If the object in 2 (b) is not connected to O, thus in “rotation about an external axis” O, the object can be spinning on an internal axis or not spinning on an internal axis in the frame as it is in “rotation about an external axis” O. These are the pictures Madhavi does not show & bob discusses so apparently & unfortunately DREMT only looks at pictures.
Now you are simply wrong. As Ftop_t demonstrated mathematically, if the disconnected rectangle were rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis, it would not move as indicated in Fig. 2(b).
That is not what ftop_t proved DREMT. If the disconnected rectangle were rotating about both an external axis O and an internal axis inside the now closed rectangle, then it does move as indicated in Fig. 2(b) as can be plainly seen wrt the Madhavi ref. frame picture.
Ftop_t proved precisely what I said he proved, Ball4.
No, DREMT, since ftop_t didn’t use ref. frames either in that link. He or she was just as lost in space as is DREMT without ref. frames since ALL motion is relative.
He proved what I said he proved, Ball4.
Dr. Madhavi does differ with you DREMT, shows you are wrong, and agrees with me as her figure 2(b) frame demonstrates.
Incorrect.
FWIW, Flop did not demonstrate that two rotations would necessarily lead to a situation where the man of the Moon would change orientation. That was the CSA Truther trick. So Gasliting Graham is misremembering again.
The CSA Truther trick rests on a silly sleight of hand. When he rotates the Moon, he also turns her. He pretends that the motor for spinning does not work, but forgets to tell his audience that in space, orbit and spin are independent motions.
What you say is worth precisely nothing. Ftop_t proved what I said he proved. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
DREMT, ftop_t showed “Rotation about an internal or external axis is a mathematical calculation”. Madhavi also showed such but in framed picture form 2(a) translation and 2(b) rotation.
Brainwashing Ball4 gaslights again.
DR EMPTY,
“Yes, but about which axis, bob? Thats the whole point!”
Are you claiming an object can only rotate around one axis.
Better not be.
Any way, the Moon is not rotating about an external axis, because it is orbiting in an ellipse, with the Earth at one focal point.
If it were rotating about an axis in an ellipse it would be orbiting around the center of the ellipse, not one of the focal points.
[DR EMPTY] “bob, point O is external to the main body of the rectangle. Its also not the case that there needs to be any physical connection between a body and the axis of rotation, either.”
[Me]So what if the point O is external to the main body of the rectangle, it’s the center of the rotation as shown by the curves in the diagram. All points of the rectangle moving in concentric circles. Which is not necessarily true for an external rotation unless the rate of external rotation or orbiting matches the rotation.
[DR EMPTY]”bob, 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis). Not rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis).
[Me] My position is still that curvilinear translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis are the same motion, and can be modeled by the equation x^2 + y^2 = C
All the parts of 2a rotate in circles, but the circles are not concentric, so it exhibits no rotation about an internal axis.
Yes, bob, an object can rotate about both an external axis, and an internal axis at the same time. When it does so, it cannot possibly move like the MOTL. You won’t understand that, because you have said that you think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis” are the same motion, like the MOTR. You’re wrong about that, but your ignorance is invincible, so there’s no point us discussing it further. Just spend the rest of your life being wrong. Fine with me. I’m happy that there are rational “Spinners” who understand that you’re wrong, even if they will never have the integrity to debate you about it.
DR EMPTY,
“You wont understand that, because you have said that you think rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis and curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis are the same motion, like the MOTR.”
Yes they are the same thing, both can be modeled by the equation:
X^2 + y^2 = C
It’s not what I think, it’s what can be shown by trigonometry.
Did you take that in school, or did you drop out?
Continue to be wrong, if you wish. That is not my concern any more.
DR EMPTY,
Both a rotation about an external axis and curvilinear translation in a circle can be modeled by the same equation:
a^2 + b^2 = c
That’s the end of it.
Continue to deny trigonometry.
Spend the rest of your life being wrong, bob.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
DR EMPTY.
Don’t post sources that prove that I am correct!
“This is 2D planar geometry applying the universal calculation for rotation. In this scenario, we rotated the object 90 degrees about its own axis while at the same time rotating 90 degrees about an external axis.”
See, he rotated the triangle about an internal axis as well as an external axis.
…and the result was not motion as per the MOTL.
Gordon,
“You mean the highest average Giss ever fudged.”
The highest month in the record, corroborated by UAH.
You credit UAH with sagacity and probity, but castigate GISS for producing the same result as UAH.
From the current temperature data there is no question that we are firmly in a steady secular warming period.
*****
Every planet is subjected to its annual average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) T (K).
The planet annual average surface temperature is a dependent on the planet’s distance from sun value.
Of course it is dependent on the planet’s radiative energy balance.
It is also dependent on the planet’s rotational warming phenomenon.
And, in addition to all that above, the planet annual average surface temperature is a dependent on the annual planet surface temperature differentiation.
The less planet surface temperatures annually differentiated – the higher is the planet annual average surface temperature.
And the more planet surface temperatures annually differentiated – the lower is the planet annual average surface temperature.
–
In our times Planet Earth is in an exceptional annual orbital pattern, which pattern (earth’s orbit eccentricity, when Earth is at its closest to the sun during the North Hemisphere’s winter, and it is very much close to the sun at the times of winter Solstices…)
–
At current times Earth’s annual orbital pattern creates a lowering the Planet Earth’s the annual average surface temperature differentiation.
This exact phenomenon is what creates the observed in our era the very slow (millennias long) continuous (gradual)Global Warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Replying to the wrong board, aren’t you? Try here: https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/#comment-994181
This exact phenomenon is what creates the observed in our era the very slow (millennias long) continuous (gradual) Global Warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Curious.
For most of the last 5000 years we have been cooling.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
That chart is fake
Eben – because you say so, right?
Even
You believe it to be fake. Not quite the same thing as falsifying it.
Since the pattern is coherent, consistent, consilient and replicated; falsifying it might be difficult.
” This exact phenomenon is what creates the observed in our era the very slow (millennias long) continuous (gradual)Global Warming. ”
What a load of nonsense…
Vournas should go back to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543539
download all papers mentioned in the comment, and carefully read them all before he tries to dissimulate the evidence.
You might like:
https://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/esper-et-al-2002/
Chauvinism isn’t a quality.
And this chart? Also fake?
https://i.postimg.cc/CL4KVfqW/Climate-in-northern-Europe-reconstructed-for-the-past-2-000-years.png
Ja Ja
“Yes the Earth surface is losing to sky, correct. But it loses far less with the DWIR than it would without it (remove the blanket and it cools much faster).”
This comment from further up the thread demonstrates the fundamental flaw in the while ‘ghe’ hypothesis. It is based on a fantasy..
The Earth has an atmosphere because it is hot.
It is not hot because it has an atmosphere..
Planets lose atmosphere as they cool, so to say I’d there was no atmosphere it would be cooler is equivalent to saying ‘when the Rarth is cooler it will be cooler…
The Earth is not some cold BB heated to its current temp by the sun, but a hot ball of molten rock,metals and gasses that has been cooling for 4 billion years despite solar input. It must continue to do so as the 2lot demands..
> The Earth has an atmosphere because it is hot.
Wow.
So the Earth is a discotheque:
https://youtu.be/TpvF7Qq9svk?feature=shared
Lol
Great video
Wasted Wee Willy,
Generating gibberish again? Discotheque?
That’s about as stupid as saying that the GHE is “Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Keep the laughter coming.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
” … that has been cooling for 4 billion years despite solar input. ”
It seems that the PhilJ guy is a (weak) copy of the Flynnson boy.
Did PhilJ ever notice that Sun’s activity (~ 1365 W/m^2 at TOA) is a tiny bit higher than the cooling rate of Earth’s core (~ 1 W/m^2) since probably 2 of these 4 Gy ?
If the Earth has an atmosphere because it is hot, why does Mercury not have an atmosphere?
Epic Fail.
And why do all the gas giants have atmospheres, when they are quite cold, Jupiter being an exception.
Hello Bob,
Mercury is significantly cooler than the Earth, having no molten core.
Venus’ interior too, is likely significantly cooler than the Earth and when the Sun finishes cooking off its water I expect the Co2 atmosphere to then be quickly swept away as it’s induced magnetosphere breaks down..
Mercury has very, very tiny atmosphere like our Moon has.
But on the Moon, where it is very, very cold, does it have more atmosphere? And likewise with Mercury?
It is said, the Moon has some places which are cold, does Mercury have places as cold? Or colder, or bigger places of coldest.
BepiColombo, wiki:
“Expected to arrive in Mercury orbit on 5 December 2025, the Mio and MPO satellites will separate and observe Mercury in collaboration for one year, with a possible one-year extension.[1] The orbiters are equipped with scientific instruments provided by various European countries and Japan. The mission will characterize the solid and liquid iron core (3⁄4 of the planet’s radius) and determine the size of each.[17] The mission will also complete gravitational and magnetic field mappings. Russia provided gamma ray and neutron spectrometers to verify the existence of water ice in polar craters that are permanently in shadow from the Sun’s rays.
Mercury is too small and hot for its gravity to retain any significant atmosphere over long periods of time, but it has a “tenuous surface-bounded exosphere” containing hydrogen, helium, oxygen, sodium, calcium, potassium and other trace elements. Its exosphere is not stable as atoms are continuously lost and replenished from a variety of sources. The mission will study the exosphere composition and dynamics, including generation and escape.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo#Mission
PhilJ
You really do not understand the difference between total planet temperature and surface temperature. It appears Swenson is your Disciple. Mercury surface is much hotter than the Earth’s surface.
Here:
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/solar-system-temperatures/
Mercury surface temperature averages 333 F. Quite a bit hotter than Earth’s surface.
The surfaces are generally heated by Solar input. The hotter core is insulated from the surface and only a small amount of energy reaches the surface (this is why the interior of Earth stays so hot, good insulation).
It might interest you to really work on understanding the difference between a surface temperature and a planet’s total average temperature (core included). They are not the same. Climate science deals with the surface region where life exists. It does not concern itself with the temperature of the core and if that is cooling. Even if the core cooled completely the surface would still be warmed by the Sun until the Sun exhausts its fuel.
Hello Norman,
What do you define as the surface?
If you mean the top of the solid rock layer, the vast majority of the Earth surface is covered by oceans whos depths having received no solar input whatsoever are about 5 C.
Further if you go about 10 M below exposed land surface you’ll find a temp about 15 C
So i would suggest that the average ‘surface’ temp of the Earth without any solar input is about 5C
the BB temp that the ‘GHE’ proponents like to mention, is in fact the limit the a planet will cool to, given enough time..
Mercury has pretty much reached that limit. The Moon too, although it still has a small molten core that will , like Mercury, solidfy given enough time..
Venus is well on its way, having pretty much finished outgassing.
And yes rock is a great insulator, but it would be silly to suggest that the Earths rock layer has heated its interior, rather than slow its cooling…
Imagine if the inner core warmed the surface over billions of years, Phil. It would have no energy left!
“Imagine if the inner core warmed the surface over billions of years, Phil. It would have no energy left!”
Hello Willard,
umm, the molten core HAS been heating the surface for billions of years (just as water has been the surface’s primary coolant for billions of years). Still plenty of thermal energy left though.. enough to spin that iron rock at the very core and (lucky for us) generate a magnetic field.
Phil,
There’s something like 47 TW that comes from the Earth’s interior to the surface:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
The actual energy imbalance is 460 TW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Please don’t turn into another Mike Flynn.
PhilJ,
The Earth has a solid core, just like Mercury, with a molten outer core.
“And why do all the gas giants have atmospheres, when they are quite cold, Jupiter being an exception.”
–
Jupiter is not an exception. Jupiter is very cold too.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The argument is that the Earth has an atmosphere *because* it is hot, Christos.
IJupiter is cold. Why does it have an atmosphere?
Why would you think Jupiter is cold?
Willard,
“The argument is that the Earth has an atmosphere *because* it is hot, Christos.”
–
Earth has an atmosphere consisted mostly from of N2 and O2.
Earth is cold enough to keep within its gravity the lighter gasses N2 and O2.
Venus is cold enough to keep the heavier CO2.
Jupiter is very cold (165K at 1 atm.level), and Jupiter has a very much strong gravity, thus Jupiter holds a vast atmosphere mostly consisted from the lightest gas H2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Venus,Earth,Mars – all of them have gasseous CO2.
–
Only Earth has the combination of gravity-temperature to hold a liquid water.
–
Once the entire Earth was covered with H2O – ice at the poles and liquid water elsewhere.
–
Earth continuously losses water to the space. It is a slow process though, there will be enough water for the time being…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earth continuously losses water to the space. It is a slow process though, there will be enough water for the time being”
There is suppose to be a lot water in our solar system.
And you could say our solar system hit us {and/or because.. we should explore it}.
Anyhow, we have various ideas about why Earth has water, one thought is that space rocks are impacting Earth.
> Venus,Earth,Mars all of them have gasseous CO2.
That’s false, Christos.
Revise and resubmit.
Venus, Earth, Mars have CO2.
Venus’ CO2 is in supercritical state, Christos. Also, some of Mars’ CO2 is frozen. Its very thin atmosphere keeps it a little warmer too, even at low partial pressure. When its Jeans escape will be complete, the planet ought to reach its effective temperature.
“Jupiter is very cold (165K at 1 atm.level), ”
And as one decends through the atmosphere the temp increases to 1000’s of degrees..
What is the temp at say earth radius from its center of gravity? Probably close to the temp of the surface of the Sun..
Journey to the center of Jupiter? Just like journey to the center of the Earth, F*ing hot. But irrelevant.
“Journey to the center of Jupiter? Just like journey to the center of the Earth, F*ing hot. But irrelevant.”
Hello Nate,
Irrelevant? It’s the fundamental flaw in the whole ‘ghe’ model nonsense.
The Earth is HOT! Not some cold BB heated solely by the Sun..
What you call a “fatal flaw” suffers from a fatal flaw, Phil:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1547756
Phil,
Nah.
The weather and the climate are at the Earths surface, driven by the solar input.
And it is well insulated from the internal geothermal heat with a few localized hot spots.
The measured geothermal heat flux at the surface is < 100 mW/m2. About 2500 x less than the solar input.
So yes, still not relevant to weather or climate, (except for occasional strong volcanic eruptions)
As I said the global warming cargo cult at some level of awareness wants to live on Mars {where it is neither hot nor cold}. But some of them might also want live in the sky.
Venus has a lot sky, and like Earth a lot our sky is pretty cold {though if include our thermosphere, it’s very hot, but like a vacuum it’s neither hot or cold} but anyhow, there might be something unexplored regarding Venus that could pertain to where the cargo cult wants to live.
ENSO anomalies, week ending Oct 14.
1.2 … +2.3 (down 0.3)
..3 … +2.1 (up 0.2)
3.4 … +1.5 (no change)
..4 … +1.3 (up 0.1)
Nicely confirmed by WUWT’s ENSOmeter
https://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
Bin&Twerpy – hind-casting weather services
… says the blog’s dachshund, eternally stalking and gullible YouTube trash presentation manager, thanks for the dog poop, look forward to seeing you again soon.
Maybe if you were paying more attention to my videos you wouldn’t be typing idijotic posts like powering light bulbs by radiation from ice
Poor aggressive dachshund who isn’t even able to understand that a few idi-o-ts try to discredit others by claiming they would think such nonsense.
You didn’t understand even a tiny bit of that stoopid discussion: no wonder, you are too busy with what you love the most: to discredit and denigrate.
*
Why don’t you dachshund try to write something meaningful, e.g. by replying to Robertson’s lunar spin nonsense?
Answer: because unlike me, you are too much a coward to do that.
Every time Bindiclown gets caught typing something totally dumb he claims he was misunderstood,
nice try again
[CO2] is a trace gas (~400 ppm) in the Earths atmosphere. Earths atmosphere, as a whole, is a very thin substance to have any significant greenhouse warming effect on the Earths surface.
Earths atmospheric [CO2] content is too small to have any influence on the planetary radiative energy balance.
Since the [CO2] 140 ppm do not influence the ΔT(global) temperature increase, thus there is only one conclusion:
The increase in [CO2] content by 140 ppm in 130 years is driven by the ΔT(global) increase about 1K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earths atmosphere, as a whole, is a very thin substance to have any significant greenhouse warming effect on the Earths surface.”
You can claim that all you want, but don’t expect people to take your word for it. Especially went lots of scientists can explain exactly why a small amount of CO2 SHOULD have a significant warming effect.
“Especially went lots of scientists can explain exactly why a small amount of CO2 SHOULD have a significant warming effect.”
–
“a small amount of CO2 SHOULD have a significant warming effect.”
–
How it is possible? A small amount of CO2 cannot have a significant warming effect, the whole atmosphere doesn’t have.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“How it is possible? A small amount of CO2 cannot have a significant warming effect, the whole atmosphere doesnt have.”
The surface below the atmosphere warms the atmosphere.
And I would say surface and atmosphere above absorbs more of the energy of sunlight compared to lunar, Mars, or Mercury surface.
{And also, more than Venus}
I would attribute this as being due the Earth having 70% of it’s surface being an ocean. But land surface and atmosphere above absorbs more than Moon, Mars, or Mercury surface {but I wouldn’t include Venus}.
“…lots of scientists can explain exactly why a small amount of CO2 SHOULD have a significant warming effect.”
Folkerts, can your “scientists” explain that without violating the laws of physics?
(That’s a rhetorical question, of course. They can’t!)
“The increase in [CO2] content by 140 ppm in 130 years is driven by the ΔT(global) increase about 1K.”
Indeed, as warmer oceans dissolve less co2
Which begs the question what has warmed the oceans..
There are only 2 options that I can think of that could explain warmer oceans:
1. increased insolation, such as all the UVB being absorbed by the oceans that is not absorbed by a thinner ozone layer..
2. increased geothermal heating
Or, for 1), increased insolation due to a reduction in cloud cover.
Except that there is increased dissolved CO2 in the oceans as evidenced by the reduced alkalinity* of said oceans.
* – for those who don’t understand the term acidification of the oceans.
Hello bob,
at what depth bob? Of course if the oceans have warmed and are releasing more c02 then near the surface the concentration would be increasing..
again it begs the question :
what is causing the oceans to warm? Not a colder atmosphere, certainly
At all depths Phil,
The oceans are abbyzorbing CO2, not releasing it.
The greenhouse effect is warming the oceans.
And yes a colder atmosphere can cause an increase in temperature of a warmer object, your understanding of the second law may need updating.
CO2 outgassing from ocean is related to ocean temperature — higher temperature, more outgassing, lower temperature, less outgassing.
And no, a cold atmosphere can NOT warm a warmer ocean.
… except when the colder atm. radiation replaces even colder than the atm. outer space radiation which is absorbed, scattered, and transmitted at the ocean surface.
Clint R,
As usual you get it wrong.
“CO2 outgassing from ocean is related to ocean temperature higher temperature, more outgassing, lower temperature, less outgassing.”
It’s also related to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The concentration of CO2 in the oceans is going up, indicating that the oceans are not outgassing.
Poor bob agrees that ocean outgassing is related to temperature.
Than, he states that the warmer oceans are not outgassing!
Poor bob….
Clint R,
That’s right, the oceans are not, I repeat not, outgassing.
Because the increase in ocean temperature is not enough to be responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I know you are not a chemist, and thus, it’s over your head.
Poor bob agrees that ocean outgassing is related to temperature.
But, he states that the warmer oceans are not outgassing!
Poor bob….
Poor Clint R,
What part of more than one thing affects the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans do you not understand?
CO2 is being abbyzorbed by the oceans, thus the oceans are not outgassing, even though the oceans are warming.
You know a mind is a poor thing to waste.
I”ll let you argue with yourself, bob.
It’s safer than you playing in the street.
Clint R,
So you don’t know what’s going on with the oceans and CO2 in the atmosphere?
“what is causing the oceans to warm? Not a colder atmosphere, certainly”
No, as always, it is the sun causing the ocean to warm. But it can’t warm indefinitely, it also has to dissipate heat to the atmosphere and then to space.
Thus the properties of the atmosphere matter for the ocean’s ability to lose heat to space, and thus control its temperature.
Correct Nate, it’s the Sun.
Yep, the sun is heating the Earth, and the GHE is providing insulation, and as a result, the Earth is warmer.
Some day you may figure this out.
Several problems in your “understanding” — O2 and N2 provide the insulation.
That ain’t your bogus GHE.
“O2 and N2 provide the insulation.”
Yes you bizarrely declared without evidence that O2 and N2 reflect 15 micron radiation.
And everyone has appropriately ridiculed you for it.
Hide the decline – turn it into hockey stick
https://youtu.be/e1wb-8myLgk?t=249
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The atmosphere of Jupiter is classified into four layers, by increasing altitude: the troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere and exosphere. Unlike the Earth’s atmosphere, Jupiter’s lacks a mesosphere. Jupiter does not have a solid surface, and the lowest atmospheric layer, the troposphere, smoothly transitions into the planet’s fluid interior. This is a result of having temperatures and the pressures well above those of the critical points for hydrogen and helium, meaning that there is no sharp boundary between gas and liquid phases. Hydrogen is considered a supercritical fluid when the temperature is above 33 K and the pressure is above 13 bar.
[…]
The vertical temperature gradients in the Jovian atmosphere are similar to those of the atmosphere of Earth. The temperature of the troposphere decreases with height until it reaches a minimum at the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
[…]
Jupiter’s thermosphere is located at pressures lower than 1 μbar and demonstrates such phenomena as airglow, polar aurorae and X-ray emissions. Within it lie layers of increased electron and ion density that form the ionosphere. The high temperatures prevalent in the thermosphere (8001000 K) have not been explained yet; existing models predict a temperature no higher than about 400 K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter
“This is a result of having temperatures and the pressures well above those of the critical points for hydrogen and helium”
Thank you!
As you have demonstrated, Jupiter is hot indeed!
> as you have demonstrated
I demonstrated no such thing, Phil:
https://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html
It all depends at which height you decide to measure.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
“some of Mars CO2 is frozen. Its very thin atmosphere keeps it a little warmer too, even at low partial pressure. When its Jeans escape will be complete, the planet ought to reach its effective temperature.”
–
“the planet ought to reach its effective temperature.”
What do you mean by that, Willard? How a planet can reach a uniform surface temperature?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I mean that the greenhouse effect on Mars is about 5C:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
“I mean that the greenhouse effect on Mars is about 5C:”
A colder atmosphere CANNOT heat a warmer surface,, 2lot
The simple and proper reason why Mars has not yet cooled to what i believe you term ‘effective temperature’ is that it has not yet had enough time to do so given the chemical and physical changes it has undergone as it cooled..
> 2lot
Tell that to someone who just built an igloo, Phil.
Ha Willard, you crack me up.
Ive never been in an igloo. But the quinzie I was in, was warmed up by me and my candle.. not the reverse..
Same with the atmosphere, Phil.
Same with the atmosphere.
The atmosphere insulates Earth from the extreme cold of space, but radiative gases act as holes in that insulation.
As seen on Venus.
Actually silly willy, Venus is quite different from Earth. For example, Venus heats itself. Its nearly-molten surface is hotter that Sun could heat it. The atmosphere, even with over 95% CO2, is overwhelmed the combination of the hot surface and over twice the solar Earth receives.
“but radiative gases act as holes in that insulation.”
So Clint, lets take a regular sheet of fiberglass insulation, and use it to insulate a heated surface, and make it warmer.
The glass fibers on the outer surface of the fiberglass layer are ultimately emitting the heat from the surface to the surroundings. They are ‘cooling’ the surface!
Thus by the same logic you are using above, you must conclude that fiberglass is ‘acting like holes in the insulation’ and causing the surface to be cooler!
Good ol Clint. We can always count on him to mess up science.
Child Nate, you don’t understand, as usual.
You need to make holes in your fiberglass, to duplicate the analogy.
No holes needed. The emission of IR from CO2 to space is from the topmost layer of the troposphere.
Sound analogy.
Not all of the IR emission comes from the top layer, but as long as you understand radiative gases are emitting energy to space, you’re starting to get it.
“as you understand radiative gases are emitting energy to space”
I do.
As long as you understand that before they emit IR to space, they abs.orb IR, emitted by the CO2 beneath them.
Just as the fiberglass fibers emit heat to the air, after they first abs.orb it from the fibers beneath.
And both result in insulation.
Clint R,
CO2 can not emit IR to space because IR is reflected back to the Earth by N2 and O2.
Yes bob, O2 and N2 reflect 15μ photons, but some of the photons miss the molecules.
Clint R
You need to support your claim with evidence. You have not done so to date. You are like a Qanon Bot that just peddles nonsense and is able to find a handful of gullible people to eat your shit sandwich.
YOU: “Yes bob, O2 and N2 reflect 15μ photons, but some of the photons miss the molecules.”
Where is the evidence? You make up shit and act like a total asshole and have a shit eating grin as you ridicule people several times smarter, more logical and rational than you can understand.
Clint just doesn’t know how to read the graphs showing 15micron sunlight radiation at sea level spectral irradiation is non-zero as would be the case if O2 molecules reflected 15micron radiation.
(Don’t show that measurement to Clint so we all can continue to laugh at Clint’s gaffes.)
Norman, I always enjoy your meltdown rants.
And now, you’ve added foul language to your usual insults and false accusations.
Obviously, with all your other immaturity issues, you’ve got a severe anal fetish.
Clint R,
“Yes bob, O2 and N2 reflect 15μ photons, but some of the photons miss the molecules.”
Which is bigger, how far apart are the molecules?
If by some, you mean all, then you are correct.
Clint R
I would say you are very STOOPID. And again you did NOT supply evidence for you made up nonsense. You remind me of the cult of Trump. They believe any lie he tells (stolen election proven false in Court where evidence is needed, none supplied). You just make up endless nonsense to distract the blog from engaging in useful scientific skepticism. Questioning some points of Climate Change is most useful. You making up false claims, insulting multiple posters , and never providing any evidence for any of your claims (including your Tonga Volcano posts…no evidence just your complete fabrication of Polar Vortex ideas with zero support for any of it).
It does get real old.
Norman, now you’re hiding your anal fetishes, but keeping your insults and false accusations.
You’ve got a lot of growing up to do.
Clint R
Let us use logical analysis. Did your latest diversion post provide evidence of your made up information?
Again you: “Yes bob, O2 and N2 reflect 15μ photons, but some of the photons miss the molecules.”
I guess you will not provide evidence for it. I would say you are the one with the anal fetish if you think words like shit (for nonsense, garbage, something needed to be flushed…your ideas) or asshole (a deliberate jerk) are an anal fetish. You are certainly a very strange one. You just make up stuff with zero evidence constantly, you lie about what people post (you falsely claim I said “square orbit” which is a complete lie you made up). Then you think common slang terms are indication of some anal fetish. You really are a strange person.
Clint R
I will ask in a nicer fashion. More neutral.
What is your supporting evidence for this statement you made in a post?
YOU: “Yes bob, O2 and N2 reflect 15μ photons, but some of the photons miss the molecules.
bob,
“CO2 can not emit IR to space because IR is reflected back to the Earth by N2 and O2.”
lol
Oh, that’s a hoot!
Now Norman wants to “go straight”. He got caught in another childish meltdown, filled with insults, false accusations, and his anal fetishes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548392
Now he wants to be nice! He believes he can fake being an adult.
Not a chance.
Clint R
Just as you did last time you posted your reflection nonsense you provided zero evidence to support the claim and now you will do it this time as well. No evidence just diversion.
You really are one for the Trump Cult. You make up stuff and when asked for evidence you divert or attack (whichever method you believe, in your mind, will be most effective to get out of providing actual evidence).
Basically it seems you will again avoid any and all evidence for you made up idea. “Yes bob, O2 and N2 reflect 15μ photons, but some of the photons miss the molecules.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548499
> Venus heats itself.
ROFL.
“Now he wants to be nice! He believes he can fake being an adult.”
Clint must have been abused by some adult long ago.
‘Just shut up and believe what I say, pipsqueak’ is how he thinks adults behave.
Thus, he responds with abuse and insults instead of answers or any support for his assertions…because that is somehow what an adult does!
The less planet surface temperatures annually differentiated the higher is the planet annual average surface temperature.
And the more planet surface temperatures annually differentiated the lower is the planet annual average surface temperature.
In our times Planet Earth is in an exceptional annual orbital pattern, which pattern (earths orbit eccentricity, when Earth is at its closest to the sun during the North Hemispheres winter, and it is very much close to the sun at the times of winter Solstices)
At current times Earths annual orbital pattern creates a lowering the Planet Earths the annual average surface temperature differentiation.
This exact phenomenon is what creates the observed in our era the very slow (millennias long) continuous (gradual) Global Warming.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Jupiter rotates every ten hours.
Willard,
“Christos,
Jupiter rotates every ten hours.”
–
Thank you, Willard, for your respond. It gives me the opportunity to highlight on the gaseous planets’ rotational warming phenomenon.
–
Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune at 1bar level mean temperatures T1bar 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison
All data are satellites measurements.
****** Readers are kindly asked to visit my site for the detailed analysis.
Conclusion:
Gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune average at 1bar level (satellite measured) temperatures T1bar relate (everything else equals) as their rotational spins’ (N) sixteenth root.
It is a demonstration of the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
It happens the same exactly way as the rocky inner planets Mercury, Moon and Mars average surface temperatures, and also as the Earth with Europa average surface temperatures.
The comparison coefficient is the same:
[ (1-a) (1/R) (N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
The planets are being separated in groups (Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune – H2, He), (Mercury, Moon and Mars – regolith), and (Earth with Europa – H2O) only by their similar specific heat.
And it is a confirmation that the planet’s axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the Tmean planet’s mean surface temperature in the sixteenth root:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴.
Notice:
The observed Jupiter and Neptune having the closest coefficient – planet’s temperatures at 1 bar level comparison rates, can be explained by the fact that Jupiter and Neptune have the closest atmospheric gases content.
Link to the page in my site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922/445559910?t=1697639739015
Instead:
[ (1-a) (1/R) (N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
and
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴.
Should be read as:
[ (1-a) (1/R^2) (N)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
and
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R^2) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴.
Christos,
If the Earth is warmer than the Moon because the Earth rotates faster, why is Jupiter colder than the Earth?
“If the Earth is warmer than the Moon because the Earth rotates faster, why is Jupiter colder than the Earth?”
–
Yes, Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
We cannot say that about Jupiter in comparison with Earth, because Jupiter is a gasseous planet without surface, when Earth is a planet with a surface.
288K is the Earth’s average surface temperature.
We do not know the Jupiter’s average surface temperature.
Nevertheless, gasseous planets are also subjected to the rotational warming phenomenon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> We cannot say that about Jupiter in comparison with Earth, because Jupiter is a gasseous planet without surface, when Earth is a planet with a surface.
So we could say that regarding Pluto, whose days are 6,387 Earth days long. Right?
I hope you realize where this is going, Christos.
“So we could say that regarding Pluto,”
Pluto has likely maintained an underground liquid ocean for billions of years
The discovery hints that subsurface oceans are common in the outer solar system, which is good news for the those seeking extraterrestrial life.
By Eric Betz | Published: June 23, 2020
https://www.astronomy.com/science/pluto-has-likely-maintained-an-underground-liquid-ocean-for-billions-of-years/
It’s roughly a twin dwarf planet.
I wonder how many twin planetary bodies are within 1 lightyear of Sol.
12. Plutos (dwarf planet) Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.pluto
Pluto has moderately eccentric orbit e = 0,2488 during which it ranges from 30 to 49 astronomical units or AU (4.47.4 billion km) from the Sun.
Pluto has orbital period of 247,94 years.
The New Horizons spacecraft performed a flyby of Pluto on July 14, 2015, becoming the first ever, and to date only, spacecraft to do so. During its brief flyby, New Horizons made detailed measurements and observations of Pluto and its moons.
The PlutoCharon barycenter came to perihelion on September 5, 1989.
These makes us conclude that when the New Horizons on July 14, 2015 made its measurements of Puto’s mean temperature Pluto was only 26 years away from the perihelion, so Pluto was still pretty much closer to the sun than its semi-major axis.
On July 14, 2015 the dwarf planet was approximately at 32.9 AU from the Sun.
And this partly explains the difference between the calculated and the measured Pluto’s mean surface temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos.
So your law or your phenomenon applies every time, except when it does not?
Interesting.
Oh, and Scientists indeed attribute a surface to Jupiter. It is where its atmosphere is at 1 pa.
“Interesting.
Oh, and Scientists indeed attribute a surface to Jupiter. It is where its atmosphere is at 1 pa.”
–
“It is where its atmosphere is at 1 pa.”
–
Do you, Willard, also attribute a surface to Jupiter? Do you attribute it where its atmosphere is at 1 pa?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
What I would attribute to Jupiter is of no relevance whatsoever. When Wiki entries refute claims you kept making for years, you need to reflect on your process. Either that sixteenth root thing holds, or it does not. If it does not, it needs to be useful, like Kepler’s laws.
You want to establish Vournas’ laws, right?
“Either that sixteenth root thing holds, or it does not.”
–
“Christos,
When Wiki entries refute claims you kept making for years, you need to reflect on your process. Either that sixteenth root thing holds, or it does not.”
Well, Willard, it is about claims I kept making for years. What should I do else?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
First, reading thy Wiki helps not saying stuff that can be refuted by reading thy Wiki, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
Second, establishing the conditions under which your laws work or don’t also helps. For instance,
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443983948/?t=1697745879257
The usual zero-dimensional energy-balance model is NOT a law.
It is a MODEL.
Your model is VERY inaccurate for MANY planets.
WHY are you doing this?
Willard,
“WHY are you doing this?”
–
The Bond albedo does not consider the entire amount of by the planetary surface the reflected SW solar energy.
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a uniform temperature sphere.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is not a radiative energy absorp-tion law.
Because that sixteenth root thing holds.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The Bond albedo designates the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space.
It has been measured:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/abe8e4/pdf
You need to address that instead of waving your arms.
Willard,
Albedo is a meassure of planet surface SW diffuse reflection.
Albedo does not account for the planet surface SW the TOTAL (diffuse + specular) reflection.
–
Therefore, the planet surface radiative energy balance, by the use of the meassured ALBEDO is not estimated correctly.
–
As a result, even the mathematical abstraction – the planet EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE is calculated very much mistakenly.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Repeating yourself will not change anything. Alright, baby steps.
When you use an acronym, you need to introduce it first. Do you understand that? I suppose you do, for you say that T is temperature.
Why did you not do it for SW on your main page?
Your whole INTERACTING with temperature bit would make Zeno proud.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I got another tropical storm, NORMA, which is predicted to turn into another hurricane.
The last one “apparently” hit Mexico as a Cat 4, but didn’t see any news about the damage {maybe it was only 2 or 3??}.
Anyhow this one going to hit Mexico as a Hurricane.
I thought two hurricanes, ago that we might done for the season.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2JEml2awCE
Bill OReilly
Julie Hartman interviews.
It suggested this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryzl763xm0E
Things Have Taken a Turn & This Is My Final Warning | Dennis Prager | POLITICS | Rubin Report
2 weeks ago
Dennis reinforces my notion that I am a lefty.
But two conservatives chat, and it’s interesting.
A true Lefty want first woman to land on the Moon, very soon, and quickly after this [within a decade] crew landing on Mars.
SPACE: Astronomers say new telescopes should take advantage of Starship paradigm.
https://instapundit.com/
The Starship paradigm is waiting for FAA to finish some paper work.
If it works, everything could get an advantage.
In theory it should work but in practice, there can be a lot of govt
paperwork.
Of course new telescopes should take advantage of “New Glenn paradigm” if it ever works.
And there a lot other possibilities we could take advantage of in terms of different rockets or other different stuff. But there is also an enormous amount of our time, being wasted.
Massive comet three times the size of Mt Everest racing towards Earth after violent space explosion
https://www.gbnews.com/news/comet-mt-everest-earth-12ppons-brooks-space-explosion
“A huge comet, three times the size of Mt Everest is racing towards Earth, astronomers have revealed.
The comet, named 12P/Pons-Brooks will narrowly miss Earth on April 21, 2024.”
Water is coming close to us.
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
—
–HOWS THAT SPACE PROGRAM COMING ALONG? Massive comet three times the size of Mt Everest racing towards Earth after violent space explosion.–
Posted at 8:30 pm by Ed Driscoll
Also from instapundit:
CHINA UPDATE: Dynasties
Economic growth continues to decline it is now under two percent a year and getting worse. That means more unemployment and lower living standards for most Chinese. A decade ago it became clear that the purported years of ten percent GDP growth were ending, assuming they were ever true at all. Not just because economic growth was slowing but because the central government was finally forced to go public, for the first time, about the false economic data that provincial officials had been sending to the central government for decades.
Yes, the official numbers were doctored. And Xi Jinping hasnt come up with a workable solution
Posted at 9:36 pm by Austin Bay
https://strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20231011.aspx
Chinas northernmost city just saw its coldest day ever
Updated 11:39 PM EST, Mon January 23, 2023
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-mohe-record-low-temperature-intl-hnk/index.html
“Temperatures in Chinas northernmost city plunged to minus 53 C (minus 63.4 degrees Fahrenheit) its coldest ever recorded, meteorologists said.”
Re: “Xi Jinping hasn’t come up with a workable solution”
Maybe a plan is to allow more Chinese to be warmer, so there is
less death from the cold.
Stop believing The Bizarro World science, it’s the cold that killz not warm
https://youtu.be/qMjUF3WdQBA
Diagnosis – Climately ill
https://youtu.be/Mqiog8u6sgo
Ball4 wrote –
” . . . except when the colder atm. radiation replaces even colder than the atm. outer space radiation which is absorbed, scattered, and transmitted at the ocean surface.”
Unfortunately, “cold radiation” does not exist. Ball4 suffers from an intellectual disability which prevents him from accepting reality.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. Ball4 is just confused, and does not realise that radiation from a colder object does not increase the temperature of a hotter one.
No wonder Ball4 cannot describe the GHE, but simply claims someone else has done so – without being able to supply this elusive “description.”
What a twit he is!
Swenson writes obviously that “cold radiation” does not exist. True. Then, as usual, Swenson admits obviously not understanding the earthen GHE. Also, true. Swenson goes 2for2 today.
Ball4 wrote
. . . except when the colder atm. radiation replaces even colder than the atm. outer space radiation which is absorbed, scattered, and transmitted at the ocean surface.
Unfortunately, cold radiation does not exist. Ball4 suffers from an intellectual disability which prevents him from accepting reality.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. Ball4 is just confused, and does not realise that radiation from a colder object does not increase the temperature of a hotter one.
No wonder Ball4 cannot describe the GHE, but simply claims someone else has done so without being able to supply this elusive description.
What a twit he is!
Swenson 7:01 am confirms the physics in my 5:21 am comment.
Ball4 wrote
. . . except when the colder atm. radiation replaces even colder than the atm. outer space radiation which is absorbed, scattered, and transmitted at the ocean surface.
Unfortunately, cold radiation does not exist. Ball4 suffers from an intellectual disability which prevents him from accepting reality.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. Ball4 is just confused, and does not realise that radiation from a colder object does not increase the temperature of a hotter one.
No wonder Ball4 cannot describe the GHE, but simply claims someone else has done so without being able to supply this elusive description.
What a twit he is!
Swenson 5:20 pm again confirms the physics in my 5:21 am comment.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
” Ha Willard, you crack me up.
Ive never been in an igloo. But the quinzie I was in, was warmed up by me and my candle.. not the reverse.. ”
PhilJ You may have missed it, but Willtard also thinks the lights in igloos are powered by radiation from ice
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471910
Silly Eboy.
Silly Willy believes the interior of an igloo is heated by the radiation from the frozen water of which it is built.
This would have the unfortunate consequence of the igloo at -40 melting from the inside out.
Silly Willy.
Better leave your door crack open before the heat builds up too much and your igloo catches on fire
https://i.postimg.cc/3x4xyTGx/igloofire.jpg
What are you braying about, Eboy?
You’ll die by asphyxia well before that.
In the wise words of your fellow Sky Dragon Crank:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/19/the-2-8-effect/#comment-415649
Same for the icy walls of an igloo.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are indeed strange. You are generating gibberish at a prodigious rate. You do realise that a temperature drop (fast or slow) is cooling, don’t you?
No amount amount of radiation from ice is capable of raising the temperature of even the smallest amount of water, regardless of how many imaginary scenarios you indulge in.
No, Willard, saying that the description of the GHE is “Not cooling, slower cooling” just make you look like the average (possibly below average) SkyDragon cultist.
Sorry laddie, no GHE. No CO2 heating whatsoever. If you find that you are losing at playing your “silly semantic games”, try playing with yourself some more. At least you might achieve a happy ending that way.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
You are braying again. About what exactly? Nobody knows. Nobody cares.
In the absence of atmosphere, the temperature would drop even more rapidly. In the absence of an igloo, the temperature of the Inuit who built it would drop even more rapidly. This is true too. Do you dispute that?
Nevermind, nobody cares what Sky Dragon cranks like Eboy dispute.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Uuuuuh! The estimated daily sunspot number is plunging dramatically!
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-EISN
It’s now well time for the Coolistas to spread again the shadow of the Grand Solar Minimum over us :–)
I am still waiting until end of November 2023, but if we are in Grand Solar Minimum, it’s only going last a few decades, and then we will return to another long time period of next Grand Solar Maximum.
Or I am predicting Valentina Zharkova will have a nice Christmas this year.
Don’t forget to update your polyiditic chart
No problem, dachshund…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
A propos ‘polyidi~o~tic’ charts:
https://tinyurl.com/yc26cvte
Why don’t you tell him the same, dachshund?
No courage?
Solar wind
speed: 331.8 km/sec
density: 1.33 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 39
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Low
They haven’t change solar picture yet. I am going to guess
3465 faded a lot more.
Solar wind
speed: 350.0 km/sec
density: 1.12 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 39
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 129 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
48-hr change: -0.7%
The dramatic drop in Nov, is already here. So, my prediction for Nov, is not a dramatic drop from here. Or I thought Nov month would/could drop to lower than 90 sunspot for Nov and lowest guess is down to maybe go as far 50 for the month and I thought we could see more than 1 spotless day. And we haven’t had spotless day, so dramatic I guess in terms of having a couple spotless days.
I am not counting/summing Oct but it seems it will be less than 120 for Oct but probably over 100. So if Nov end up at 90 {or more} it won’t be dramatic drop. But I was guessing Dec would also be low, and several months [Jan, Feb…} remaining low. And “low” is less than 100 sunspot number per month.
We are still in Solar cycle 25 max and will remain in it for years- it’s just going be a weak solar max.
So had high spike compared to cycle 24 max spikes, I am guessing it will be a weaker solar max than 24 max.
But still waiting to see what happens in Nov.
No spots coming from farside, and within a day, none leaving to the farside. And 3465 did fade and expecting/guessing it to completely fade before it reaching the farside. But other two spots seem like they could stick around for a week or more.
To review, 3465 was the largest spot of the seven numbered spots.
And now , 3468 is largest spot, and it’s moderate size spot. It’s moderate spot which grown a bit while on nearside.
If it grew a lot, I would imagine it could be unstable, but appears to me to be stable {though might grow into a big spot or roughly stay the same size as it is now. The third spot, 3464, was the second largest spot, and is now smaller than 3468. It might fade more, but in two days it will have left the nearside {and I would guess it might last for a week- unseen on the farside side.
In last month or so, new spots have been appearing on nearside and growing quickly- and big and fading as fast as they grew. It’s possible to repeat this, but doesn’t seem to me, as likely, at this point in time.
Solar wind
speed: 349.9 km/sec
density: 12.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 56
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 129 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
Again, not posted sun picture yet and I get to guess why sunspot
number went from 39 to 56 or +17
I think spots appeared in nearside and given spot number.
So there was those spots I thought were going to get a spot number
and they faded so one hardly see them, and I am guessing they reversed, and grew big enough, to finally get a number, which would be called 3469.
Other option is more boring: a spot came from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 328.2 km/sec
density: 10.74 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Oct 23
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 126 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
Well, there are 4 spots:
“These four sunspots have simple magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong flares.”
3465 has faded to smallest of 4 spots, 3469 is near 3465 but much higher north, and about 5 days before going to farside, and if 3465
makes it to farside, it’s about 2 to 3 days from it.
The spot I guessed would appear, did appear, and still hasn’t been given sunspot number, but it’s about the size of the greatly diminished, 3465.
3469 has about 7 small spots, and it seems it will grow much bigger
3468 is mostly 1 big spot, much bigger than any other spot, but I suspect 3469 will grow as big before goes to farside.
And 3464 is going to farside- a single spot second in size only to 3468.
Nothing came from farside, and I don’t see any spot coming from farside. And seems to me, my unlabeled sunspot will grow and become a numbered sunspot. It’s slightly less north in northern hemisphere then 3469.
Solar wind
speed: 290.2 km/sec
density: 1.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 65
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 126 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
Again no new solar picture so I can guess why went up, 56 to 65
or 11 up. Same guess as above, not labelled small spot, will grow and
be given number. And/or 3469 which appeared {“from nothing”} on nearside could grow a lot. And could be both, because 3464 leaving to farside and 3465 could fade away {before reaching farside}.
And also possible new spot grew on nearside, about half distance
between 3469 and 3468.
So, get to see what it was, soon.
Solar wind
speed: 361.4 km/sec
density: 3.47 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 65
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 123 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.26×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
That small spot did get a number, 3470. And other “new spot” got the number 3467. Or it faded, and reappeared giving it same number???
But it’s where predicted, between 3468 and 3469. And 3464 has left to farside and didn’t completely disappear. And 3468 is by far largest single spot, and 3469 has 4 small spots but there are each bigger than other numbered spots {5 of them in total}. 3469 didn’t grow as fast as I thought in might, and therefore it possible it fade as it goes to farside {in 2 to 3 days}.
And I don’t any spots coming from farside.
If not for the biggest spot, 3468 which is in middle of nearside, one might imagine we could get a spotless day within a week, but 3468 is going to on nearside for about week, and I don’t think it’s going to start to fade anytime soon.
But it seems spot number will lower in next day or two.
SpaceX pushes for lighter regulations as it eyes a second Starship launch
But environmental groups don’t think another launch should happen anytime soon.
By Andrea GuzmnOct 19, 2023
ttps://www.chron.com/culture/article/texas-spacex-regulation-launch-18433429.php
“Since SpaceXs Starship rocket self-destructed during its April launch, the spacecraft maker has been busy trying to get it back in the air from its spaceport in Boca Chica, Texas. ”
Why did it have problems with self-destruct?
I would guess, because it was boilerplate design.
Which roughly speaking is making something stronger, or stronger than what is normal for aerospace safety needs. And/or just not adding enough explosives. Or adding more than enough explosive was not part of boilerplate design- and now, I guess, it is.
A boilerplate design, means at some point, it’s going to be “improved” so it strictly fits “aerospace design factors” or least which needed.
Or it seems to me, Starship will be made from aluminum or titanium once it has been tested enough with stainless steel. Or by using stainless steel, you find out what better material could be used, though it’s possible, stainless steel is actually the best, but perhaps, just less of it.
That a rocket once flying will be improved, is roughly the story of all rockets- and certainly the story of the Falcon rocket. But it seems SpaceX apparent long duration use of boilerplate design is something “new” in terms of making rockets. But, back to story:
“But the company’s plan to launch the rocket again sits in limbo as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assesses upgrades, and now SpaceX is pleading to Congress to speed things up. The Senate Commerce subcommittee on space and science held a Wednesday hearing on safety and innovation in space activities in which representatives from SpaceX and other companies pushed for light-touch regulation, and Sen. Ted Cruz defended billionaires Musk and Jeff Bezos and their private space exploration.”
The FAA is delaying Starship and humanity! Supercut of Senate Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpUU3VP4hGU
Ellie in Space:
“The FAA IS delaying Starship and our return to the moon, and for all the wrong reasons!
SpaceX VP Bill Gerstenmaier emphasized that the FAAs commercial space office needs at least twice the resources that they have today for licensing rocket launches.”
Hello Nate,
“The weather and the climate are at the Earths surface, driven by the solar input.”
And by many other things as well, especially the chemical and physical properties of H20 and O3
“And it is well insulated from the internal geothermal heat with a few localized hot spots.”
Well insulated? I suppose yes. But of course that ‘insulation’ has not heated the interior.. the interior of course has heated that ‘insulation’ to , at the surface, a temp of about 5=15 C..-
“it is the sun causing the ocean to warm”
A hypothosis I agree with, primarily because of increased insolation of UVB (because of the thin ozone layer)
“Thus the properties of the atmosphere matter for the oceans ability to lose heat to space, and thus control its temperature.”
Again, I agree! And the properties of h2O and its capacity to transfer HEAT from the surface to the tropopause and radiate it to space, helps keep that ‘insulation’ layer nice and cool..
water is the planets primary COOLANT. Not something that heats the surface…
“Again, I agree! And the properties of h2O and its capacity to transfer HEAT from the surface to the tropopause and radiate it to space, helps keep that insulation layer nice and cool..
water is the planets primary COOLANT. Not something that heats the surface”
Oooh close. But no cigar.
An insulating layer is not a COOLANT.
The top of an insulating layer has the ability to transfer heat to the surroundings.
For example the top surface of a layer of fiberglass insulation, in an attic, transfers the heat of the house to the cold air in the attic.
In that way, one could say the top molecules of the insulation are cooling the house!
But the insulating layer is not a COOLANT, since it is keeping the house warm.
Hello Nate,
The insulating layer being referenced is the Earths crust, and yes, it is cooled by water.
lol
Hello Willard,
You find that amusing?
Water makes an excellent coolant because of its high heat capacity and latent heat of vaporization.
Enormous amounts of heat are transported from the surface to the tropopause and radiated to space..
I
Phil,
I was echoing your comment over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548497
As far as I can tell, the heat that comes out of the core is more constant. How does it explain say the Neoproterozoic?
Phil,
“Hello Nate,
The insulating layer being referenced is the Earths crust, and yes, it is cooled by water.”
We were initially talking about the Earth’s crust as the insulating layer. And we seem to agree that little of that too little of the geothermal heat leaks out to affect climate and weather.
THEN, you brought up the heat transfer from the surface to the tropopause.
I simply made the point that for that heat transfer, the atmosphere is also acting as an insulator.
How do we know that? The Earth’s surface temperature averages 288 K. According to the SB law, it emits ~ e*sigma*T^4 ~ 360 W/m^2 by radiation (e ~ 0.9) of energy flux to the atmosphere.
Yet at the tropopause the atmosphere emits ~ 240 W/m^2 to space.
Clearly this large reduction in heat flow that passes through the atmosphere must be the result of the atmosphere acting as an insulator.
Thus, the suggestion that the GHG in the atmosphere are acting as a ‘coolant’ to the surface, is contrary to the available facts.
Nate, you need to work on those talking points. Latent heat is right there in the Trenbeth Energy Budget.
And?
And you agree with this?
“water is the planets primary COOLANT. Not something that heats the surface”
Everyone, of course, should agree with this.
Because water through evaporation is the primary means by which the surface cools to the atmosphere and also the primary means the atmosphere cools to space, making it BY FAR the Earths primary coolant.
Stop looking at it backwards!
All of the insolation of the last 4+billion years has been lost and somewhat of the heat from the core as well.
That must continue of course as the 2lot demands
Polar Vortex North continues to build with max wind now approaching 120 mph.
Polar Vortex South must feel things are back under control, as max wind is now below 170 mph.
It’s pretty obvious that if Earth were to get too hot, Earth would employ even more tools to cool.
Thermodynamics always wins.
Willard,
“A comparison of the intensities between the directly illuminated side of the Moon and the side illuminated by Earths shine provides the mean albedo for a large part of the Earths surface.”
–
“illuminated by Earths shine…”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/abe8e4/pdf
–
Now you have confirmed that Bond Albedo is a meassure of the planetary diffuse reflection. The planetary specular reflection is left out, the planetary specular reflection is not considered as a loss of the incident on planet solar energy.
Thus the planetary specular reflected energy is wrongly estimated as “absorbed”, when it is not.
–
Thank you, Willard, for helping to clear it out.
–
Alright, baby steps. But nessesary steps.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You can’t even identify your “SW” properly.
Give yourself a chance.
Christos, the satellite radiometer instrument also measures all the global specular reflection except for the infinitesimal amount blocked by the instrument itself. No worries, there is no meaningful wrongly estimated as “absorbed” sunlight energy for the globe as a whole.
Little Willy, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Thank you Willard.
Thank you Ball4.
–
Today I am selebrating the:
illuminated by Earths shine
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m glad you do, Christos.
When you have time, you should check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection
That should help you realize that your claim is moot at best.
Thank you, Willard, for the corresponding links.
–
If you insist, please, what solar photosphere radiates? Is it a diffuse or is it a specular radiation?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dear Christos,
When you’ll tell what “SW” stands for, I’ll see what I can do.
Best regards,
Today is another wonderful day!
Thank you and Best Regards to you too!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Silly willy knows so little about science that he can’t figure out what “SW” stands for.
He wouldn’t even understand “shortwave” if you explained it to him!
Pupman can’t solve the simplest PHYSICS problem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548774
So much fun!
Silly willy knows so little about science, he actually believes the ball has sides with different speeds!
“We know why a ball on string has two sides with different speeds.”
Oh, Pupman.
You should teach Moon Dragon CRANK science to you-know-who:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548744
I agree that the outside of the ball moves in one circle, and that the inside of the ball moves in a smaller, concentric circle. That’s part of how we know it’s "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Since the circumference of the outer circle is bigger, and yet obviously the outer side of the ball completes that journey in the same amount of time as the inner side of the ball, then there’s certainly one sense in which the two sides of the ball are moving at different speeds.
If Clint R sees it in a different way, that’s fine. It doesn’t change the fact that the concentric circles are part of what identify the motion as "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". The issue of speeds for either side of the ball is really a separate discussion, removed from the issue I was talking about up-thread.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, TO BOB] I’ll assume he had the integrity to challenge you on what you said about point 2)
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If Pupman sees it in a different way, that’s fine.
Even though I just challenged what Clint R said, proving that I have more integrity than any of the "Spinners", Little Willy still has to pick at the wording I use to try and drum up some appearance of a double standard.
This is just one more example of the cult throwing crap against the wall. Silly willy knows NOTHING about the physics involved, as he demonstrates.
The “same speeds” of both sides is merely from averaging over the circles, as DREMT explained. Like many things that arise mathematically, it has NO meaning. Both sides of Moon, and the ball, are moving at the same speed. The angular speed is the same, and the instantaneous linear speed is the same. If speeds were really different, it would be obvious as the object would distort.
The cult won’t understand ANY of this and will proceed to throw more crap against the wall.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. Either “the issue of speeds for either side of the ball is really a separate discussion” or it’s “part of how we know that” the Moon does not spin. Can’t be both.
Perhaps he could muster the integrity to challenge Pupman’s fixed star puzzle?
"Speeds" is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned, because it’s the concentric circles themselves that are part of what indicate "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", not whatever follows or doesn’t follow regarding "speeds" from the concentric circles.
You probably won’t understand, Little Willy, but the fact that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the "moon on the left" also doesn’t settle the moon issue. Though some "Spinners" certainly behave as if they think it does.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
In a physics problem involving motion, speed matters. And there’s no reason to believe he does not know it. In fact, he ought to know that speed DESTROYS whatever point he may think he has with his pet GIF, for it means the whole idea that the Moon has no angular momentum is plain silly.
The point I have with my "pet GIF" is that I’m correct, Little Willy. "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL.
Now, it might not seem important to you, because it doesn’t resolve the moon issue…but when you have people constantly telling you that you’re wrong, insulting you and ridiculing you, over and over again for years, the fact that you know full well that you’re right the whole time becomes quite significant.
I know I’m right about points 1) – 3). Once every "Spinner" here has agreed that they’re correct, then I’ll happily move on to whatever else you want to talk about.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His pet GIF has a legend, which reads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
No amount of patch-written handouts from random Indian undergraduate mechanical engineer courses can do anything about that.
Silly willy, there are two major violations of the laws of physics in the wiki quote.
Can you even find one?
Here’s what I can find, Pupman:
[PUPMAN] I don’t need to refute that the outside of the ball moves faster than the inside, because I agree that it does.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] he actually believes the ball has sides with different speeds!
Awaiting your schooling.
You’re trying to evade the question, silly willy.
And, you got the quotes wrong.
What will you try next?
It wasn’t a question in the first place, Pupman.
Your “it would be obvious as the object would distort” inspired me this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548952
But riddle me this: how does it feel to have invested so many years in a position that is DESTROYED by a BBC video for kids?
I am correct about points 1) – 3), Little Willy. Sorry for your loss.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
You’re trying to evade the question, silly willy.
You found something on the Internet that you don’t understand. You can’t explain what is wrong with it. You just throw crap against the wall, hoping something will work.
This my third request, but you won’t answer responsibly. I just want to document what a phony you are.
You’re confusing asking with begging a question, Pupman. Begging the question is of the form “when have you stopped punching hippies?”
Riddle me this – does “the surface shortwave reflects a portion of the incident electromagnetic energy” make any sense to you?
Clint R,
“Both sides of Moon, and the ball, are moving at the same speed. The angular speed is the same, and the instantaneous linear speed is the same.”
You really put your foot in your mouth this time Clint R.
The linear speed is derives from the angular speed time the radius.
So since the radius to one side of the Moon is different from the radius to the other side of the Moon, so they can’t be the same.
Did you ever actually take Geometry?
See DR EMPTY,
“I am correct about points 1) 3), Little Willy. Sorry for your loss.”
You are just declaring yourself correct, without any support.
I thought you said you didn’t do that?
It’s a "declaration" based on years of support, logical arguments and mathematical proofs, bob. I know I’m right on points 1) – 3). It’s settled.
bob, you’re STILL confusing kinematics and kinetics with orbital motion. That can give you wrong answers.
The instantaneous speed of CoM can be computed from angular speed and radius, but then you must use the science of orbital motion. All parts of an orbiting (not spinning) object are moving with the same speed. The resultant of the instantaneous speed and instantaneous effect of gravity is a new instantaneous speed and direction. All parts of the object then have that same speed.
Will you understand that and learn, or just throw more crap against the wall?
(I already know the answer.)
> You really put your foot in your mouth this time
This happens quite often with our Pupman.
Might explain why he usually hides under riddles.
Silly willy just throws more crap against the wall.
Sociopath, begone.
Clint R,
“All parts of an orbiting (not spinning) object are moving with the same speed.”
Yes that’s true, but then all parts of an orbiting but not spinning object are not moving in concentric circles.
We are talking simple geometry, not kinematics and kinetics with orbital motion.
What you are claiming equates to the length of a lever doesn’t matter.
The different speeds of the parts of a ball on a string moving in concentric circles proves that the ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis through the center of the ball.
DR EMPTY,
“Its a “declaration” based on years of support, logical arguments and mathematical proofs, bob. I know Im right on points 1) 3). Its settled.”
Yes it’s settled, you are wrong.
Do you even know what a mathematical proof is, because you haven’t even supplied one.
Ftop_t supplied the mathematical proofs, bob.
Points 1) – 3) are correct.
Ftop_t did show our moon has inertial spin on its own axis and with added details:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt the string. It is instead orbiting about a central axis, located at the other end of the string and changing orientation wrt to the room.
2) “Rotation about an external axis (orbiting) with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the wiki GIF wrt to the central object.
3) The moon issue with details included thus being completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.
You are simply lying, Ball4. That’s OK, nobody expects any better of you.
No lying by me DREMT 10:38 am, I’m aware the site has a search engine for Ftop_t comments so you or interested readers could always check up on what I write.
Ftop_t and I were in complete agreement, Ball4. So, obviously, you are lying. In fact he also saw you as a minor nuisance, not somebody to take seriously. So we agreed on that, too.
Find with search engine (not DREMT or ftop_t assertions) that ftop_t graphics were in complete agreement with:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt the string. It is instead orbiting about a central axis, located at the other end of the string and changing orientation wrt to the room.
2) “Rotation about an external axis (orbiting) with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the wiki GIF wrt to the central object.
3) The moon issue with details included thus being completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.
You are a disgusting, lying, sociopath.
DR EMPTY,
What Ftop provided is not a mathematical proof.
Have you tried to redefine what a mathematical proof is?
True, Bob.
FTOP showed us some programmed motion. Made claims that they were like planetary orbits, but in fact turned out not to be.
He also made dubious claims that these faux planetary orbits were ‘single motions’.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
…and remember, bob, all I am looking to support is my points 1) – 3), from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548295
These points are correct regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue. Don’t you get that!? These points do not resolve the moon issue. You seem to think they do!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
Here’s a proof starts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1166139
Points 1) – 3) are correct. Mike R’s response does not change Ftop_t’s mathematical proof relating to point 2). The "rotation is an isometry" issue does not affect points 1) – 3).
DREMT points 1) thru 3) are correct only when the details wrt which object are added since ALL motion is relative.
Sure, this shows a debate, where FTOP’s claims of proof are rebutted by several people.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
Naturally, DREMT, wants us to ignore all the rebuttals.
But the main point is that FTOP tried and failed miserably to show that this single-rotation description could be applied to elliptical orbits.
FYI, when FTOP shows that a circular orbit with synchronous rotation, like the MOTL, CAN BE described mathematically as a simple rotation around a fixed point that is perfectly ok.
What FAILS is his attempts to extend that mathematical description of a single rotation to elliptical orbits.
No, Ball4. Points 1) – 3) are correct as written. Ftop_t proved mathematically that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion, and it is motion like the MOTL.
Note that nobody is saying that motion like the MOTL can’t be described in other ways. Sure, "Spinners" argue it is best described as "curvilinear translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis".
Point 2), as written, is perfectly clear…and it is correct.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Flop would have to prove a bit more than an orbit without spin “exists as a motion.” That could be derived from the definition of rotation alone. He’d have to prove that only an orbit without spin “exists as a motion.”
This is the logic trick.
But that’s not what he showed. He showed that, if one rotates a circle around its center, its side follows along. Which is fine when one can anchor a rotating rode to the center. Alas the Moon does not have that. It floats. Gravity does not act like a mechanical rod or a string.
This is the physics trick.
Worse is when Flop tried to simulate a rotation by breaking isometry!
Flop is a black hat trickster.
Try to keep up, Little Willy. We’re not talking about orbits. We’re not talking about the moon, and gravity. We’re not talking about breaking isometry.
We’re talking only about points 1) – 3).
We’re talking only about circular motion.
We’re talking, re point 2), only about "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". That motion exists, and it is motion like the MOTL. Not the MOTR. The MOTL.
Thus, Ftop_t proved that my point 2) is correct.
Looks like DREMTs previous strenuous defense of FTOPs ‘proofs’ that elliptical orbits are rotations is yet another claim that DREMT has silently dropped…
Indeed, Nate. Looks like Gaslighting Graham is backtracking to basic rotation matrices. Not that Flop presented anything like a proof. It was more an example than anything.
What will it be when he will discover that every rotation is a product of two rotations?
I’m not backtracking anything, Little Tiny Willy. I simply refuse to be baited into discussing anything but the three points. I already know that you and Nate agree with me on point 2). So what is your objection to points 1) and 3)?
Do any of the 3 points, support this assertion?
“The moon orbits. Thus it changes orientation relative to a fixed star as it does so.”
If not, then the assertion cannot be supported.
Oh well!
Looks like there are no objections…and if there were any to come, anyone disagreeing can debate point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon.
That’s that.
It’s really weird, Nate.
Flop’s comment only explains how rotation matrices work, yet two of Gaslighting Graham’s numbered points refer to the motion of the Moon. That helps him set up another Motte and Bailey.
I bet he does not realize that Flop simply illustrated trigonometric summation!
None of the points refer to the motion of the actual moon, Little Willy. "Moon on the left" is most similar to the motion of the moon, but of course it doesn’t remotely begin to capture the full complexity of its motion.
It’s just one half of a GIF demonstrating two fundamental motions. That a little graphic of the moon is used is irrelevant, really. It could be a graphic of anything.
None of this is weird, by the way. Complex arguments can only really be understood by grasping the basic concepts, then "joining up the dots" using joined-up thinking. So I’m going back to basics…and not for the first time. None of this is new. These three basic points need to be understood and agreed upon by every "Spinner", before we can progress to discussing anything else. Otherwise, too much time is wasted with various people saying "but reference frames"…"but a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis"…"but there is no such motion as ‘rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis’", etc etc. It just takes up pages and pages and thousands of comments of completely unnecessary debate.
Especially considering the "Spinners" themselves disagree with each other on 1) – 3).
We’re never going to get anywhere until we can start with some basic building blocks that we all agree on.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] None of the points refer to the motion of the actual moon
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] 3) The moon issue with details included
You’re just desperate, as always, to try and find some fault (any fault!) with what I’m saying. Point 3) is that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. That has a specific meaning, as you already know, and Ball4 is the perfect example. Some people will simply state something along the lines of “the moon rotates wrt an inertial reference frame, but doesn’t rotate wrt a non-inertial reference frame”…and they think that’s it. They think there’s nothing more to it. Those people are wrong. I’ve already gone to the ends of the Earth to explain why.
Understanding why they’re wrong requires no understanding of the actual motion of the moon, though. You could substitute in the motion of a ball on a string, and still understand perfectly well why reference frames don’t resolve the moon issue. That’s why I say point 3) also does not refer to the motion of the actual moon.
Correcting DREMT yet again:
More astute readers are just interested, as always, to try and find some fault (any fault!) with what DREMT is saying. DREMT point 3) is wrong in that the moon issue IS totally resolved by reference frames. That has a specific meaning, as you already know, and Ball4 is the perfect example. Some people will simply state something along the lines of “the moon rotates wrt an inertial reference frame, but doesn’t rotate wrt a non-inertial reference frame” … and they think that’s it. They think there’s nothing more to it. Those people are right. DREMT has already gone to the ends of the Earth to find Dr. Madhavi & incorrectly explain rotation – so that many commenters feel an interest to correct DREMT but no need to correct Madhavi.
Understanding why Dr. Madhavi is right requires no understanding of the actual motion of the moon, though. You could substitute in the motion of a ball on a string, and still understand perfectly well why reference frames resolve the moon issue. That’s why DREMT can correctly write point 3) also does not refer to the motion of the actual moon.
Thanks for proving my point, Ball4. Yes, some people really are as ignorant as Ball4. Those people are wrong.
No DREMT point was ignored, only harmed in the making of my comment.
You proved my point that some people really do think it’s as simple as, “the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame but does not rotate on its own axis wrt a non-inertial reference frame”. Thanks. Others might not have believed someone could make such a simple mistake, so it’s great that you stepped up to being a living example of that error.
No mistake, DREMT, since ALL motion is relative ref. frame details are required to avoid being lost in space as you are.
You are completely “lost in reference frames”, Ball4. Oh well.
“So Im going back to basics”
So you say, DREMT.
Then why do you IGNORE what the textbooks say about Rigid Body Rotation?
“Rotations of rigid bodies are described with respect to their center of mass (CM) located at O or with
respect to any other point O’, in particular, a support point or a point on the so-called instantaneous axis
of rotation.”
Instead you dogmatically declare that there IS a definite axis of rotation when that supports your beliefs.
…are completely “lost in reference frames”, Ball4. Oh well.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Nobody here is saying the moon is “purely translating”,
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The moon can be described as translating in a circle
Little Willy posts in the wrong place.
“The equipment could very allow for the Moon to spin at the same rate the arm of the clock rotated and obtain the same motion.”
No. Not if you mean motion like the MOTL.
As to whether a) and b) are equivalent…yes. That was kind of the point, Little Willy.
Now DREMT posts in the wrong place. Sheesh.
Is Little Willy trying to contradict the “Spinner” position that the motion of the moon is curvilinear translation along the orbital path plus rotation on an internal axis? Seems like he’s trying to. Good for him.
Not sure what any of it has to do with points 1) – 3), but never mind. Let’s just let Little Willy do his thing.
Now Gaslighting Graham posts in the wrong place. Again.
Yes, it’s terrible. I’m embarrassed.
Some people are just unable to follow logic where it leads, even their own logic.
The claim was the motion is equipment-dependent. How the motion should be described depends on what the equipment allows.
So indeed a pretend-Moon fixed to rigid rod rotating, produces a motion, in which the object always faces the center, and this is designated as ‘orbiting’. Only with a motor turned on does a Moon rotate (relative to the rod).
OK.
In space, there is no such equipment. The Moon is not attached to a rigid rod. Objects are NOT constrained so that an orbit requires the object to face the center.
Thus what is designated as ‘orbit’ should NOT be the same as for equipment in which ‘Moons’ are rigidly attached to rotating rods, that a require a motor to rotate relative to the rod.
The DREMT logic here is the motion is equipment-dependent.
Then follow your own damn logic!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther turns the arm of a clock. He does one thing. How can this one thing be decomposed into two independent motion?
It can’t.
Same with the plotter. Same with the ball on string. Same with all the examples.
One does not simply show two independent motions by doing just one thing.
That’s the trick.
If Gaslighting Graham can’t get that, there’s little one can do for him.
Deary, deary me.
Gaslighting Graham is truly susceptible to cons.
That or he’s more than a Machiavellian prick.
That is, he *knows* that the ball-on-string (or all the other examples over the years) can’t really be decomposed into two independent motions, but he pretends it does.
Still in the wrong place!
THE SIMPLEST REFUTATION OF MOON DRAGON CRANK MADNESS
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551051
Oh dear. Again.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Op. Cit.
I’ve never gaslighted, and never will.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1549767
I still can’t see any objections to the actual points 1) – 3). Nate may have made some, but I don’t read his comments. In any case, anyone objecting can argue point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate, and point 3) with Bindidon.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again. It’s always the same charade. He peddles one thing and that thing becomes the main thing we should all discuss.
Just like in bridge toll stories.
That thing can be a puzzler, a questionnaire, a quote, a cite, a listicle of positions. Whatever. He’ll spin his wheels for a few days, refusing to hear anything that could contradict it.
And then he’ll end up declaring himself the winner and PST everyone.
It’s easy to interpret the motion of a ball on string as rotating on an internal axis. Just look at it from a fixed star so that depth is abstracted away. Which goes on to show that frames of reference indeed matter.
So Gaslighting Graham’s (1) and (3) are connected. Why did he introduced his (2)? To toll. And what does it have to do with Flop’s demo? Nothing.
Here’s the reality. I make a statement on anything…and it can be the simplest, most irrefutable statement imaginable…and I’ll be challenged for days on end by the same bunch of people. It’s because you’re all obsessed with me. It has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case. You couldn’t care less about that. It’s because I’ve said something…therefore you all have to challenge it. No matter whether it’s right or wrong.
"It’s easy to interpret the motion of a ball on string as rotating on an internal axis. Just look at it from a fixed star so that depth is abstracted away. Which goes on to show that frames of reference indeed matter."
If you are trying, in your usual garbled way, to say that a ball on a string rotates on its own axis wrt the fixed stars, then you’d be wrong. Wrt the fixed stars, the ball on a string could either be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, or translating in a circle, with rotation about an internal axis. The only problem being, the latter description does not actually apply to a ball on a string, because that is not what’s physically occurring.
The problem really is DREMT does NOT come up with any most irrefutable statements imaginable. DREMT continuously needs correcting to established physics. For example, again, correcting DREMT 4:54 pm:
If you are trying, in your usual accurate way, to say that a ball on a string rotates on its own axis wrt the fixed stars, then you’d be correct. Wrt the fixed stars, the ball on a string could either be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis wrt to the string, or translating in a circle, with rotation about an internal axis wrt to the stars. No problem here, the latter description does also actually apply to a ball on a string, because that is what’s physically occurring.
Ball4’s distortions all reveal themselves for what they are once you recognise that “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” are two different motions. The only way that what he just said could be correct were if those two were the same motion. They’re not, though.
Oh well.
“rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is Madhavi 2(b) frame object unconnected orbiting O with no spin on object internal axis in the frame.
“curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” is 2(b) frame object unconnected orbiting O with no spin on object internal axis in the frame.
What do you know, the motions ARE the same. Pity, Madhavi didn’t draw those pictures for DREMT to understand.
ftop_t did draw them if only DREMT paid any attention or understood at the time.
Someone actually animated the motions for you, Ball4:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” would be the “moon on the left”, MOTL. “Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” would be the “moon on the right”, MOTR.
Two different motions, Ball4. Not the same motion. But thanks for finally admitting that you think both descriptions apply to the same motion. That is indeed the root of all your confusion.
DREMT is the one commenter thoroughly confused without correctly using reference frames and could learn from Dr. Madhavi’s work, “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” wrt to the center object (point O in Dr. Madhavi work) would be the “moon on the left”, MOTL. “Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” wrt the frame would be the “moon on the right”, MOTR.
Two different motions wiki animated, DREMT. Not the same motion. But thanks for finally admitting that DREMT doesn’t include reference frame details in comments. That is indeed the root of DREMT’s lost in space confusion.
Again, the only way what you just said could be correct were 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. They are not. I know bob thinks they are. We now know you think they are. You’re both wrong. Wonderful.
Not wrong once reference frames are correctly detailed. DREMT just needs to correctly invoke ref. frame detail as ALL motion is relative.
The “reference frame detail” could only make a difference if the two descriptions applied to the same motion, Ball4.
Perhaps you are just not intelligent enough to understand.
The “reference frame detail” once correctly applied to the wiki animation does describe two different motions, DREMT, as I already pointed out. The two DREMT descriptions do apply to the same motion as I also already pointed out using Madhavi illustration 2(b).
DREMT is just lost in space without correctly applying ref. frames since ALL motion is relative.
Here’s the reality. Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
A translation in circular geometry is a rotation in Euclidean geometry.
There’s nothing else behind Gaslighting Graham’s riddle.
Ball4 and Little Willy are just not intelligent enough to understand. That’s OK.
A further explanation why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, building on what we have learned from point 2). Now, Little Willy and Ball4 need not respond. This isn’t for them, as they will never be capable of understanding. That’s OK.
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=LZLJQT43PPv7yC6W
In the above video, they run through three scenarios:
Scenario One:
a) The moon can be described as rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in the same direction as the external axis rotation.
b) The moon can be described as translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis, twice per translation in a circle, in the same direction as the translation in a circle.
Scenario Two:
a) The moon can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) The moon can be described as translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis, once per translation in a circle, in the same direction as the translation in a circle.
Scenario Three:
a) The moon can be described as rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation.
b) The moon can be described as translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Now, I know some people will look at the video and say, “he is judging axial rotation wrt a rotating reference frame”. I understand why they think this. However, those people are wrong. As you can see, from the above, it is simply dependent on whether you “go with rotation” (consider the option a from above) or whether you “go with translation” (consider the option b from above).
You can simplify this and make option a) relate to “orbital motion without axial rotation” being motion like the MOTL, and option b) relate to “orbital motion without axial rotation” being motion like the MOTR. Same thing.
Hopefully that clearly explains (once again) why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
“Now, I know some people will look at the video and say, he is judging axial rotation wrt a rotating reference frame. I understand why they think this.”
Yep, because he definitely is.
At one minute he states that ‘the Moon has orbited and rotated by 180 degrees approximately’ when obviously the Moon rotated 360 degrees wrt space.
It only rotated 180 degrees wrt a viewer on Earth in a rotating frame!
There can be no doubt what he is thinking.
And again at 2:20 he shows the Moon in synchronous rotation keeping the same face to the Earth, and he clearly states that:
‘the Moon is NOT rotating’ when in fact it was rotating wrt to space.
Thus he confirms that he is using an Earth centered ROTATING REFERENCE FRAME when he decides if the Moon is rotating.
Oh well!
So, more astute readers will now understand exactly why point 3) is correct.
What about point 1)? If the motion of a ball on a string can be described as;
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Then why is a) correct, and not b)?
Great question, glad you asked.
The simplest answer is that a) is what is actually, physically occurring with the ball on a string. The ball is being swung around a central axis on a string. Thus, a) is the correct description.
Similar to the video I linked to. You go with a) because that is the set of motions that the equipment physically allows.
If the equipment instead consisted of an XY plotter with a model moon attached to the pen with a motor, then you could recreate the same scenarios as shown in the video, only this time b) would be the appropriate option.
DREMT, your 6:37 am clearly explains (once again) why reference frames resolve the moon issue since as DREMT writes the video is judging lunar axial rotation wrt a rotating reference frame as I have pointed out repeatedly. So DREMT now agrees in writing that the video adds support to ALL motion is relative. Thank you. That’s why they call it relativity.
DREMT has proven his point 3) is incorrect in writing by linking the video.
Per DREMT’s video link, for the a) and b) statements to be correct they need the added details of from which frame the motion is observed as I have previously pointed out since ALL motion is relative..
DREMT has now proven himself lacking needed frame detail in writing a) and b) 6:37 am given the linked video proof supporting my comments. Thank you DREMT. Interested readers can refer to Dr. Madhavi’s work for the correctly framed pictures & explanations.
As I said, Ball4, you would not be able to understand my 6:37 AM comment. Instead you just repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That’s OK.
P.S: Little Willy, now this:
“…as DREMT writes the video is judging lunar axial rotation wrt a rotating reference frame as I have pointed out repeatedly. So DREMT now agrees in writing that the video adds support to ALL motion is relative. Thank you. That’s why they call it relativity.
DREMT has proven his point 3) is incorrect in writing by linking the video.“
is gaslighting!
At last Gaslighting Graham corrects his confusion between Flop’s trick and the CSA Truther’s. Yet he is still gaslighting:
With his motor shenanigans, the CSA hides the fact that the Moon’s orbit and the Moon’s spin are independent motions.
When he orbits the Moon, he also spins it!
You can only look at it that way if you go with option b), Little Willy.
… when observing from a correctly specified frame as DREMT’s linked video points out.
Brainwashing Ball4 gaslights again.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
To interpret the orbit of the Moon as “purely” translating only works if its orbit is a great circle whose center is the center of the Earth.
Why the hell would astronomers use spherics centered around the Earth?
Nobody here is saying the moon is “purely translating”, Little Willy. The motion most similar to our moon’s would be Scenario Two. Read option b) for Scenario Two and try again.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Nobody here is saying the moon is “purely translating”,
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The moon can be described as translating in a circle
Quote mining again, Little Willy?
What is the point in trying to explain complicated ideas to you? You have no interest in understanding. Absolutely none.
“he simplest answer is that a) is what is actually, physically occurring with the ball on a string”
OMG.
DREMT ignores the basics and loses any claim that his points are ‘settled and correct’, right there.
As he dogmatically asserts, without evidence, that there is ‘one true axis’ of rotation.
Oh well!
Well, as there are no sensible objections, I guess this wraps it all up once again. Not that any of it was ever up for debate anyway. All three points settled.
Anyone objecting further can debate 1) with Norman, 2) with Nate, and 3) with Bindidon.
“Similar to the video I linked to. You go with a) because that is the set of motions that the equipment physically allows.”
Again we catch DREMT making up arbitrary rules for how motion should be described, so that his beliefs miraculously are confirmed!
But of course these rules bite him in the butt if he tries to apply them to real orbiting planets or Moons!
Anyone objecting further can debate 1) with Norman, 2) with Nate, and 3) with Bindidon.
No need for any further objection to DREMT confirming in writing with the video link admitting DREMT’s 3) is wrong, linking ftop_t showing translation and rotation in math, and consistent with Madhavi 2(a) & 2(b) frames, that for DREMT’s a) and b) statements to be universally correct they need the added details of from which frame the motion is observed as I have previously pointed out since ALL motion is relative.
Gaslighting Graham loses a point, doesn’t concede.
Then he whines.
Brainwashing Ball4 gaslights again.
If you have no further objections, Ball4, then why do you keep responding?
The Moon Dragon Crank Master argument hasn’t evolved much since 2021, for instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-975763
Since all the Moon Dragon Crank objections have been decisively met more than ten times each, why does Gaslighting Graham keep repeating them?
Little Willy, you quote mined. The full quote from Scenario 2(b) makes clear that it is not “pure translation” but “the moon can be described as translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis, once per translation in a circle, in the same direction as the translation in a circle.”
I know, you probably don’t grasp the distinction. That’s OK.
As to what you are claiming re “moon dragon cranks”, points 1) – 3) remain correct regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue. So, “Spinners” need to take on board points 1) – 3). They can debate them amongst themselves until everyone is in agreement.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
I did not quote mine: “curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” refers to a pure translation.
It’s not like he does not know what he’s doing:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-610816
Lol, yes, Little Willy. However, that is for scenario 3). We were discussing scenario 2).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, again to redirect to the-thing-that-he-wants-to-discuss.
What a manipulative jerk.
Imagine if the notion of translation the CSA Truther used between his scenarios really changed!
Little Willy loses it, and starts with the false accusations.
If you cannot follow complex discussions, then do not bother trying.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther trick isn’t hard, and Gaslighting Graham falls for it: “you go with a) because that is the set of motions that the equipment physically allows.”
The equipment could very allow for the Moon to spin at the same rate the arm of the clock rotated and obtain the same motion.
In fact that’s what the Moon does according to current physics.
Gaslighting Graham also denies both that (b) is equivalent to (a) and that just about everybody except Moon Dragon cranks hold that (a) and (b) are equivalent.
A Machiavellian prick.
“The equipment could very allow for the Moon to spin at the same rate the arm of the clock rotated and obtain the same motion.”
No. Not if you mean motion like the MOTL.
As to whether a) and b) are equivalent…yes. That was kind of the point, Little Willy.
The gaslighting continues:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] you go with a) because that is the set of motions that the equipment physically allows.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As to whether a) and b) are equivalent…yes.
The whole point of the CSA Truther video was to refute (b)!
“points 1) 3) remain correct regardless of who is right, overall, ”
We get the classic DREMT gas-lighting.
Pretending that his assertions are proven, while he simply ignores the holes people have poked in his logic.
Thats why the argument keeps on going..
Worse than that, Nate. As soon as Gaslighting Graham accepts that (a) and (b) are equivalent, he needs to get out of geometry and do some physics. Two geometrical descriptions of a motion are interchangeable if and only if they allow the same physical description. The one favored by Moon Dragon Cranks leads to weird physics ideas. The one favored by Team Science leads to numerical models that help navigate satellites.
Imagine if the Moon happened to be the only celestial body that did not spin!
The video is useful in a lot of ways. It doesn’t resolve the moon issue, though.
One of the reasons I linked to it was to help any readers understand points 1) and 3). With that achieved, I can bid this discussion adieu.
After all, nobody expects the usual suspects ever to agree that all three of points 1) – 3) are correct. They can’t even agree with each other about them!
Little Willy agreeing that the a) and b) are equivalent contradicts Ball4 delightfully. Without him understanding why, of course.
Anyone disagreeing on 1) can debate Norman, on 2) can debate Nate, and on 3) can debate Bindidon. Sorted.
Astute readers will recognize that, according the Gaslighting Graham, interpretation (a) works better using the CSA Truther’s trick, whereas (b) works better using the plotter.
The Moon Dragon Crank mind works in mysterious ways.
Little Willy ventures into point 1) territory, finally. Of course, he apparently can’t see the logic in describing things based on what is actually physically occurring…
…he can argue it out with Norman, if he wants.
Astute readers can recognize that there’s no incompatibility with what I said and B4’s “(a) and (b) statements to be universally correct they need the added details of from which frame the motion is observed,” since the equivalence is between two different geometries.
As I said, Little Willy wouldn’t understand how he’s contradicted Ball4. That’s all fine and proper. Nobody expects anything else.
Astute readers should see that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again. The CSA Truther’s trick is materially equivalent to the plotter’s trick.
A better opposition might be obtained by comparing these tricks to how Holy Madhavi defines translation.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Holy Madhavi:
https://tinyurl.com/holy-Madhavi
Directions are lines. Parallels are parallel lines. The orbit of the Moon around the Earth is only a translation if the orbit itself preserves the direction and remains parallel to the center of the Earth.
That only works if the circle that makes the orbit is a line, thus a grand circle.
Is Little Willy trying to contradict the “Spinner” position that the motion of the moon is curvilinear translation along the orbital path plus rotation on an internal axis? Seems like he’s trying to. Good for him.
Not sure what any of it has to do with points 1) – 3), but never mind. Let’s just let Little Willy do his thing.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
If a motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion, then we need to know what direction we are talking about.
This requires a frame of reference.
Thus his 3) is false, according to his own Holy Madhavi.
My point 3) has a specific meaning, as I explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1549841
Obviously I am not suggesting that reference frames are not necessary. They just don’t resolve the moon issue.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Nobody’s arguing that frames of reference settle the Moon non-issue all by themselves. They’re not sufficient. Everybody’s arguing that frames of reference are necessary. Just like he said.
What a lousy Machiavellian prick.
Ball4 has stated that the moon issue is entirely resolved by reference frames. So you’re wrong again. More to the point, the one and only argument that Ball4 makes, which involves reference frames, is wrong. That argument is made by a lot of other “Spinners” as part of what they think resolves the issue. They’re wrong. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
Unfortunately for DREMT, the statement: “entirely resolved by reference frame” is written only by DREMT since 10/2 start date so it is DREMT that is proven wrong (as is often the case) not anyone else.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
B4 said that frames of reference *totally* solve the problem of establishing translation and rotation. What that means is that once you pick a frame of reference, you get an answer.
Gaslighting Graham almost concedes that with his new double negative:
[GG’s DOUBLE NEGATIVE] I am not suggesting that reference frames are not necessary.
A Machiavellian prick.
Here’s what you did say:
“The moon issue with details included thus being completely resolved by reference frames as settled long ago since all motion is relative.”
Close enough.
Note the: “with details included”. Enough. DREMT is wrong yet again.
Little Willy, the only reference frame being used throughout all of this discussion is an inertial reference frame. That is the frame that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” (motion like the MOTL) and “curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” (motion like the MOTR) are wrt. Ball4’s error is that, like bob, he thinks “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” are both motion like the MOTR.
No error, DREMT just left off a few important words that add the needed frame of reference. DREMT is wrong yet again. What a losing streak DREMT is on but not DREMT’s longest. By far.
They are not both motion like the MOTR, Ball4. No amount of you trying to add “reference frame detail” to a situation where the reference frame is already a given (it’s an inertial reference frame) is going to change that. You lose the one argument you have made, extremely repetitively, for years now.
DREMT, you lost way before “years now” trying to establish absolute motion when there is none. ALL motion is relative.
“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” are both motion like, AND not like, the MOTR depending on reference frame employed with each situation.
The earthen moon is both observed spinning on its own axis and not spinning on its own axis, depending on frame of reference specified. Or, alternatively, location of observer being specified along with the other details.
The reference frame for “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” is an inertial reference frame. They are not both like the MOTR. You are such a sophist, Ball4.
For the first time EVER read by me, DREMT specifies the reference frame to be inertial with those two situations! DREMT can make progress. Slowly, but progress nevertheless.
So you concede that you have been wrong for years?
No, DREMT has been wrong for years by not ever specifying the reference frame employed in those two situations. Inertially our moon is spinning on its own axis, so in that situation now DREMT joins the spinners club. Welcome!
Suddenly, the sophist drops all mention of the two motions that have been pivotal to the entire discussion, and simply declares himself the victor. Again.
The two motions, wrt an inertial reference frame, are not both like the MOTR.
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
“Curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham loses a point, does not concede, then shifts focus. Like he always does. Now that his 1-2-3/a-b current puzzler is being destroyed, he returns to his pet GIF.
Let’s recap for those in the back.
Translation and rotation are determined by the concept of direction. When there’s no change of direction, there’s translation. When there’s a change of direction, there’s rotation. Direction depends on frames of reference. Frames are usually Euclidean spaces, but they can be of other kinds.
The only way for the Moon to operate a (purely curvilinear) translation by keeping the Man on the Moon facing the Earth is for the orbit of the Moon to be a line. That only works in a non-Euclidean frame of reference.
This point has nothing to do with acceleration.
No, Little Willy. My points 1) – 3) have not “been destroyed”. They are all completely correct, and in fact I happen to know from past discussions that you even agree with point 2). Lol.
Clearly in DREMT’s view, debate is only about convincing oneself, even if by deception.
So, to recap: the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the GIF below.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4).
The above three points are now beyond debate. They’re settled.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
To recap:
“not rotating on its own internal axis.”
is an opinion, not a fact, according to Rigid Body Kinematics.
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”
is ONE of several ways to describe the MOTL.
and
“The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames”
is shown to be FALSE, as the Moon Truther video clearly illustrates.
Now DREMT can go ahead and repeat his false claims for his own personal edification.
DREMT’s 7:14 am is for non-inertial reference frames as DREMT has joined the spinner club now stating for lunar motion: “The reference frame … is an inertial reference frame.” So the ball on string has inertial rotation on its own axis, the MOTL has inertial rotation on an internal axis, and the moon issue is settled with our moon having inertial rotation on its own axis.
Tesla welcomes DREMT to the spinner club!
Btw, I’m sure DREMT’s record here is this was known all along, so DREMT was careful to never before mention which lunar reference frame DREMT meant. Now we know!
You have to note that the points 1) – 3) are very carefully worded. Let’s take point 2), as an example:
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the GIF below.
Now, astute readers will note that I’m not saying "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is the only way to describe the motion of the MOTL. Anyone honest, who’s been paying attention to what I’ve been writing, will know that’s not the case. What I’m saying is that first, it exists as a motion (contradicting Tim Folkerts, PhD, who has argued that it doesn’t), and second, that this motion is like the MOTL. In other words, it’s like the MOTL, not the MOTR, as Ball4 and bob believe. That’s what I’m arguing. I get the feeling that people are arguing against things I’m not actually saying, in a desperate attempt to refute the points.
Gaslighting Graham is spamming again.
Yet he still does not get that a pure translation can describe both side of his pet GIF depending on the reference frame.
It’s as if he never really understood Bordo’s point at all.
After all these years.
“Yet he still does not get that a pure translation can describe both side of his pet GIF depending on the reference frame.”
That’s right, I don’t “get” that, because it’s false. As Nate would agree, if his integrity allowed it.
Gaslighting Graham is manipulating again.
I mean, it’s really not that hard to get:
If the orbit of the Moon is a line in a spherical geometry, the Moon translates. That follows directly from his own Holy Madhavi.
So no wonder he can’t grok basic physics:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-760612
As far as geometry is concerned, just about any interpretation is possible, including one in which the center of the Earth is the center of all the things, like Bordo’s.
It’s when Moon Dragon cranks apply their geometry to physics that they fumble.
Hence why Gaslighting Graham still obfuscates with his pet GIF.
The only person arguing that the moon “purely translates” is Gordon…that’s because he is defining “curvilinear translation in a circle” as motion like the MOTL. I understand the reason that he does so, and it has nothing to do with reference frames. Are you now saying you think Gordon is correct? Note that if you do think that, then you’re a “Non-Spinner”.
Gaslighting Graham almost denies that Bordo exists whilst dodging the point I am making. It is possible to interpret his pet GIF in many ways. To settle interpretations, physicists use frames of reference.
That does not mean we get unique descriptions. That would against what a famous theorem that says: every motion can be described as a sum of rotations and translations. Such descriptions are equivalent.
Which leads me to quote Mighty Tim again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758003
I pity the professor who had to deal with Gaslighting Graham as an undergraduate!
Little Willy, the motions relating to the "pet GIF" are wrt an inertial reference frame. As I already said. Why do you ignore every word I say?
You can stop appealing to Tim’s authority, too. The fact that he doesn’t consider "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" to even exist as a motion completely excludes him from this discussion. At least, until he can admit he was wrong.
Gaslighting Graham displays his ignorance once more.
In his pet GIF, is the Earth moving? Is the Moon’s orbit elliptical? Is the motion in 2D or in 3D? That GIF wasn’t meant to settle a geometry question. In the GIF’s legend we can read:
Is this a question that only relies on geometry?
Not at all!
None of that matters, Little Willy. Why are you so ignorant of the points being made?
Pick a point, 1) – 3). If you have an objection, clearly and concisely make it. Try not to speak your usual gibberish.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. So, a recap: (1) Any description of the motion of a ball on string relies on a frame of reference, and (2) without any physics, his pet GIF has no unique solution.
As for his (3), he already conceded that he was a silly Machiavellian prick all along.
Responses:
1) The reference frame is an inertial one.
2) I am not saying that the GIF has one unique solution.
3) That is just abuse.
Gaslighting Graham still fails to transpose what I said about Bordo’s take on translation applies to the ball on the string. He still fails to realize that the choice of a frame of reference is not only a matter of distinguishing inertial/accelerating frame. He still dodges the point that his pet GIF can’t be decided by geometry alone.
And he still is a Machiavellian prick.
As you cannot clearly articulate your objections, and resort to childish abuse, we can safely conclude that you must accept points 1) – 3).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Pure abuse.
Your constant false accusations of gaslighting are another form of abuse. You want to witness a genuine example of gaslighting? Try:
“Tesla welcomes DREMT to the spinner club!”
Gaslighting Graham is whining again.
I’ve spent more than enough time to explain why his (1)-(2)-(3) are either wrong or silly.
That he denies I did is just gaslighting. Pure abuse.
False, because (for example) you agree with point 2). As can be seen in this discussion alone. Let alone previous discussions.
The evidence that you agree with point 2) is that in response to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1550071
You agreed the a)s and b)s were equivalent. The a)s are all based on point 2) being correct.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Astute readers will recognize that behind his silly listicle stand the scraps he had with Bob, with Mighty Tim, and with B4.
In any event, Mighty Tim solved all of this a long time ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757298
Next Gaslighting Graham will tell us that all that is irrelevant because a merry-go-round isn’t a ball on string.
He won’t concede anything. He will deflect. He will abuse.
I have presented the evidence that you agree with point 2).
Since you agree with point 2), you can go and argue against Tim.
I would pay good money to see that argument.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The evidence that he presented is… his own comment. The comment that presents his other puzzler. Another you-and-him fight game. Another deflection. As usual.
Gaslighting Graham is just ready to say anything to get his way.
What a Machiavellian prick.
You agreed that the a)s and b)s were equivalent. The a)s are all based on point 2) being correct. So, you can either retract what you said, or be held to the fact that you agree point 2) is correct.
Fun to watch you squirm.
In fact, Little Willy even went so far as to allege:
“just about everybody except Moon Dragon cranks hold that (a) and (b) are equivalent.“
Oh dear.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The “scenarios” only refer to the CSA Truther cases. They still suffer from ignoring the trick that underlines them all:
He is presuming a physics that isn’t the one of the Moon.
It’s not very different from when Gaslighting Graham overinterprets his pet GIF. And in fact a related problem resurfaces when he’s trying to minimize the necessity of frames of reference. To negate centuries of practice by physicists takes some bravado.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that Moon Dragon cranks have no physics. So what do they do? They try to play silly semantic games about the concepts of translation and rotation!
If only they were good at it. But no. Six years in the making, and Gaslighting Graham still sucks at semantics.
Heck, he still is fumbling basic pragmatics.
One of the scenarios is exactly the same motion as the MOTL.
You agreed that describing it as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis
is equivalent to
b) Translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis, once per translation in a circle, in the same direction as the translation in a circle.
Thus you agree that a) exists as a motion, and applies to the MOTL. So you agree with my point 2).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His maze of you-and-him-fight puzzles is messy, but is not that big.
The two descriptions (a) and (b) are not exactly equivalent, for they are not working in the same geometry. The first works in an Euclidean plane, the second in a spherical plane.
What needs to be compared is not (a) and (b), but the choice between an Euclidean plane and a spherical plane to describe the motion of the ball, the Moon, the car, the merry-go-round, whatever. This is, as Mighty Tim suggests, a matter of practical choice.
So Gaslighting Graham’s (3) lost any bite it could possibly have. And his (1) falls too, for it implies that (b) isn’t even possible. So what does remain? The fact that his (2) could only be determined using physics, something he still failed to do after all these years.
It sure does not look well for Moon Dragon cranks’ Master Argument!
Lol…when up against it, Little Willy can always turn to his great ability to write streams of semi-convincing-sounding absolute gibberish.
He agrees on point 2). The only reason he won’t say so is because it means he is then at odds with Tim, bob, and Ball4. Nate would agree with him, however.
From understanding and accepting that point 2) is correct, this comment follows:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1550071
and from that, you should understand (if you are intelligent enough) why point 3) is correct.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1550083
That last comment should help you understand why 1) is correct. Note, though, that I only outlined the simplest reason why 1) is true. There is a slightly more complicated, technical reason why it is right. Little Willy touched on it briefly in one of his rants.
Anyway, it looks like there is not much more to be gained from this discussion. Might be time to call it a day.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here is the crux of the argument in a nutshell:
P1. The Moon’s orbit is independent from its spin.
(This would apply even if the Moon had zero spin.)
The CSA’s Truther trick relies on making the Moon’s orbit and spin dependent. Same with the plotter or the transmographer. And Flop’s trick relies on breaking the usual definition for a rotation.
P2. The relationship between the Moon’s orbit and the spin is one that only physics could establish.
This is the part Gaslighting Graham tries to elide with his gaslighting and other shenanigans.
Conclusion: Moon Dragon cranks suck at semantics, pragmatics, and at reasoning in general.
No, Little Willy. In the video, the orbit and spin are completely independent. The model moon can spin on its own, and it can orbit without spinning, and it can orbit whilst spinning.
Same with the XY plotter. It’s just the XY plotter would give you the results you want to see, whereas the equipment in the video gives you the results you can’t accept.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther does not make orbit and spin independent, for when the motor for the spin stops, the Moon’s orientation changes.
A truly independent motion would be like a Ferris wheel.
Gaslighting Graham simply has to rely on definitions to win a physics-based argument, yet he sucks at them.
“You have to note that the points 1) 3) are very carefully worded. Lets take point 2), as an example”
Let’s take 1) and 3). Their very careful wording fails to be valid.
As discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1550584
The orbit and spin are independent with both the equipment in the video and with the XY plotter, Little Willy. The difference is:
With the equipment in the video, “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL.
With the XY plotter, “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR.
You are now free to hurl more abuse in your frustration at not being able to understand very basic things.
Sounds like these descriptions of the motion are equipment-dependent.
But in the video the equipment is used to simulate the Moon motion. He hopes that the lessons learned can be extended to orbiting moons and planets, where there is no such equipment.
No rigid arms with motors attached in space, only vacuum and gravity.
But if the description of the motion is equipment-dependent then…??
Sorry, I forgot to add:
Anyone who disagrees can argue point 1) with Norman, point 2) with Nate (and Little Willy) and point 3) with Bindidon.
That’s that.
Exactly, Nate.
For some reason Gaslighting Graham does not realize that the CSA Truther tries to show what happens when he shuts down the motor for the spin. What he shows is that as the Moon orbits, the Man on the Moon facing the Earth.
So as the orbit changes, the Man on the Moon follows along. And then Gaslighting Graham pretends that these are independent movements!
The mind of Sky Dragon cranks is a beautiful thing.
I’m not pretending anything, Little Willy. Orbit and spin is independent in the video. It’s just a different idea of what “orbit” is than with the XY plotter. Why are you struggling so much with this?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Orbit and spin are *not* independent in the video.
The CSA Truther associates states of two motor with motion. Combining them presumably replicates the motion of the Moon. This replication also purports to show that it’s impossible that the Moon spins.
Since we know from a shit ton of models that the Moon can orbit and spin at the same time and replicate what the current Moon does, that’s more than silly. It’s a con.
Just like any other fakir con.
Gosh you are slow sometimes.
Orbit and spin are independent in the video.
With the XY plotter, you could combine orbit and spin and get motion like the MOTL.
With the equipment used in the video, you cannot.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
All one needs to spot the trick is to look at the first minute of the video. Every degree the Moon orbits equals a degree of rotation of the Man on the Moon. No wonder then that adding another degree of rotation by spinning the Moon makes it show all its faces to the Earth! Were the spin truly responsible for that degree of rotation, then the orbit would not be a cause for the rotation of the Man on the Moon!
In other words, if the spin and the orbit were truly independent, then any behavior of the Moon could be simulated!
So of course Gaslighting Graham will try to minimize what the CSA Truther wants to establish!
Little Willy is so easily confused.
With the equipment in the video, you cannot both orbit and spin and get motion like the MOTL. That does not mean orbit and spin are not independent with that equipment. It just means “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL with that equipment.
With the XY plotter, you cannot both orbit and spin and get motion like the MOTR. That does not mean orbit and spin are not independent with that equipment. It just means “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR with that equipment.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther turns the arm of a clock. He does one thing. How can this one thing be decomposed into two independent motion?
It cant.
Same with the plotter. Same with the ball on string. Same with all the examples.
One does not simply show two independent motions by doing just one thing.
Thats the trick.
If Gaslighting Graham cant get that, theres little one can do for him.
Orbit and spin are independent with the equipment in the video, and with the XY plotter, Little Willy.
Obviously you have to have "orbit without spin", and it has to be motion either like the MOTL or the MOTR.
By the way, the intelligent will understand how all this proves my point 3) correct.
Orbit and spin are not independent with the equipment in the video.
To be truly independent, it’d be possible to have two different behaviors with the same initial motion. Like a Ferris wheel, say. When a Ferris wheel turns, the orientation of the carts is not determined by the arm. The cart could move sideways if gravity changed or the Ferris wheel installed sideways.
When the CSA Truther turns the arm of the clock, the Moon also turns. It can’t do otherwise, unless a motor is activated.
This is the bit the CSA Truther and Gaslighting Graham are hiding in plain sight.
Geez Louise, Little Willy. Nobody is hiding anything. There is no conspiracy. There is no con. Here’s what you said in the wrong place:
"That is, he *knows* that the ball-on-string (or all the other examples over the years) can’t really be decomposed into two independent motions, but he pretends it does."
It’s kinematics, Little Willy…and you’re arguing against the "Spinners" here. The "Spinners" do see the motion of a ball on a string as being decomposed into two independent motions – a translation in a circle, and a rotation on an internal axis. You’re contradicting your earlier understanding that the a)s and b)s are equivalent! You’re arguing with yourself.
The motion of a Ferris Wheel can also be described in two different ways. Depending on whether you say "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
The thing is, you’re having a lot of big realisations here. I think you’re understanding (finally) that it only really makes physical sense to describe the motion of e.g. a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel as "not rotating on its own internal axis".
But you’re getting yourself confused by thinking that there has to be some sort of con, or trick, going on. There’s no "trick". It really is that simple.
When (if) we ever get past points 1) – 3) (in other words, once every "Spinner" here accepts that the points are correct), we can finally start to discuss whether it makes physical sense for "orbit without spin" to be like the MOTL or the MOTR. We can finally get into that physics that you’re so desperate to get into.
But, I’m not moving on until everyone accepts 1) – 3) first. Otherwise, the Ball4s and the bobs and the Tim Folkerts’ are always going to be holding us back, bombing the threads with their nonsense.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
All this to escape the conclusion that the CSA Truther hid a simple trick. This time he’s trying to conflate describing and moving.
We could in fact describe the CSA Truther’s trick as two motions. What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not.
Gaslighting Graham could concede that, but he won’t. He will continue to deflect and gaslight instead.
"What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
Lol…that’s you agreeing with my point 1). Right there. You agree with me, and in your mind you’re so sure I must be wrong that you act like you’re arguing against me!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A ball on a string can be described in many ways, in fact in an infinity of ways. Just like any other motion.
We can’t say that the ball and the string are independent. They’re not. When one swings the string, the ball follows. Its orientation changes as the orientation along the string’s own orientation. It is one object, mechanistically.
We can’t say the same if the ball was a yo-yo with a bearing that prevents the string to wind, or with a Ferris wheel. Changing the orientation of the string won’t determine the orientation of the yo-yo. Other forces are involved. Same with the Ferris wheel: it changes orientation, but not the cart. The cart follows gravity.
That Gaslighting Graham can’t grok Bob’s point is the lesser of my concerns.
And down we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551051
"A ball on a string can be described in many ways, in fact in an infinity of ways. Just like any other motion."
Well…two different ways. But yes.
"We can’t say that the ball and the string are independent. They’re not. When one swings the string, the ball follows. Its orientation changes as the orientation along the string’s own orientation. It is one object, mechanistically."
So you agree with my point 1).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Down we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551051
Little Willy now agrees with my point 1), and my point 2). Will he be able to hit the trifecta? Stay tuned to find out.
Down we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551051
I’m not going anywhere, Little Willy. I’m staying up here.
You said it yourself:
"What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
That’s a perfect summary of my point 1). In fact, I should really add it to my point 1) next time I make it. The motion of the ball on a string is mechanically one single motion. Thus you can only accurately describe it as "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis"…which is the "one single motion" option of the two possible. a) rather than b).
"Thanks for playing?"
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
And down we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551104
Moon Dragon cranks had a good run.
So sad, too bad.
Why the past tense? I’m having a great run. You agree on two of my points, I’m just waiting to see if you have the intelligence to understand the third.
Gaslighting Graham is having a little fun gaslighting once again.
And down we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551104
You should be able to understand point 3) now that you have agreed with the first two points. I’d be happy to discuss that with you further, up here. Other than that, I’m good.
Astute readers will recognize why Gaslighting Graham is a Machiavellian prick.
Down they go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551125
I can only go by your words, Little Willy. When you write things that express agreement, what am I supposed to do? Argue with you anyway!? That would be silly.
Maybe take a bit of time off, have a little think, and get it straightened out in your head before continuing.
Or just keep calling me a prick, if you want. It really has no effect on me.
Gaslighting Graham still gaslights.
That he still refuses to go down the thread only shows the little Machiavellian that he is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551177
I’m not going to be baited into whatever it is you’ve got going on down there. It’s like I’ve said before – if you want to start a new thread, please do so. If I feel like it, I will join you there. If not, I won’t. If you don’t want to discuss the three points any more, up here, then that’s fine too. I think we have made some real progress, anyway.
Off you go now.
Gaslighting Graham would rather have to scroll another death subthread instead of having to face a confutation of the CSA Truther’s trick and the whole charade pulled my Moon Dragon cranks.
So be it. Let’s see if he can recall who wrote this:
[MYSTERY MAN 1] The only way you could describe it as rotating on its own axis is if you claimed the motion was a combination of translation in a circle plus rotation on its own axis.
[MYSTERY MAN 2] Yes! Exactly! You get the gold star!
One of these mystery men holds that the Moon spins.
Yes, Tim is one of those who thinks we should describe the motion of a ball on a string as consisting of two independent motions – translation in a circle plus rotation on an internal axis. But, as you so eloquently put it:
"What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
It’s a great rebuttal to Tim. I wonder what he’d say in response?
However…I’m not that interested. He kind of lost his seat at the table when he argued that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” does not even exist as a motion!
Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham would rather continue gaslighting instead of acknowledging the obvious, and continue with his usual special pleading:
[MYSTERY GASLIGHTER 1] But the rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
[MIGHTY MAN 2] There ain’t no such “rule”. It is very common, for example, to describe diagonal motion as a combination of x-component motion and y-component motion. It is common to describe pure circular motion as Rsin(theta)i^ + Rcos(theta)j^ The “rule” is to describe things however it is handy.
Without that illusory rule, Gaslighting Graham can’t appeal to the simplicity of using a pure rotation to describe both the orbit and the spin of the Moon.
And now that he conceded that they are independent motions, he is now compelled to distinguish the two.
So at long last Moon Dragon cranks are forced to return with Team Science!
Isn’t that wonderful?
No, there is such a rule. We went over that before. It’s the more technical reason that my point 1) is correct. Describing the motion of a ball on a string as a combination of translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis would be under “general plane motion”. However, you shouldn’t classify it as such since it can be classed as one single motion, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. I might have to dig up the reference in support of that. Thanks.
That adds to your already excellent argument in support of my point 1).
Keep it up!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Imagine if there was a rule that says:
[MOON DRAGON CRANK FANTASY RULE] If two independent motions can be described using one pure motion, go for it, even if it breaks as soon as you need to do some physics or, you know, apply a non-circular geometry.
That’s when Gaslighting Graham tries to hide under Flop’s dress.
Here it is:
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm#:~:text=Rotation%20about%20a%20fixed%20axis,translation%20falls%20into%20this%20class.
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation. [So that’s our ball on a string].
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting:
[GG] The rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
[MT] There aint no such rule. The rule is to describe things however it is handy.
[GG] There is indeed such a rule: “Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class”.
[ME] You forgot: “a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
[GG] I did not forget those sentences. They were just irrelevant to the point being made.
[MM] Who should we believe, you or what you cite to back up your position?
[GG] There is no contradiction.
[MT] You should have read one more line[:] a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
[GG] You seem to be unable to read.
But now that Gaslighting Graham has accepted that orbit and spin are independent, he’s a bit stuck.
When have I ever said that orbit and spin weren’t independent motions? I feel like you’ve not been paying attention again. They are independent motions with the equipment in the CSAItruth video, and they would be independent motions with the XY plotter.
Anyway…we now have more evidence in support of my point 1). Great.
(P1) Orbit and spin are independent motions.
(P2) A general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
(C) Gaslighting Graham will continue to gaslight.
Yes, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation…but the motion of a ball on a string should not be classed as a general plane motion…since it is rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
So, my point 1) is correct. As you already agreed, earlier.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
General motion applies for motion in general.
Pure translation and pure rotation are spacial cases of motions.
Besides, Gaslighting Graham has conceded that orbit and spin are independent. If two motions are independent, they cannot be modeled using one pure motion!
What will it be when the Moon and the Earth will reach a complete tidal lock? If Gaslighting Graham can cryogenize himself, he’d still be gaslighting by then!
Little Willy, the quote from Brown University is perfectly clear. It supports my point 1). As do you, here:
"What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
Or are you now going back on what you said?
So here’s the gist of Gaslighting Graham’s pickle:
He accepts that orbit and spin are independent motions.
Yet he holds that we must characterize both using one single, pure motion.
And when we do so, say by using a plotter or the CSA Truther’s gimmick, the two motions are independent!
You just can’t make this up.
“He accepts that orbit and spin are independent motions.
Yet he holds that we must characterize both using one single, pure motion.”
Wrong. I hold that orbit and spin are independent motions, and that the ball on a string is only doing one of those motions: “orbiting”.
And so Gaslighting Graham, instead of conceding the point, doubles down and deflects.
At least he agrees that orbit and spin are independent motions. That’s progress.
Why then does he want to characterize the orbit and the spin of the Moon as a pure rotation?
The mind wonders.
> Why then does he want to characterize the orbit and the spin of the Moon as a pure rotation?
Come to think of it, that’s not strong enough.
Gaslighting Graham also holds that we must not characterize the orbit and the spin of the Moon as a general motion!
The mind wonders even more.
I’m not discussing the moon, Little Willy. I’m discussing my points 1) – 3).
You have agreed on points 1) and 2), and have helped a great deal on point 1). So thanks for that.
Any chance I can get you to understand point 3)? I feel we might be pushing it…
Instead of conceding the most obvious point, Gaslighting Graham deflects and gaslights.
If the Moon’s orbit is independent of the Moon’s spin, then it makes no sense whatsoever to use a pure rotation to describe it.
Gaslighting Graham agrees that the Moon’s orbit is independent of the Moon’s spin.
When will he accept that it makes no sense whatsoever to use a pure rotation to describe it?
“Gaslighting Graham agrees that the Moon’s orbit is independent of the Moon’s spin.”
The “Non-Spinner” position is that the moon does not spin, but only orbits. Why am I having to remind you of this when I already made that exact same point about the ball on a string?
I’m starting to suspect you are not arguing in good faith. Either that or you’ve got yourself sincerely confused.
More progress. Let’s plug the premises:
(P1) Orbit and spin are independent.
(P2) According the Moon Dragon cranks, the Moon has zero spin.
We then must conclude
(C) A faithful model of the motion of the Moon should present the Moon has being free, i.e. like with a Ferris Wheel cart.
Why then is the spin of the Moon in CSA Truther’s model not free?
The mind wonders.
The model moon in the CSAItruth video is indeed free to spin, and does so in scenario one and three. The model moon with the XY plotter is also free to spin. It would only not spin in recreating the third scenario.
You have to have “orbit without spin” and it has to be either motion like the MOTL or the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther’s Moon is not free.
When the motor spinning the Moon is stopped, the Moon continues to spin. The Earth spins one degree, the Moon spins one degree.
Free from spinning means zero spin. For every degree of Earth spin there must be zero degree of Moon spin.
This is the CSA Truther’s con.
A simple reductio:
The CSA Truther’s setup emulates a ball on string.
The spin of the ball is not free: it is constrained by the string.
The idea that the Moon in the CSA’s Truther setup is free is absurd.
P.S: That conclusion does not follow from those premises, by the way.
Also, you keep stressing the word “independent” as if this has some sort of magical hidden meaning, but since in your second premise you acknowledge that according to the “Non-Spinners” the moon does not spin, then we are only talking about the motion “orbit” in any case, so any magical hidden meaning to the word “independent” as regards “orbit” and “spin” is nullified.
“When the motor spinning the Moon is stopped, the Moon continues to spin”
I’ll have to correct you again here:
When the model moon is orbiting and spinning, and the motor spinning the moon is stopped, the moon stops spinning and continues to orbit.
More progress. Yet more hurdles for our Moon Dragon cranks:
(1) The Moon’s orbit and spin are independent.
(2) A orbit and the spin of a ball-on-string are not independent.
(3) When the CSA Truther shuts down the motor for the Moon spin, it emulates (2)
(4) Is the setup in (3) dependent or independent?
No wonder they keep to semantic games!
“The CSA Truther’s setup emulates a ball on string”
Only when the motor to spin the model moon is inactive. It’s a pretty big difference between the BoS and that equipment, that with the CSAItruth setup the moon can spin. A difference that spoils your reductio I’m afraid.
“A orbit and the spin of a ball-on-string are not independent.”
There is no spin for the ball on a string. As you have agreed. So unfortunately that trashes this argument, too.
More progress. Now, let’s do some semantics.
D1. The orientation of an object be its direction on a plane.
D2. A rotation be a change of orientation.
D3. Independence refers to the relationship between (in this case, two) objects from which the orientation of one does not influence the orientation of the other.
D4. The Man on the Moon (or MoM) be the face of the Moon that always faces the Earth.
D5. The CSA Truther Con refers to a setup in which the Moon is connected with the Earth through an arm. For our purposes, the Moon is not rotated internally by the motor.
Now, let’s commit some facts that holds true in our model:
[Snip.]
For the rest of the comment, down below he should go.
If Gaslighting Graham does not want to respond to it, it’s no big deal. None of his comments are responsive anyway.
> A rotation be
At first I wrote “Let a rotation be,” then I switch from a more formal approach. So it should read “A rotation is.”
None of these definitions matter. Astute readers should already recognize that the CSA Truther’s con emulates a ball on string. It changes the orientation of the Moon the same way swinging the string changes the orientation of the ball. Thus there’s no real independence, and the idea of using one motion to describe two independent motions falters.
More generally, it’s as if Gaslighting Graham could not grok that there’s a difference between trying to describe what one sees, and trying to explain what happens in reality.
“Astute readers should already recognize that the CSA Truther’s con emulates a ball on string. It changes the orientation of the Moon the same way swinging the string changes the orientation of the ball. Thus there’s no real independence…”
…with the motor switched off, there is only one motion occurring – orbiting. It’s like you’re trying to say that orbiting should be independent from orbiting! Complete nonsense. The orbiting is independent from spin. The spin occurs when the motor is switched on. Happy to help.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham speaks of “orbiting” without offering a definition for what it means.
This omission could be voluntary, for in the CSA Truther con the Earth spin changes the orientation of the Moon.
Why would the Earth spin change the orientation of the Moon, if orbit and spin are independent?
> Earth spin
Let’s emphasize the Earth spin.
If orbit and spin are independent, it goes both ways.
“Orbit without spin” using the CSAItruth equipment is motion like the MOTL.
“Orbit without spin” using the XY plotter equipment is motion like the MOTR.
So with the CSAItruth equipment, the “orbit without spin” motion changes the orientation of the moon.
With the XY plotter equipment, the “orbit without spin” motion does not change the orientation of the moon.
Less confused now? Or are you still hopelessly confused?
“With the XY plotter equipment, the orbit without spin motion does not change the orientation of the moon.”
Sounds like the made-up definition of ORBIT changes with how the equipment constrains motion.
It is not generizable.
Now he can follow this ‘logic’ to planetary orbits, where there is no such equipment constraint.
Progress!
So, to recap again: the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string. As Little Willy put it: "what we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not." Also, remember the notes from Brown.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4). Don’t forget that this has a specific meaning, which I outlined further upthread.
The above three points are now (as before) beyond debate. They’re settled. Once every "Spinner" agrees, we can move on to discussing whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Until then, we wait for "Spinner" to argue against "Spinner" until all are in agreement on the three points. Little Willy has now agreed on both 1) and 2) so he can debate anyone disagreeing on them. Bindidon will still be around to debate anyone disagreeing on 3).
That’s eternally that.
Whereas for Kinematics, motion being constrained doesnt change the description of the motion or any of the definitions.
So motions that are constrained to be dependent, such as the linear and angular velocity of a rolling ball, do NOT change the fact that it is both translating and rotating, which are two motions.
Nate,
The Moon Dragon cranks geometry is indeed getting weirder and weirder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551406
So, to recap yet again adding important but ignored details: the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt the string. It is rotating about an external central axis, located at the other end of the string. As a commenter put it: “what we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not.” in a certain ref. frame. Also, remember the notes from Brown.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” as observed from the central object (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way as with using an inertial frame.
3) The moon issue is not resolved just by reference frames, a commenter has to include the detailed observation. Don’t forget that this has a specific meaning, which was outlined further upthread.
The above three points are now (as before) beyond debate. They’re settled. Now that DREMT has joined the “Spinner” club, we can move on to discussing whether “orbit without spin” really is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Until then, no need to wait for “Spinner” to argue against “Spinner” since all have no further debate seen to date on the three points as written.
That’s eternally that.
Brainwashing Ball4 gaslights yet again.
Sorry, DREMT, that 9:23 am is eternally that. The above three points are now (as before) beyond debate.
You’re wrong. I’m right.
Nice summary, B4.
Here’s a simple explanation of the mistake Moon Dragon cranks make:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551452
… 9:23 am is eternally that.
"Nice summary, B4."
Your comments reveal you are in direct disagreement with Ball4, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Just like when he tried to gaslight B4 about his 3).
uwu
Ball4 gaslights. I do not.
DREMT,
On a completely different point to the one we spent days discussing, I wanted to check something with you.
Per Kirchoff’s Law:
“For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorp.tivity.”
Do you agree with this? That emissivity is equal to absop.tivity? Keep it to blackbodies in thermal equilibrium, for simplicity’s sake.
I think that blackbodies, and Kirchoff’s Law, cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT. The BP won’t warm.
BP warming to equilibrium with GP in place during the GPE increases universe entropy so GPE is fully in accord with 2LOT. See Eli’s workout long ago.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
,,, to those schooled in thermodynamics that actually understand the 2LOT which excludes bored DREMT.
Sociopath, begone.
I’m thinking of something else.
Are you disavowing Kirchoff’s Law or accepting it?
You have the only answer you will ever receive from me on this topic. End.
barry, you’re not trying to use Kirchhoff’s Law to pervert science, are you?
No. barry is not doing so Clint R.
It’s unusual for your cult to NOT try to pervert science, like this nonsense:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548809
If it weren’t for their attempts to pervert science and reality, and their insults and false accusations, they would have NOTHING.
Sociopath, begone.
That’s ok, DREMT. It’s enough to be reminded that the laws of physics are disposable items for you.
If you say so, barry. Seems a little unfair. I get that with what we were talking about up-thread, you consider it a 1LoT violation, and there’s nothing that can ever change your mind on that. Fair enough…and maybe you’re right.
However, in the same breath, I don’t see how it’s possible for a perfectly conducting plate at 331 K, emitting 680 W/m^2, not to be warmed by an irradiance of 1,360 W/m^2. The atoms in the plate receiving that flux are going to be stimulated to vibrate faster than they would (on average) in a 331 K plate. That increase in vibration would be passed on through the plate.
So there’s the "immovable object" of your 1LoT violation, "split according to surface area" argument…and the "irresistible force" of the "emit what you receive" argument. What wins out? I’m not sure.
Maybe there just needs to be a different way to look at it altogether.
A perfectly conducting plate has no temperature at all. Any radiation impinging upon it is immediately emitted. If there are any atoms involved, then perfect conduction ceases to be.
Unfortunately, a perfect conductor would also have to transmit information faster than the speed of light, which is currently not acceptable.
SlyDragon cultists live in a world where conventional physical laws can be disregarded at will.
Good for them. Nothing wrong with religious fanaticism, unless it happens to break my leg or pick my pocket, as Thomas Jefferson said.
Seems a little unfair?
You won’t accept Kirchoff’s law. Enough said.
barry ramps up the baiting.
barry is the one that called me a “lying dog” when I explained to him that his cult believed ice cubes could boil water.
Over time, several of his cult “brothers” have confirmed their belief that ice can boil water.
Poor barry doesn’t even know his own cult’s nonsense.
Sociopath, begone.
You get a lot of false accusations with barry. Other than that, he’s mostly more respectful than a lot of the others. I’d rather speak to him than most of them. The "lying dog" comment was a bit of an anomaly, I’d say…maybe just having a bad day.
DREMT picks and chooses which laws of physics are valid. Rejects any that are inconvenient to his narrative.
That is why he has no credibility in a science discussion forum.
Oh well, he made his bed.
Nate, you must be looking in a mirror.
Sociopath, begone.
Last word on this thread.
Clint, No, not at all. DREMT has made it clear throughout his discussion with Barry over the last week, that he has decided that 1LOT is just a suggestion.
Kirchoff’s Law…he rejects out of hand, in favor of magical thinking.
Child Nate, you placed your comment in the wrong place.
You don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.
And, you can’t even spell “Kirchhoff” correctly.
Grow up.
Sociopath, begone.
What is the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite saying now, Clint? I don’t read his comments any more.
Gaslighting Graham could easily prove himself a decent human being by just abiding by Roy’s implied request.
No such “implied request” exists, except in Little Willy’s hopeful imagination.
And the Gaslighting Graham wonders how in the world could he ever earn his nickname.
I expressed my opinion, you expressed yours. Neither of us speak for Dr Spencer, so it remains a matter of opinion.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Lol, OK. I say something completely reasonable, I get falsely accused of gaslighting!
Gaslighting Graham is indeed gaslighting again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546238
Everybody but someone on the spectrum should have difficulty getting the hint. And many people on the spectrum would have learned to take the hint by the time they reach Gaslighting Graham’s age.
Expressing your opinion more forcefully does not make it any less an opinion.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Language is a social art.
…and your abuse of it is a disgrace.
Gaslighting Graham loses a point, doesn’t concede, then shifts focus.
Like he always does.
Little Willy just plain makes stuff up.
Gaslighting Graham is disgraceful again.
Little Willy is bored, and playing with one of the only people in his life who gives him any time, yet he still treats terribly.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again .
False.
But Clint cannot offer any science rebuttal. Just insults. Cuz, ya know, thats what ‘adults’ do.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548854
“So theres the “immovable object” of your 1LoT violation, “split according to surface area” argumentand the “irresistible force” of the “emit what you receive” argument. What wins out? Im not sure.”
Let’s be clear, by ’emit what you receive’, DREMT means ’emit what you receive multiplied by 2 or 6!’
DREMT’s just not sure if objective reality or magic works better for him!
What is the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite saying now, Clint? I don’t read his comments any more.
Can’t answer with science, try insults! It hasn’t worked for Clint either.
What is the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite saying now, Clint? I don’t read his comments any more.
Yes you do. Its just another silly game.
What is the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite saying now, Clint? I don’t read his comments any more.
What is the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite saying now, Clint? I don’t read his comments any more.
Cant answer with science, try insults! Then repeat them over and over!
It hasnt worked for Clint either.
I bet the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite is being a bully and/or a hypocrite again.
Nate – decent human being, stay.
He could easily prove himself a decent human being by just staying out of my comments.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Incorrect.
> Its just another silly game.
Exactly, Nate.
Exactly, DREMT.
“He could easily prove himself a decent human ”
Yes, narcissists believe it is only other people who need to be decent and honest.
Hmmm… I bet the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite is being a bully and/or a hypocrite again.
Just abuse from Gaslighting Graham.
I previously found Nate to be a bully and hypocrite, back when I interacted with him. I have seen that anyone who talks to him for extended periods of time comes to the same conclusion. If that is abuse to say so, then so be it.
> narcissists believe it is only other people who need to be decent and honest.
Worse than that, Nate. They will pretend that serial abusers such as Pupman is decent and honest. In other words, pure gaslighting.
Is that really what he said!?
Lol.
“I previously found Nate to be…”
Again if a message from many is that your arguments are not fact or logic based, and
thus not convincing, and you have no sensible response, then definitely attack the messenger!
So, Little Willy…for exactly how long has Nate been going round calling me a narcissist whilst knowing I can say nothing back to him in response? At the same time, has he been trying to pretend that he is “all about the science” and “not interested in personalities”, by any chance?
“knowing I can say nothing back to him in response?”
Pfft! I dont know any such thing!
Thats a charade. Since you respond regularly when you feel like you have a response.
Only when you have no facts or logic based answer, do you declare that you cannot respond!
Yet another attempt to play the victim card.
What is the blog’s worst bully, biggest narcissist and biggest hypocrite saying now, Little Willy? I don’t read his comments any more.
Right on, Nate.
Gaslighting Graham should lighten up.
He just can’t.
What did he say that’s “right on”?
Gaslighting Graham should lighten up.
Ah, so he said I should lighten up. Seems an odd thing for him to say, but I’ll take your word for it. I’m light as a feather already, by the way.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
Oh, lighten up.
ROUTINE BUT NEVER BORING: SpaceX aims to launch 144 missions next year.
https://instapundit.com/
{a gross amount.}
“This year, were going to attempt to fly 100 flights, Bill Gerstenmaier, the vice president of build and flight reliability at SpaceX, said on Wednesday (Oct. 18) during a hearing of the U.S. Senates Subcommittee on Space and Science.
As we look to next year, we want to increase that flight rate to about 12 flights per month, or 144 flights, he added during the hearing, which was called Promoting Safety, Innovation and Competitiveness in U.S. Commercial Human Space Activities.
Hitting the century mark this year would require a significant ramp-up in launch cadence, from one mission every 3.9 days to one every 2.8 days.”
–The reusable rockets never fail to impress, but maybe underappreciated are the human capital and infrastructure that make the high-speed cadence possible.
Posted at 1:48 pm by Stephen Green —
What would happen if FAA magically became true Lefties, instead of fake Lefties?
Then we might soon see, if Starship works. And might also help with getting New Glenn rocket getting into orbit.
But they will probably remain sell outs, and kicking screaming, it will take longer.
If Starship works, the next thing will be getting it launched from the ocean and this could take more than 2 years- mostly due to endless fake lefties. And they could manage to delay longer than 2 years.
But assuming Starship works as planned, and launching from the ocean- and New Glenn and other rockets are launching from the ocean.
If launching from the ocean, you will want to launch from equator, but for suborbital travel you launch mostly outside to equator from
the ocean. Which gets us pretty close to having ocean settlements.
What about the Moon?
In near term, it matters whether there is mineable lunar water.
But if launch cost drop to less than $100 per kg to LEO, it doesn’t depend on whether lunar water is mineable. One can simply mine H2 {and when you do that, you also get water, you also get helium, and you get oxygen from lunar surface which is more 40% oxygen.
You also be looking at various kinds of mass drivers, which don’t use any chemical rocket fuel.
And for Mars settlements one also needs launch cost to less than $100 per kg to orbit.
Of course it been known to get Space power satellites [SPS] one also requires launch cost to be $100 per kg to LEO. Though it’s possible than launch cost doesn’t need to lower to $100 per kg to LEO, to get harvest energy from Space and beam it to Earth surface. And ocean settlements could be related to SPS.
What about Mars?
Mars needs artificial gravity tested, and mineable Mars water, and one should use Venus orbit. If have Mars settlements, they will use Venus orbit.
If Starship works, you will get Mars crew exploration.
SpaceX Says Feds Are Being Unfair About Its Rocket That Exploded
Those darn regulations.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/spacex-feds-unfair-starship
It’s fairly silly and lacking much sense.
The rocket exploded, not quick enough, is main point.
Then we the launch pad issue.
The pad issue might be resolved, and we have hot fire separation of stage one and two, which relatable to why, there was need to send self-destruct, which had the issue of: didn’t explode enough, and/or fast enough.
Let’s talk about Shuttle explosions which killed the crew.
This was a big issue, for number of reasons. I won’t bore with the reality connected to it.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Is the Earth Really Round?
The answer may SHOCK you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYggpFIU180
The gibberish generator generates away.
These rather strong westerly wind bursts near the Dateline will strengthen the El Nino over the next month or so.
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Strange phenomenon on Mars. Scientists have a clue
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/strange-phenomenon-on-mars-scientists-have-a-clue/ar-AA1ivXOp?cvid=650d8fb2fbdd4bd194e4c389503685da&ei=19
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
“Scientists have been working on this topic for over a year. In May of last year, there was a strong tremor on Mars. Since then, researchers have been trying to explain the cause of its formation. They have finally found a solution to this issue.”
…
“In May of last year, NASA’s InSight lander recorded a 4.7 magnitude quake on Mars. This quake, which spread across the planet’s surface for another six hours, was designated as S1222a.”
…
“These insights may eventually help us understand which areas on Mars are safe for humans, and which are better avoided – says Dr. Benjamin Fernando”
Per year it seems Earth has more 4.7 magnitude quakes.
I don’t think we can determine that anywhere on Earth is safe.
Though I think living on ocean settlements could be safer.
Since useful and relevant comments have ended. I have an off-topic comment. I am deeply disturbed by the loss of life in Israel and Gaza. Many are asking for a cease fire. The IDF is in a difficult spot. They clearly have a responsibility to eliminate Hamas once and for all. It is my opinion based on objective evidence and my sense of how humanity is defined, that Hamas has no legitimate reason to exist.
Hamas has committed atrocities that defy any concept of human activity. Not even animals behave that way. It was not just one, two, or many, it was a planed attacked by thousands. Hamas and their associates are firing rockets from civilian locations. One such rocket from Islamic Jihad malfunctioned and killed hundreds at a hospital. When the IDF told people to evacuate the war zone, Hamas ordered them to stay so they can increase the casualty rate.
A cease fire at this point is a pure victory for Hamas. They win. The IDF must continue the war as carefully as possible, but with one goal in mind. Hamas must be completely eliminated if possible.
Well, completely eliminated would be Hamas surrenders and agrees to not send any more missiles at Israel or any other country.
Or not just a cease fire of their terror campaign of shooting missiles.
Tim S, Hamas is a cult.
Do you see any similarity between Hamas and the GHE cult?
Hamas is about undermining western civilization. So is GHE cult.
Lots of similarity: its all part of woke green marxist agenda to take away the rights and freedoms that we in western countries take for granted but don’t exist anywhere else.
Its exactly what Monckton has been warning about.
only real demented people screw up climate blog with war stuff
Global warming cargo cult is a big tent.
They like Micheal E Mann for instance.
Now Hamas doesn’t do enough for global warming, but
some believe in global warming end of the world, type stuff.
Or at least some types of end of world stuff.
“The IDF must continue the war as carefully as possible, but with one goal in mind. Hamas must be completely eliminated if possible.”
Tim, I agree with you.
But it is clear that they are not doing it as carefully as possible. They are even bombing in the zone they asked civilians to evacuate to.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/10/23/multimedia/23israel-hamas-carousel-destruction3-4p-hlpz/23israel-hamas-carousel-destruction3-4p-hlpz-threeByTwoMediumAt2X.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp
And already thousands of civilians have been killed. And many more expected.
And as result they will lose any moral authority and sympathy they had from the rest of the world, especially the surrounding countries trying to maintain or build peace with them.
And the US, with nearly unconditional support for Israel, will also lose any moral authority it had with the rest of the world, which it dearly needs, in opposing the war crimes by Russia.
BREAKING NEWS:
Hamas has over 1 million liters of fuel that they are hording (265,000 gallons or 6,300 barrels). In fact they are stealing more of the aid being delivered. Hamas could easily fuel all hospital power generators. They choose not to do so.
No surprise there..
I have a better answer. They cannot let Hamas get away with being sub-human. They cannot invade without preparing the battle field. The IDF has to bomb.
All of the people who are complaining, including The secretary-general of the UN, have to answer why they are not demanding that Hamas release fuel supplies. They must demand that Hamas stop preventing people from evacuating to the south. Hamas is to blame for everything. Hamas is hoping to win a cease fire so they can continue there murderous ways unabated.
So you didn’t mean this then:
“The IDF must continue the war as carefully as possible”
The way things are going down, it appears to rest of the world that both Israel and the US do have double standard when it comes to preventing civilian deaths.
And it is precisely that comment and that point of view that represents the strategy being played out by Hamas and their handlers in Iran. Hamas is more of a danger to the people of Gaza than anyone else. It is clear that they have an objective for maximum death on BOTH sides. Waiting longer to complete the mission to eliminate Hamas means more death, not less. The whole thing is a tragedy, but a cease fire is a pure victory for Hamas.
Quite right, Tim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4idQbwsvtUo
Unless and until Gaza is turned into an israelite parking lot, there will always be the threat of Hamas.
And then there’s the West Bank.
And then Egypt.
And then Liban.
And then Syriah.
Bibbi has a fever, and the only cure is more cowbell.
Thank you for being a neo-con tool so openly. With your pretentious grandiloquence, people might confuse you for someone serious.
The POV that civilian deaths should be prevented comes from Hamas and Iran??
Sorry Tim, now you’ve lost me.
Nate, be careful with the talking points. Nowhere did I state those are the only people asking for a cease fire. Let me be clear about that. It is very clear that a cease fire is a complete victory for Hamas. They only get that victory if enough other people in other countries make it happen. It is what they want more than anything.
Be careful with reading between my lines and dichotomous thinking. Nowhere did I say there needs to be a cease fire.
I am saying that Israel needs to stop its seemingly indiscriminate bombing, that is leveling the cities and killing thousands.
Just imagine if some domestic killers are hold-up in a house with extended family members. Is the SWAT Team justified in blowing up the house?
Nate, I respond to you because you seem sincere and polite for the most part. I am offended by the term “climate change denier” because it is a ripoff of the accusation of Holocaust Denier. I just checked and there are only 7 million Jews living in Israel (73 percent of the population). There are many Israelis with dual citizenship because any person on earth whose mother is Jewish is eligible to be a citizen.
My point is this. I have a good friend who is Jewish. He was complaining about something one day, and asked for my opinion of Israel. I described it as a place where a bunch of people showed up uninvited and unwanted, and decided to start a country. The historical context of 1948 is important, but that was not my point. I expected some kind of push back on what was kind of a rude comment. Instead, he just sat in stunned silence and then mumble something to the effect of “they weren’t invited”.
They were not invited, and they were opposed by all of their neighbors at first. They have won every war, and made peace with most of the more civilized countries in the region. Whether they are wanted or not, they are not going anywhere else. There was a quote last week from an Israeli military officer who said “we have nowhere else to go”. Much of their army is inexperienced reservists, but there is no lack of motivation or dedication.
OK Tim.
I have Jewish roots. But many like myself are unwilling to give Israel a free pass in terms of human rights violations.
I agreed with you on the basic principle that they have a right to defend themselves. And the current situation calls for a serious military response.
But they should not, as they sometimes feel empowered to do, apply the Old Testament vengeful God approach.
We rightly called the seemingly indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations war crimes, when it was Assad in Syria and Putin in Ukraine doing it.
We should not apply a different standard to our allies in my opinion.
You raise an important point. Assad and Putin are guilty of knowingly and purposefully killing civilians with activity that has zero military value other than to terrorize the population. The IDF is striking military targets. It is Hamas that makes it impossible to do that without civilian casualty.
On the other hand, nobody is reviewing the IDF target list. In the “fog of war” they could be targeting civilians or settling grievances, and nobody on the outside would know the difference. It is indeed a very tragic situation.
“has zero military value other than to terrorize the population.”
They claim it has military value.
“The IDF is striking military targets. ”
They claim so.
“It is Hamas that makes it impossible to do that without civilian casualty.”
That may true, but that doesnt relieve Israel of responsibility.
Again, SWAT teams are not allowed to blow up the house when the murderers have innocents in there.
Nate, you spend too much time arguing with these other people. You could become just like them if you adopt their style.
Not asking for friend, but giving friendly advice if you still want to be taken seriously.
Tim,
I was surprised by this revelation:
In 2019, Mr. Netanyahu told a meeting of his center-right Likud party: “Those who want to thwart the possibility of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy.”
And apparently he did transfer money to Hamas,
“under Netanyahu, Israel approved the transfer of over $1 billion to Gaza from Qatar intended to cover expenses such as salaries and energy costs but some funds reached Hamas military wing, Haaretz reported.
“Netanyahus aim, according to (former PM Ehud) Barak and others, was to buttress Hamas so as to weaken the rival Palestinian Authority and undermine any possibility of a two-state solution.”
Nate, that is a correct analysis. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Neither side wants the other to exists as a state. Some even want people on the other side to get killed.
Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, offered the Palestinians a comprehensive economic development and security plan. It was rejected out of hand. They didn’t even want to talk about it.
In a war of historic hatred going back thousands of years, there is likely going to be just one winner and one loser. At this point, a two-state solution does not seem to be possible.
Hamas has accomplished something for the Israelis they can almost never achieve on their own. They now have a unified war government. Some are calling it a war for independence.
Hamas is done. It is not clear what the future holds, but it does not seem like it is going to be a two state solution.
“to buttress Hamas so as to weaken the rival Palestinian Authority and undermine any possibility of a two-state solution.”
The Palestinian Authority have not been nearly as radical as Hamas, and had been willing to allow Israel to exist. They just did not agree to the terms offered to them.
So why was Israel, under Likud, assisting Hamas?
This is a Critical SpaceX Starship Fight, and ISRO success with Gaganyaan!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLaZX9CwWlk
Stick around to where discusses Indian Manned lunar program.
China wants go, as does Indian. Japan has always wanted to go, but not sure how much process they are having.
As said NASA should quickly go to Moon and thoroughly establish whether there is mineable water or not.
The US private sector seems to going in direction of making an artificial gravity station. And second priority artificial gravity is critical for Mars crew exploration, and NASA should quickly focus on exploring Mars, once done enough to determine whether the lunar polar region has mineable water at it’s surface. And if doesn’t maybe Indian will look deeper for mineable lunar water. But search for any mineable water deeper on the Moon is pretty opened type thing,
There could mineable water at lunar top surface and even more mineable water at some depth {and anywhere on the Moon] and main reason NASA exploring the Moon is to be better able to explore Mars.
The only reason to spend a lot time exploring the Moon, is that NASA discovers it’s not ready to explore Mars.
China also say it’s going to explore Mars, but I don’t think it will.
Giant leap for China in moon race as SpaceX struggles to get its Starship rocket off the ground
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3238607/giant-leap-china-moon-race-spacex-struggles-get-its-starship-rocket-ground
Ling Xin in Ohio
Published: 8:00pm, 21 Oct, 2023
” A SpaceX representative has told a US Senate hearing that governmental red tape is holding up Americas Artemis III moon mission
The FAA has been slow to grant approval for Starships second launch after the previous attempt exploded soon after take-off”
…
“China may get ahead in the new moon race, a US Senate subcommittee has been warned, due to inefficient government regulations in America slowing the development of the SpaceX Starship super heavy rocket.”
Well, not a fan of SLS, but I think SLS will keep us ahead of Chinese lunar program. And if New Glenn gets a test launch which successful it’s more of a rocket than Chinese have planned on or test launched.
Plus there a number of other US rocket makers, other than SLS, SpaceX, and Blue Origin. China is has India as competior. India doesn’t have good enough rocket, yet, but neither does China. Russia is comparable to China, if they could somehow resolve their war in Ukraine. And then also, Ukraine could go back to making spacecraft.
There is some possibility Japan and South Korea could also get somewhere, soon, like, within a few years. Even UK has been making threatening noise about space related things, and the Moon.
And within 10 years, probably 1/2 dozen other nations will be “more interested” in doing something related to the Moon.
And Japanese guy is planning [and paying for] flying on Dear Moon- even Starship never flies, a Falcon Heavy could be used to do that.
The Falcon Heavy is cheapest rocket launch, and other than SLS, the biggest rocket which is flying. It’s next one is:
“A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch the USSF 52 mission for the U.S. Space Force. The Falcon Heavy will launch an unspecified military payload on this mission. Delayed from October 2021 and 2nd Quarter 2022. Delayed from October 2022 and June 23, delayed from July 6.”
And recently successful launched a mission to explore a space rock, Psyche.
It’s got something like a dozen successful rocket launches, and which are reusing it’s first stage booster engines.
–WHY DID I SLEEP IN THE FACTORY SO MANY TIMES? BECAUSE IT MATTERED. Elon Musk blasts the work-from-home crowd, saying they are detached from reality.–
https://instapundit.com/
Links:
https://www.autoblog.com/2023/10/18/elon-musk-blasts-the-work-from-home-crowd-saying-they-are-detached-from-reality/?icid=autoblog|trend|elon-musk-blasts-the-work-from-home-crowd,-saying-they-are-%27detached-from-reality%27
“Elon Musk says people who ask “Why doesn’t everyone work from home” give off “Marie Antoinette vibes.”
…
Musk’s comments marked an abrupt pivot from a prior discussion about the affordability of Tesla’s cars. After sharing his thoughts on remote work, he resumed the pricing discussion by saying, “So, I just can’t emphasize again how important cost is.”
Hmm, Musk was a big fan robotics, but robots don’t show up at work.
Musk wants people to be engaged.
He wants more than mere robots.
NASA engineers innovate to keep Voyagers exploring interstellar space
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_engineers_innovate_to_keep_Voyagers_exploring_interstellar_space_999.html
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Piers Morgan vs Bassem Youssef On Palestine’s Treatment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4idQbwsvtUo
It’s good for US democracy that the people who pushed the idea that the 2020 election was fraudulent are now themselves pleading guilty to illegal and fraudulent activity in the name of promoting that lie.
https://tinyurl.com/3sfknzfr
https://tinyurl.com/2s46462c
It’s been a slow unravelling of the ‘big lie’, with Fox accepting nearly a billion dollars in fines for defaming Dominion voting machines, their private messaging saying that the idea was nuts, Trump’s inner circle saying in court that they told him there was no election fraud, and now some of the architects admitting their own wrongdoing.
barry, do you hate Trump more than you hate reality?
Or, do you just hate to be hating?
Sociopath, begone.
Clint R – decent human being, stay.
Pupman could move toward decency by staying out of Barry’s comments.
Has barry spent years not responding to Clint R to make it painfully clear he has no interest in talking to him?
Has Barry poisoned this website with the same silly talking points under various sock puppets like Pupman?
Little Willy loses a point, doesn’t concede, then shifts focus. Like he always does.
Gaslighting Graham gets caught special pleading all the way down.
As soon as he loses control of what-needs-to-be-discussed according to him, he loses it. Gaslighting Graham often loses it.
As if Nate was addressing him when he responded to him!
What a jerk.
Nah, I never lose it. I win it.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Honest DREMT wins again.
Barry said time and time again that he had no interest in playing Pupman’s and Gaslighting Graham’s little games.
Yet Pupman keeps bugging him.
Gaslighting Graham could concede this obvious point, but no, he has to build some kind of silly criterium, i.e. unless and until Barry ignores Pupman the way Gaslighting Graham pretends he ignores Nate’s point, Pupman has the right to bite Barry’s ankles.
What a Machiavellian prick.
Coming from the biggest ankle biter on the blog…
Gaslighting Graham loses a point, doesn’t concede, then shifts focus.
Like he always does.
"Barry said time and time again that he had no interest in playing Pupman’s and Gaslighting Graham’s little games."
No, I don’t recall that being the case. If anything, barry tends to let a discussion go on for several days, then jumps in at the end to continue it once everyone’s fed up of talking about it.
Gaslighting Graham denies again.
“Has Barry poisoned this website with the same silly talking points…”
Yep. In fact barry introduced the plates discussion to the blog. All regulars here discuss much the same things over and over again.
Gaslighting Graham fabricates again.
Accusing me of lying? Typical ankle biting from Little Willy.
I asked:
Has Barry poisoned this website with the same silly talking points under various sock puppets like Pupman?
For some reason Gaslighting Graham “forgot” the last bit.
That he’s blaming Barry for his own misconduct under his previous sock puppet is par for his Machiavellian course.
You don’t even know what a sock puppet is.
Gaslighting Graham loses a point, does not concede, then shifts focus. Like he always does.
Not in the least.
lower energy fluxes do not add up
https://youtu.be/-4U-Wc1lt5s?t=167
Eben, for the cult we need to emphasize: “…lower energy fluxes do NOT add up.”
Sociopath, begone.
Clint R decent human being, stay.
He could easily prove himself a decent human being if he refrained from conflating emittance and reflectance.
Did you mean conflating irradiance and radiant exitance? That’s what he has been accused of. Not what you said.
I stand corrected, and was referring to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363951
No idea why I typed reflectance.
Well done on conceding an error for the first time ever.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Well, when have you ever conceded an error before this?
Gaslighting Graham is baiting again.
No, I am genuinely curious. When have you conceded an error prior to this? You make mistakes all the time, dozens per discussion, but you never admit to them.
Gaslighting Graham really should beware his wishes.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His “more examples of your errors, please” reveals that he’s just a little Machiavellian prick.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191034
What a Machiavellian prick.
Ah, yes. I stand corrected.
More examples of your errors, please.
Once again Gaslighting Graham reveals himself to be a Machiavellian prick.
I say I stand corrected, Little Willy still has a problem! Remarkable.
Gaslighting Graham said “More examples of your errors, please.”
Yes, I said that. Because it was funny.
Thus Gaslighting Graham reveals himself to be a Machiavellian prick.
Oh, lighten up.
Eben reviews the photoelectric effect.
But is a non-sequitur to draw any conclusions from this about photon abs.or.ption.
Photons carry energy, and if multiple photons impact a surface and are abs.or.bed, their energy transferred to the surface most certainly SUMS.
Nothing in the photo-electric effect suggests otherwise.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Instead of W/m,
please read W/m^2.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, satellites measure earth system brightness temperature of ~255K from orbit (= Tmean earth w/o atm.), where surface thermometers measure the ~288K mean kinetic temperature. Your fudge factor (beta) is off by about 33K.
Wrong Ball4, satellites do NOT measure 244K.
Does your mommy know you’re playing with her keyboard again?
Right for once Clint R: satellites do NOT measure 244K system brightness temperature, earthen satellites measure ~255K system brightness temperature vs. ~288K surface thermometer temperature depending on time period.
Wrong Ball4, satellites do NOT measure 255K.
You’re full of nonsense, but you’ll be here until your mommy catches you.
Sociopath, begone.
Clint R – decent human being, stay.
[PUPMAN] Does your mommy know youre playing with her keyboard again?
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] decent human being, stay.
Yep.
Gaslighting Graham pretends not having witnessed what is pure abuse by Pupman.
Ball4 mocks others regularly, so deserves to receive it in return.
Instead of conceding the obvious, Gaslighting Graham deflects.
As he always does.
Agree to disagree.
Grand solar minimum maximum – Are we there yet ???
https://i.postimg.cc/43Yb6T9w/hmipolarfields.png
“Grand solar minimum maximum Are we there yet ???”
What is a Grand solar minimum maximum?
Is just the way aliens talk
https://i.postimg.cc/L8k1H4rz/1635382978793.jpg
–FOLLOW THE SCIENCE: Global Warming? Where? The Abstract bluntly declares that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures while the conclusions state the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.’–
https://instapundit.com/
Links to:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/10/a-new-report-throws-cold-water-on-man-made-global-warming-pseudoscience/
It seems to say can’t measure the warming effect from CO2, but I still have faith that within a decade or so, it will be measurable.
Arctic sea ice: the canary in the coal mine
Posted on October 21, 2023 by curryja | 45 Comments
by Greg Goodman
https://judithcurry.com/2023/10/21/arctic-sea-ice-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine/#more-30600
Well, as I have said, warming our cold 3.5 C average temperature of
Ocean, will melt sea ice.
But lack of sea ice particularly in the winter, will cool the ocean.
Or need average temperature the ocean to be about 4 C to have ice free, but ice free would eventually cool that 4 C ocean.
Past interglacial periods is said to have had ocean of 4 C or more and had much warmer global average temperature {about 17 C global average surface temperature} but they also had a green Sahara desert and green Sahara desert is suppose increase global average temperature.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Elon Musk wasn’t always the influential billionaire he is today. To begin our dive into the myth of Musk, we need to go back to his origins – to find out where he came from, what inspired him, and how he became the man he is today. Those details set the foundation for the three episodes to come. This is episode 1 of Elon Musk Unmasked, a special four-part series from Tech Won’t Save Us.
https://www.techwontsave.us/episode/189_elon_musk_unmasked_origins_of_an_oligarch_part_1
–Greta Thunberg
October 22, 2023 Rand Simberg 1 Comment
is an anti-Semitic weasel.
Yes, Im as shocked as you are.–
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
linked:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/10/greta_thunberg_is_an_antisemitic_weasel.html
“Greta Thunberg is an antisemitic weasel
By Andrea Widburg
I am second to none in my disrespect for Greta Thunberg. Shes a creepy little mutant, the product of ardent socialist parents, who cured herself of a mental breakdown by terrifying the worlds youth with unfounded predictions of a climate apocalypse that can be cured only by giving her and her fellow travelers unfettered power (and cash). Given her background and affiliations, it comes as no surprise to learn that, in addition to her paranoia and megalomania, shes also a genocidal antisemite.”
I think the global climate cargo cult, has a lot racists.
Which tend to be attracted to any kind of cult and pseudo science.
The whole racist racism is utterly pseudo science, and global warming “solutions” would harm poorer countries and countries in African continent or parts of world which has the most population and the fastest growing population {at least, for next few decades- if get a lot less poorer and in shorter time period, then less than next few decades. Or for *some reason* more wealth results in lower population growth- and many argue, why}.
The gibberish generator generates away.
Indeed!
{According to wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeed but I meant something else.
Wiki: “In October 2010, Indeed.com passed Monster.com to become the highest-traffic job website in the United States.”
Woeful Wee Willy,
Thank you for the flattery – feel free to use my words. I know you appreciate a good turn of phrase, even if you cannot devise any which come up to my high standards.
However, your flattery will not help advance your romantic intentions toward me. Your homosexual protestations of love will remain unrequited. But thanks, anyway.
Have you come up with a better description for the GHE than your bizarre “Not cooling, slower cooling”, yet?
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn, the blog’s worst bully and biggest hypocrite, is being a bully and a hypocrite again.
Wacky Wee Willy,
Oooooooh! Playing the martyr card again, are you?
Oh dear, poor Willard is such a precious petal he can’t handle the truth, and claims that he is feeling bullied! I don’t care about your “feelings”. Why should I?
There is nothing you can do about it.
If you want to “feel” bullied, offended, upset, annoyed, or any other pointless emotion – be my guest. If you want to describe the GHE as “Not cooling, slower cooling”, all you’ll get from me is derisive sniggering.
Burst into tears all you like – I don’t care. Mike Flynn probably doesn’t either.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Can’t recognize Gaslighting Graham’s victim playing?
Nevermind. Please, do continue.
Cheers.
Little Willy, the blog’s second worst bully and second biggest hypocrite, is being a bully and a hypocrite again.
Wacky Wee Willy,
Oooooooh! Playing the martyr card again, are you?
Oh dear, poor Willard is such a precious petal he cant handle the truth, and claims that he is feeling bullied! I dont care about your feelings. Why should I?
There is nothing you can do about it.
If you want to feel bullied, offended, upset, annoyed, or any other pointless emotion be my guest. If you want to describe the GHE as Not cooling, slower cooling, all youll get from me is derisive sniggering.
Burst into tears all you like I dont care. Mike Flynn probably doesnt either.
Gaslighting Graham and Mike Flynn offer us a Slimy and Bully duo!
*The crowd squirm in excitement.*
Little Willy attempts to bully again.
Gaslighting Graham claims he is feeling bullied. He doesn’t care about anyone else’s feelings. Why should anyone care about his?
Such a precious petal. Can’t handle the truth?
Oh, dear.
I said, “attempts”.
Jon Stewarts show on Apple is over because of disagreements about China
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/media/jon-stewart-apple/index.html
”
New York CNN
The Problem with Jon Stewart will not come back to Apple TV+ for a third season, bringing a surprise and sudden end to the increasingly popular show led by the former Daily Show host.
Stewart informed staff Thursday that he and Apple executives agreed to part ways, according to multiple show staff members with whom Stewart discussed the matter. ”
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
—
JON STEWARTS APPLE TV SHOW CANCELED because he wanted to report critically on China.
Posted at 2:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds —
Hmm, can anyone report positively about China. And it seems Corporate MSM should be very eager to hire such a guy. Buy them by the dozen if it can be done.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Everything wrong with Elon Musk’s leadership style
Is Elon Musk successful because he’s an asshole or is he allowed to be an asshole because he is successful?
https://www.fastcompany.com/video/everything-wrong-with-elon-musks-leadership-style/BozmxASu
In case anyone is interested in the Ukrainian war:
Game changers in Ukraine – Evaluating ATACMS, Lancet & systems that changed the war (or didn’t)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z630Rt1mTs
Solar wind
speed: 350.6 km/sec
density: 2.92 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 65
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 123 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.26×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
“A LULL IN SUNSPOT ACTIVITY: In the past two weeks, sunspot counts have sharply dropped, leaving the solar disk without any complex or very active sunspots. Does this mean Solar Cycle 25 is ending prematurely? No. “Sunspot lulls” are normal statistical fluctuations observed during even very strong solar cycles. Solar Cycle 25 will soon bounce back as it heads for a maximum in 2024-25. ”
Cycle 25 is not ending, and we have to solar min 25, but solar cycle 25 Max will go on for years.
We aren’t in a strong solar cycle, some say we will reach Solar Max before the end of the year {before Dec 31 2023}.
I would say we reached our solar cycle 25 max peak in June/July, though it wouldn’t unreasonable to say Jan to August. Or May 2022 to Oct 2023.
Or depends upon whatever rules one has of what counts as a peak.
Though one could say Solar cycle 24 Max had a double peak and second peak could be said to be stronger than first peak.
So, in comparison to Solar cycle Max 24, it seems 25 could have much stronger first peak, and following this, much weaker, secondary peaks.
But one could imagine, 25 could have weaker first peak and stronger second peak, like solar cycle 24, had. Or solar Max 25 is much stronger than 24. And Solar Max 25 could be like this {higher second peak than first peak- and still, be a weak solar max].
And since solar max peak could be as late Dec 2023, you could think Nov and Dec have higher monthly sunspots than June and/or July.
It’s somewhat reasonable.
And also, this could be stronger cycle than 24, and even be a “normal” solar max, and thereby ending anything you could call a grand solar min. But if 26 is as weak as 24, then you might say the Solar grand Maximum has ended or paused or whatever.
It seems most think solar cycle 25 will be like 24, or a weak solar max. And right now, it seems it could to be the case.
But Zharkova has theory that it will be weaker than 24, and I have been guessing in accordance with thatidea, and I am guessing Nov and later in Solar max, it will less than Oct 2023 or my guess of less than 120 monthly sunspot number, and average less than 100 sunspot over period of months of time- or also entire rest of Solar Max
Or up until now, we been well above curved line, and after Nov, I am guessing we drop below the line, and one month or even two could go above the curved line, but trend line will stay below the curved line after Nov.
And this curved line is of the graph, here:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar wind
speed: 343.3 km/sec
density: 1.69 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 48
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 119 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.26×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
Down to 33 spots today
My guess is 3469 left to farside and/or completely faded.
And have three numbered sunspots, and nothing came from farside or grew on the nearside.
And Oct month, will be less than 110 sunspot
Solar wind
speed: 381.2 km/sec
density: 1.41 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 25
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 122 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.4% Low
Highlights of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
16 – 22 October 2023
Solar activity was at low levels on 16-17 and 19-21 Oct with C-class
flare activity observed. Very low levels were observed on 18 and 22
Oct with only B-class flares registered. Three CMEs were identified
to be likely glancing-blow arrivals this period. …
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
23 October – 18 November 2023
Solar activity is expected to range from very low to low levels
throughout the period with a chance for R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)
events over 24 Oct-11 Nov. …
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
We have two fair sized coronal holes arriving from farside:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/24oct23/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
One say it’s Halloween sideways face.
It looks mean, and it seems to me, it could even be mean {somehow}.
Solar wind
speed: 333.7 km/sec
density: 4.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 34
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 121 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.12×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Low
Just two numbered spots: 3468 and 3470. And there are couple small spots which aren’t given numbers. See no spots coming from farside and it will be few days before large spot 3468, goes first to farside- and still think it would fade before going to farside.
Maybe, after it leaves, we could get a spotless day before the month ends.
Solar wind
speed: 369.9 km/sec
density: 12.63 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 26
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 126 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.06×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.8% Low
“A HOLE IN THE SUN’S ATMOSPHERE: A double-lobed hole has opened in the sun’s atmosphere, and it is spewing a complex stream of solar wind toward Earth. ETA: Oct. 30th. Its arrival could spark a display of high-latitude Halloween auroras”
It’s spooky, if it’s face, it’s right eye is at the sun’s equator and left eye in northern hemisphere. And it’s mouth is closer the mid point on the nearside. Or tomorrow the face will be directly facing Earth.
For Oct sunspot number to cross the curved line, Oct number has to 88.3. I wondered whether it could cross this line on Oct, and I thought it was quite unlikely, but I though Nov spot number would cross the curved line, which would be, 90.6.
And then Dec and Jan would likewise cross or remain below the line:
93.2 and 95.3 and then stay below the curved line for more than a year.
I said it would be less than 120 sunspot for Oct, and lately I said less than 110 sunspot for Oct. But to be 88.3 or less it seems we need to have a spotless day in the remaining days of Oct.
It doesn’t seem likely.
But I think it’s likely to get a spotless day in Nov.
Solar cycle 24 did something similar:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
But I am guessing 25 will be weaker {a lot weaker}.
Strange anomaly in suns solar cycle discovered in centuries-old texts from Korea
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
“The suns solar cycles were once around three years shorter than they are today, a new analysis of centuries-old Korean chronicles reveals.
This previously unknown anomaly occurred during a mysterious solar epoch known as the Maunder Minimum, more than 300 years ago, says LiveScience. ”
I think 25 will be long and weak, 26 long and even weaker.
Though centuries ago, they could have looked shorter.
NOAA FORECASTS QUICKER, STRONGER SOLAR MAX: When Solar Cycle 25 began in 2020, leading forecasters thought it would be weak and slow to develop. Fast forward three years: NOAA is now predicting a quicker, stronger solar cycle. The revised forecast, published yesterday, shows Solar Max coming sometime between January and October 2024:
{graph}
NOAA’s original prediction for Solar Cycle 25 is shown in pink (), the broad band indicating the uncertainty of the forecast. It has become clear in recent years that the original prediction was too low, which prompted NOAA to issue a new one. The magenta line () traces the new forecast, and takes into account recent high sunspot counts.
Uncertainties in the new forecast are bounded by different shades of magenta. There is roughly a 25% chance that the smoothed sunspot number will fall within the dark-shaded region; a 50% chance it will fall in the medium-shaded region; and a 75% chance it will fall in the lightest of the shaded regions.
If this new forecast is correct, Solar Cycle 25 could land in the ballpark of Solar Cycle 23, which peaked in 2000-2001, and produced the famous Halloween Storms of 2003. However, the odds still favor Solar Cycle 25 being a bit weaker than Solar Cycle 23. Either way, next year’s Solar Max could be potent. ”
Quite different that my guess.
Even though they say 25 could be weaker than 24, and I agree it could be weaker, I am guessing they quite wrong because within short time I guessing it will way off and they making recent guess. Or if guessed 1 or 2 years ago, rather than now when middle of it, I would say they were wrong.
It’s only fair, my guess will proven wrong within a few months.
Both guesses could be proven wrong but it could be years before NOAA is proven wrong {unless my guess is close within a month’s time}.
So got my guess I made about 6 month ago which could wrong or right, and I am also guess NOAA is wrong. I could be wrong twice. Or both correct.
I said”…rather than now when middle of it, I would say they were wrong.”
Meant to type: “rather than now when middle of it, I wouldn’t say they were wrong.”
Or I gave a late in the game, guess. But they are making guess, even latter in the game.
Though I know nothing about the sun, I am just following “instructions” from Zharkova’s theory.
[And I not not particularly good with following any instructions- and she might be right and I am wrong}
The 240 W/m^2 is very much hot!
–
Just think about an appartment of 100 m^2. If you arrange 240 W electric heaters on each square meter, there will be 24 kW – it is too much of energy.
–
Something is very wrong in earth’s radiative balance’s estimations!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
radiative balance model as described by the climate shysters is a complete and utter nonsense, the surface is in the equilibrium with the gas directly above it , it does not absorb 500W and it does not emit 400W
https://i.postimg.cc/Kcfhz3NS/energy-budget.png
Guys, just think about an appartment (sic) of 100 m^2. If you arrange 240 W electric heaters on each square meter, there will be 24 kW on 100m^2 or 240W/m^2 it is NOT too much of energy.
Nothing is very wrong in earth’s radiative balance’s (sic) estimations!
Ball4,
Try 100 m/2 of ice emitting 300 W/m2. Total wattage 3 kW.
Still below freezing. Shows that only those detached from reality use W/m2 as a proxy for temperature.
About as silly as claiming that an atmosphere radiating 330 W/m2 (back radiation) can make a surface hotter than about 5 C!
On the other hand, 330 W/m2 from the sun can be used to melt steel. GHE cultists have no clue, have they?
Now Swenson writes W/m^2 has the same units as temperature “a proxy”. What will Swenson write next at which readers can laugh? The world awaits.
Now Ball4 lies like a pig in mud, hoping nobody will notice.
Just in case you can’t distinguish reality from fantasy, here’s what I wrote –
“Shows that only those detached from reality use W/m2 as a proxy for temperature.”
Like you and your SkyDragon cult fellowship.
Laugh on, Ball4. See who laughs with you.
And no, you cannot power a light bulb by it
If by “it” you mean the amount of cognitive work Sky Dragon cranks display, Eboy, you got a point.
Considering that SkyDragon cranks seem in awe of the imaginary heat generated by CO2, their collective cognitive power (plus $5) would enable the purchase of a $5 cup of coffee.
Have you found anyone who values your opinion, yet? Try asking around sheltered workshops – if not there, maybe ask a few journalists or politicians. Stay away from intelligent people. They will probably jus5 laugh at you!
Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Considering that SkyDragon cranks seem in awe of the imaginary heat generated by CO2, their collective cognitive power (plus $5) would enable the purchase of a $5 cup of coffee.
Have you found anyone who values your opinion, yet? Try asking around sheltered workshops if not there, maybe ask a few journalists or politicians. Stay away from intelligent people. They will probably just laugh at you!
Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.
Weird that Swenson (MikeF) got himself all turned around about the Sky Dragon Slayers (Cranks).
Here’s a reminder that it is his allies who called themselves Sky Dragon Slayers.
And of course, everyone else understands that they are Cranks.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412
Considering that SkyDragon cranks seem in awe of the imaginary heat generated by CO2, their collective cognitive power (plus $5) would enable the purchase of a $5 cup of coffee.
Have you found anyone who values your opinion, yet? Try asking around sheltered workshops if not there, maybe ask a few journalists or politicians. Stay away from intelligent people. They will probably just laugh at you!
Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.
You already said that, Mike Flynn.
Try with simpler sentences.
Subject. Verb. Object.
Otherwise people won’t know what you’re braying about.
Keep braying!
Considering that SkyDragon cranks seem in awe of the imaginary heat generated by CO2, their collective cognitive power (plus $5) would enable the purchase of a $5 cup of coffee.
Have you found anyone who values your opinion, yet? Try asking around sheltered workshops if not there, maybe ask a few journalists or politicians. Stay away from intelligent people. They will probably just laugh at you!
Off you go now. Let me know how you get on.
You already said that, Mike.
Keep braying!
As usual, we learn that Eben has his negative feelings toward the ordinary energy balance diagram.
But no facts or scientific rationale offered to explain his feelings are given.
Nate,
Energy balance diagram? Surely you don’t believe that an object must emit precisely the amount of energy it receives!
If that were true, how could an object heat, or cool?
For example, the Earth’s surface is no longer molten (beneath my feet, at least). This indicates that four and a half billion years of sunlight, incalculable amount of water vapour and CO2, vast amounts of radiogenic heat, tidal friction – and so on, have been unable to keep up with the rate at which the Earth has emitted energy. The Earth has cooled as a result.
Have you considered taking a sanity course, and accepting reality?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Surely you dont believe that an object must emit precisely the amount of energy it receives!”
What are you braying about?
All an energy-balance model establishes is that the energy that comes in equals the energy that comes out.
That’s what “balance” means.
Do you really have a problem with the concept of balance?
Considering your comments, that would not be hard to believe!
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You’re just not very bright are you?
Surely you dont believe that an object must emit precisely the amount of energy it receives!
If that were true, how could an object heat, or cool?
For example, the Earths surface is no longer molten (beneath my feet, at least). This indicates that four and a half billion years of sunlight, incalculable amount of water vapour and CO2, vast amounts of radiogenic heat, tidal friction and so on, have been unable to keep up with the rate at which the Earth has emitted energy. The Earth has cooled as a result.
Have you considered taking a sanity course, and accepting reality?
Tut, tut, Willard, you should stick to losing your “silly semantic games”. Or just play with yourself – at least you might get some pleasure.
Mike Flynn,
An energy-balance balances energy in and energy out.
Simples.
So what are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Astronomers carry out largest ever cosmological computer simulation
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_carry_out_largest_ever_cosmological_computer_simulation_999.html
” According to the theory, the properties of our entire universe are set by a few numbers called ‘cosmological parameters’ (six of them in the simplest version of the theory). The values of these parameters can be measured very precisely in various ways. One of these methods relies on the properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a faint background glow left over from the early Universe. However, these values do not match those measured by other techniques that rely on the way in which the gravitational force of galaxies bends light (lensing). These ‘tensions’ could signal the demise of the standard model of cosmology – the cold dark matter model.
The computer simulations may be able to reveal the cause of these tensions because they can inform scientists about possible biases (systematic errors) in the measurements. If none of these prove sufficient to explain away the tensions, the theory will be in real trouble.”
Yes gb, there’s a lot of garbage out there.
Otis hurricane max sustained wind 145 mph hitting southern Mexico.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Cat 3 or 4 {I can’t remember category wind ranges}
It doesn’t seem like it’s affecting my weather. My weather is some clouds and forecasted to go below freezing:
https://tinyurl.com/bdhhrj2f
Mexico seems to being hit by a lot powerful hurricanes.
Also, might effect weather in boca chica texas:
https://tinyurl.com/k5n3zh55
Which is warmer and much wetter.
SpaceX Performs Wet Dress Rehearsal of Second Starship Flight Stack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAi2Qu52nCU
SpaceX is performing a Wet Dress Rehearsal of Ship 25 and Booster 9. “The stack is the planned configuration for the second flight of Starship in the upcoming weeks. Road closures for the test are in place from Tuesday to Thursday, with a window of 12 hours from 8 a.m. onward each day. The road was closed earlier today. Currently, Marine notices indicate a flight NET November 1, which has a high chance of slipping further. ”
It takes +6 hours
Earlier than above:
The Monster Awakens Again! What’s the aftermath of SpaceX’s Starship 26 Static Fire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Cvt0ZHAQk
It explains aspect of the raptor engine. And is much shorter.
And some fun stuff about the FAA.
Greenlands Tipping Point Cancelled? Claims Of A Runaway Melt Are Overblown
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/23/greenlands-tipping-point-cancelled-claims-of-a-runaway-melt-are-overblown/
–We have carefully read the definition of a tipping point as conveyed by Potsdam Institute (PIK): Its like a pencil that you push further and further over the edge of a table with your finger. First nothing happens then it falls. Thats what the PIK website says.
Nothing can bring the pencil back to the table except a failure of gravity, which is not conceivable. Then PIK lists various elements that are supposed to exhibit such behavior. To the ice sheet of Greenland one finds there
There are indications that the tipping point, which leads to an almost complete loss of ice in the long term (about 10,000 years), could probably be reached at a global warming of just under 1.5C (possible from 0.8C global warming, at the latest at 3C).
Now theres a paper on the subject has appeared in Nature, which paints a different picture. It finds that even after a possibly critical warming threshold has been crossed, the pencil does not fall down:
We find several stable intermediate ice-sheet configurations that return to the present-day state if the climate returns to present-day conditions.–
It seems to me if Greenland were to melt a lot more, it would provide location for a hydro-dam {and could ship the water to Africa}.
But it appear it’s not going to melt enough- in the near term, or we will be living on Mars before this could happen.
Eben reviews the photoelectric effect.
But is a non-sequitur to draw any conclusions from this about photon abs.or.ption.
Photons carry energy, and if multiple photons impact a surface and are abs.or.bed, their energy transferred to the surface most certainly SUMS.
Nothing in the photo-electric effect suggests otherwise.
which part of “lower energy photons do not get absorbd” you do not understand ???
The part where you hide the little thermometers photons must carry to decide where they go, Eboy.
Up your ass Willtard
Willard,
You haven’t figured out where the photons emitted by a block of ice submerged in hot soup go?
Tut, tut, you silly billy – why would you think that a photon needs a thermometer to know where to go?
Are you really as ignorant as your comment makes you appear?
Keep denying reality if you wish.
[laughing at confused SkyDragon cultist]
Mike Flynn,
Are you asking a question you asked a thousand times and received an answer a thousand times, by any chance?
So sad. Too bad!
Cheers.
Willard,
You havent figured out where the photons emitted by a block of ice submerged in hot soup go?
Tut, tut, you silly billy why would you think that a photon needs a thermometer to know where to go?
Are you really as ignorant as your comment makes you appear?
Keep denying reality if you wish.
[laughing at confused SkyDragon cultist]
You already brayed that, Mike.
Why do you repeat your gibberish?
Willard,
You havent figured out where the photons emitted by a block of ice submerged in hot soup go?
Tut, tut, you silly billy why would you think that a photon needs a thermometer to know where to go?
Are you really as ignorant as your comment makes you appear?
Keep denying reality if you wish.
[laughing at confused SkyDragon cultist]
You already brayed that, Mike.
Bray it again!
“Photons carry energy, and if multiple photons impact a surface and are abs.or.bed, their energy transferred to the surface most certainly SUMS.”
Indeed. And if the photons do not interact with the object, for example, visible light passing through a transparent object, then talking about sums is just silly.
Of course, there are people like Willard who do not accept physical laws, and are convinced that submerging a lump of ice in a bowl of hot soup will result in the photons emitted by the ice being absorbed by the soup, and the soups’s temperatures rising a consequence!
He’s really a silly Willy if he thinks that, isn’t he? Rather like you promoting a magical GHE which you can’t even describe! Go on, tell everyone, what is this GHE supposed to do? Make something hotter? Colder? Where? When? By how much?
You really have no clue, like all of your collectively mad SkyDragon buddies!
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“if the photons do not interact with the object”
What are you braying about?
Photos are not like Sky Dragon cranks, you know.
They interact with whatever comes their way.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Open your eyes, laddie, and tell me how you manage to see anything at all – the photons interacting with the rods and cones in your eyes seem to have passed through the intervening air, the lens of your eye, the vitreous matter of your eyeball, all without apparently interacting with any of them to any significant degree.
Now shut your eyes. Gee, what happened to all the visible light photons? Where did they go?
Step outside at night, and photons from stars hundreds of light years away manage to be seen.
You see it, but you don’t believe it. That’s your right. Nobody can force you to abandon your SkyDragon cult beliefs.
You hang in there Willy.
Mike Flynn,
Bray again, and tell me how you manage to make no sense at all!
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Open your eyes, laddie, and tell me how you manage to see anything at all the photons interacting with the rods and cones in your eyes seem to have passed through the intervening air, the lens of your eye, the vitreous matter of your eyeball, all without apparently interacting with any of them to any significant degree.
Now shut your eyes. Gee, what happened to all the visible light photons? Where did they go?
Step outside at night, and photons from stars hundreds of light years away manage to be seen.
You see it, but you dont believe it. Thats your right. Nobody can force you to abandon your SkyDragon cult beliefs.
You hang in there Willy.
Very good, Mike.
But what are you braying about?
“which part of lower energy photons do not get absorbd you do not understand ???”
FYI Eben, the photoelectric effect was first applied to metals, which are good at reflecting light.
So indeed metals reflect IR, visible and other light, but UV is abs.orbed by electrons in metal, and then they are ejected. That is the photelectric effect.
But on many non-metal surfaces, IR and visible light are not reflected.
Their low energy photons are abs.orbed in non-metals.
That has nothing to do with the photo-electric effect.
Photon absorp.tion is based on the compatibility of the photon with the molecule impacted. A mis-matched photon gets reflected.
Here’s where the uneducated children bring out lasers and microwave ovens….
Nate invents his own fizzix where the electron does different things each time depending onwhat he needs it to do.
Quantum shwantum be dammed
[EBOY] Nate invents his own fizzix where the electron does different things each time depending onwhat he needs it to do.
[ALSO EBOY] which part of “lower energy photons do not get absorbd” you do not understand ???
Eben seems blissfully unaware that charcoal, and many other materials abs.orb IR and visible light, with their low low energy photons!
Maybe he can man-splain the physics of that to us with the photoelectric effect!
Tee hee hee…
The Dunning-Kruger effect on display
Certainly is.
Eben splains stuff to people who actually understand it.
He fails to explain why many materials abs.orb Infrared light.
Oh well!
Woeful Wee Willy,
Fortunately, no.
Totally immersing a chunk of ice in a bowl of soup will not heat your soup.
That would just be silly – the sort of thing you would claim.
Go on, tell me what happens to the photons emitted by the ice.
Not very clever, Willy, not very clever.
“Go on, tell me what happens to the photons emitted by the ice.”
Apparently they power his igloo lights
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Fortunately, no.”
Fortunately, no, what?
Have you lost your footing in the comment thread?
Bray again!
Wee Willy Wanker,
My bad – I thought your attention span was longer than a goldfish.
Here’s what you wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You say:
“if the photons do not interact with the object”
What are you braying about?
Photos are not like Sky Dragon cranks, you know.
They interact with whatever comes their way.”
So here’s the response –
Fortunately, no.
Totally immersing a chunk of ice in a bowl of soup will not heat your soup.
That would just be silly the sort of thing you would claim.
Go on, tell me what happens to the photons emitted by the ice.
Not very clever, Willy, not very clever.
You have no clue, have you?
Mike Flynn,
You say – “My bad.”
Your bad manners?
Your bad breath?
Your bad religion?
What are you braying about?
Wee Willy Wanker,
My bad I thought your attention span was longer than a goldfish.
Heres what you wrote
“Mike Flynn,
You say:
“if the photons do not interact with the object”
What are you braying about?
Photos are not like Sky Dragon cranks, you know.
They interact with whatever comes their way.”
So heres the response
Fortunately, no.
Totally immersing a chunk of ice in a bowl of soup will not heat your soup.
That would just be silly the sort of thing you would claim.
Go on, tell me what happens to the photons emitted by the ice.
Not very clever, Willy, not very clever.
You have no clue, have you?
Mike Flynn,
Where is Antarctica, again?
Wee Willy Wanker,
My bad. I thought your attention span was longer than a goldfish.
Heres what you wrote
“Mike Flynn,
You say:
“if the photons do not interact with the object”
What are you braying about?
Photos are not like Sky Dragon cranks, you know.
They interact with whatever comes their way.”
So here’s the response –
Fortunately, no.
Totally immersing a chunk of ice in a bowl of soup will not heat your soup.
That would just be silly the sort of thing you would claim.
Go on, tell me what happens to the photons emitted by the ice.
Not very clever, Willy, not very clever.
You have no clue, have you?
Don’t you know where Antarctica is? You surprise me.
Mike Flynn,
What does a soup have to do with photons?
Do you have a photon soup recipe to share with us?
No, not a pho soup – a photon soup!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
No Starship/Superheavy launch likely until January?
Behind the Black
Postings from Robert Zimmerman
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/no-starship-superheavy-launch-likely-until-january/
“The delay therefore can only be for two reasons, neither good. Either the people at Fish & Wildlife are utterly incompetent, and need eight months to write up the paperwork (even though in April they already knew that there was no reason to delay), or they are vindictive, power-hungry, and wish to exercise an animus against SpaceX in order to hurt the company.
Mostly likely we are seeing a combination of both: The bureaucrats at Fish & Wildlife are incompetent and hate SpaceX, and are using their newly gained power over issuing launch licenses to hurt it.
Either way, if Fish & Wildlife uses its entire 135-day window to issue its launch approval to SpaceX, no launch can occur this year. SpaceX will be stymied, and the development of this new heavy-lift reuseable rocket, possibly the most important new technology in rocketry ever, will be badly crushed. Not only will NASAs Artemis program be damaged (it wants Starship as its manned lunar lander), SpaceX might face huge financial loses, as it needs Starship to launch and maintain its Starlink communications constellation.”
He tends to be quite pessimistic.
I tend to be wildly optimistic {even though I have a very low opinion
of governmental- and/or any kind of bureaucracies}.
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
And Rand commented:
“Speculation, over at Bob Zimmermans place. I make no predictions, but I obviously hope its sooner than later.”
And it seems it will have little effect by starlink, as the madman
is going for 100 falcon launches this year, and a gross amount in 2024. And it seems to me the bottleneck is on the ground terminal- and those production teams will probably get a lot of heat from Elon.
And if delayed, billions more will pumped into doing that as fast as
possible. And as long as he doesn’t die from the stress, the delay will quicken Starlink subscribers increase and also getting more countries who will allow them.
Curiosity rover discovers new evidence Mars once had ‘right conditions’ for life
By Keith Cooper
published about 21 hours ago
“We’re finding evidence that Mars was likely a planet of rivers.”
“A team of researchers examining data collected by NASA’s Curiosity rover at Gale crater, a large impact basin on the Martian surface, discovered further evidence that rivers once flowed across the Red Planet, perhaps more widespread than was previously thought. “We’re finding evidence that Mars was likely a planet of rivers,” said geoscientist Benjamin Cardenas of Penn State University and lead author of the research in a statement.”
https://www.space.com/mars-water-curiosity-rover-data-conditions-for-life”
Linked: https://instapundit.com/
Mars settlements needs to make lakes.
“Its quite a powerful study because of its wide geographical coverage, unlike other studies that focus on one particular proxy in one location.
Below is the key graph. Its measured in SDs, but illustrates how temperatures plunged around 3000 years ago, and notably since the Middle Ages:”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/25/holocene-climate-change-in-the-arctic/
And:
“Figure 2 also shows the area of the Greenland ice sheet, which reached post ice age minimum about 4000 years ago, and was at a maximum at the end of the Little Ice Age:”
It was once warmer, and we are slowing falling into the next glaciation, despite any rise in CO2.
Perhaps we get a bump in next Grand Solar Maximum.
But a billion people might living in Venus orbit, by around that time.
THE SIMPLEST REFUTATION OF MOON DRAGON CRANK MADNESS
The Moon’s orbit and spin are independent.
That is all.
This conclusion follows from my analysis of the CSA Truther’s con:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1550805
Thanks for playing!
Silly willy proves once again he can’t understand ANY of this.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
When the CSA Truther’s “Earth” rotates one degree, his Moon rotates one degree. When he rotates the Earth two degrees, the Moon rotates two degrees. And when the Earth rotates 360 degrees, the Moon rotates 360 degrees.
Would you say that the two motions are independent?
Child, it’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string. Even this basic stuff is WAY over your head.
Maybe in 5-6 years you could get an adult to explain it to you….
What’s up with the insults, the false accusations, and the fabrications, Pupman – can’t answer a simple question?
Here is the video again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Check the first minute. Even you should be able to tell the con.
Child, it’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string. Even this basic stuff is WAY over your head.
The video is explaining that if Moon were spinning, you would see that motion from Earth. That’s why we know Moon is NOT spinning, we only see the same side of it.
You can’t understand this because you’re an immature, uneducated child. That’s not an insult. That’s reality. If you don’t like, grow up.
Glad you can recognize the trick, Pupman.
The video indeed shows that if you add one degree to the one degree you already add, then the Moon spins twice as fast as the Earth.
Now, riddle me this – what would happen is the Earth’s spin did not cause any Moon to spin?
Here’s a hint: think of a Ferris Wheel.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A simple argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551246
The same applies to all the other Moon Dragon cranks examples: a ball on string, the horse of a merry-go-round, a car on a circular racetrack, etc.
More progress above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551282
First, some definitions:
D1. The orientation of an object be its direction on a plane.
D2. A rotation is a change of orientation.
D3. Independence refers (for our purposes) to the relationship between (in this case, two) objects from which the orientation of one does not influence the orientation of the other.
D4. The Man on the Moon (or MoM) be the face of the Moon that always faces the Earth.
D5. The CSA Truther Con refers to a setup in which the Moon is connected with the Earth through an arm. For our purposes, the Moon is not rotated internally by the motor.
These definitions are quite mundane. They are only made explicit for the sake of clarification, and to parry Gaslighting Graham’s trademark equivocation. Now, lets commit some facts that holds true in our model:
F1. The Moon-Earth system is composed of two objects: the Earth, and the Moon.
F2. The Moon orbits around the Earth.
F3. The Moon is independent from the Earth, i.e. the orientation of the Earth does not influence the orientation of the Moon. And vice versa, obviously.
F4. In the CSA Truther con, rotating the Earth rotates the Moon so that the MoM always faces the Earth.
From these facts we can conclude a few things:
C1. In the CSA Truther con, the Earth and the Moon are not independent.
C2. The CSA Truther con emulates a ball-on-string, in which the ball is not independent from the string.
Finally, from these conclusions we offer these propositions:
P1. Moon Dragon cranks ought to drop independence, otherwise they’ll lose quicker.
P2. They will still lose, but it’ll be a bit more prosaic.
That should be enough for now.
Let’s wait.
Wistful Wee Willy,
Your gibberish machine is running at full blast.
Well done.
Thanks, Mike Flynn.
The TL;DR is that Gaslighting Graham is full of it.
Cheers.
The TL:DR is that Little Willy has confused himself to the point where he’s having some sort of psychotic break. Meanwhile the rest of us calmly continue onwards without a care in the world.
Exactly DREMT. It’s silly willy’s meltdown. He knows NOTHING, and is only to happy to prove it.
Another TYPO — should be “too happy”!
Pupman emulates Gaslighting Graham by gaslighting again.
Clint’s right, though.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again, tho.
No, he’s right.
Here’s what meltdown looks like:
Gaslighting Graham says:
October 27, 2023 at 3:01 PM
please stop tro lling.
Gaslighting Graham says:
October 27, 2023 at 3:13 PM
please stop tro lling.
Gaslighting Graham says:
October 27, 2023 at 3:33 PM
please stop tro lling.
No, this is a meltdown:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551051
THE SIMPLEST REFUTATION OF MOON DRAGON CRANK MADNESS
The Moon’s orbit and spin are independent.
That is all.
* * *
What a meltdown!
No, this whole thread is your meltdown. It is still occurring.
Gaslighting Graham’s meltdown continues, true.
Not in the least, Little Willy. I am just calmly and patiently trying to bring you back round to a more rational state.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A rotation is a transformation that takes an object and displaces it around an axis. In 2D, the axis is a point. This point does not move. Everything else does. This works for both internal and external axes.
So when Gaslighting Graham realizes that the Moon changes orientation when rotated around an external axis, he does contradict my point. He is in fact confirming it!
As soon as the CSA Truther rotates the Moon by spinning the Earth, the Moon must change orientation. It follows by definition! This is after all the main ingredient of his con: orbit and spin become interlocked.
Astute readers should anticipate that Gaslighting Graham will become more and more Mike Flynnesque.
Wrong place, Little Willy.
Mike,
The TL;DR is well illustrated by this mystery:
1. Swinging a ball-on-string changes the orientation of the ball.
2. Turning the arm of the CSA Truther’s con changes the orientation of the Moon.
3. Both the ball-on-string and the CSA Truther’s con can be described as a pure rotation.
4. Holy Madhavi characterizes a pure rotation as a change of orientation.
5. How can Gaslighting Graham program a plotter to do a pure rotation without changing the orientation of the orbiting object?
Moon Dragon cranks geometry is getting weirder and weirder.
Silly willy STILL can’t understand the difference between “rotate” and “revolve”. That’s why I try to used “spin” and “orbit”, to lessen their confusion. But, their confusion is never-ending, as they can’t learn.
Perhaps Pupman still imagines that a change of orientation does not imply a rotation. Perhaps he is implying that the Moon translates as it orbits. Perhaps Bordo is not alone after all, in contrast to what Gaslighting Graham suggested earlier.
Throw more words against the wall to make yourself heard, Pupman!
The XY Plotter’s “orbit without spin” motion is translation in a circle (meaning motion like the MOTR). Any other confusion!?
Silly willy STILL can’t understand the difference between “rotate” and “revolve”. That’s why I try to use “spin” and “orbit”, to lessen their confusion.
But, their confusion is never-ending, as they can’t learn.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
You have some object O. You have two choices. Either you
(C1) Apply an external rotation of 90 degrees to it.
or you
(C2) Translate it in the same trajectory as C1, but you also apply an internal rotation of 90 degrees to it.
How are C1 and C2 different?
Has Little Willy finally learned something?
Is Gaslighting Graham gaslighting again?
No.
[MYSTERY GASLIGHTER] With the XY plotter equipment, the orbit without spin motion does not change the orientation of the moon.
[MYSTERY SPINNER] Particularly for people who add the term “without axial rotation”, it should be obvious that “orbital motion” by itself does not specify ANY rotation rate, or axis, which must be separately specified, as it is for the Moon.
Our Mystery Gaslighter ought also concede that the only way to specify pure translation and pure rotation seperately is to make them independent…
It should also go without saying that orientation needs to be determined too!
“Orbit without spin” can be either like the MOTL, or the MOTR. That takes care of everything. So simple even you could understand it. The whole “rotation” and “translation” thing is completely lost on you…you get yourself truly, completely and utterly, hopelessly confused. As your comments demonstrate.
Gaslighting Graham is so close to be able to sidestep the argument laid out with my comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551284
by trying to inject his pet GIF in the exchange. Yet he will fail. Again. As he always does.
As if his gaslighting could change that predicament.
* * *
This important tidbit might have flew above his head:
[BOB] 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.
I only emphasized the last part so that astute readers recognize that Moon Dragon cranks are basically stuck in a 2-D world.
The important part here is the conversion from an internal to an external rotation. It is important because it shows the difference between the plotter and the CSA Truther’s con. The internal rotation allows the plotter to make orbit and spin independent. The external rotation allows the CSA Truther to run a con.
Isn’t that wonderful?
I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. Nor have you.
Gaslighting Graham may never stop gaslighting.
Internal rotation plus translation equals external rotation.
“It’s trivial to change the location of the rotation axis.”
Why would agree with Bob for once when he can continue to play dumb?
Little Willy, instead of just linking to old discussions to grab unrelated, irrelevant quotes that you don’t understand and then throwing together some incoherent sentences (along with a whole bunch of false accusations)…maybe just clearly, concisely, in your own words, explain whatever the hell it is that you’re talking about?
So far the only thing making sense is, the following two motions are equivalent:
a) rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. b) translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis.
Yes, I get that. I taught you that. What of it?
[by the way, by acknowledging that a) and b) are equivalent you accept my point 2) is correct and contradict bob, so thanks again for that]
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
[ME] Internal rotation plus translation equals external rotation.
[BOB] “It’s trivial to change the location of the rotation axis.”
[GG] Maybe just clearly, concisely, in your own words, explain whatever the hell it is that youre talking about?
“I taught you that”
The little Machiavellian prick.
“What of it?”
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
One involves two independent motions, the other only one.
How many times must I repeat that before Gaslighting Graham gets it?
The two descriptions may be geometrically equivalent, but they are not equivalent as far as physics is concerned.
Which of the two makes more physical sense?
Well, I did teach you it, Little Willy. I have slowly and patiently been teaching you all sorts of things, for a really long time, and you are totally ungrateful for it.
“One involves two independent motions, the other only one.
How many times must I repeat that before Gaslighting Graham gets it?”
I do get it. Are we getting back into the territory of you violently agreeing with my point 1) again?
“The two descriptions may be geometrically equivalent, but they are not equivalent as far as physics is concerned.
Which of the two makes more physical sense?”
So, yes. We are back in the territory of you violently agreeing with my point 1).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. And he again tries to return to his silly trull bridge. With a revealing blunder, to boot:
The fact that orbit and spin are best described using independent motions refutes whatever point he think he has.
In fact the whole Moon Dragon crank fantasy falls apart.
“Orbit without spin can be either like the MOTL”
Nah, according to old DREMT, it was definitely like the MOTL.
“The fact that orbit and spin are best described using independent motions refutes whatever point he think he has.”
What does this mean? Elaborate.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
Let’s remind readers of his (1): a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Let’s consider the following proposition: orbit and spin are best described using independent motions.
Now for the knock-out, let’s ask ourselves: Who cares about a ball on string if orbit and spint are best described using independent motions?
If you can’t explain what you mean when I ask you to, how can we have a discussion?
What does this mean: “orbit and spin are best described using independent motions”?
Orbit and spin are independent motions. Never mind “best described using…”
I don’t get what you are talking about.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Astute readers will notice that he just has been caught trying to intimate that this claim:
(INDEPENDENCE) Orbit and spin are best described using independent motions.
is supposed to lead us to his silly (1):
(BOS) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Utterly ridiculous.
A Machiavellian prick.
I thought you might be going down this line of reasoning again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551079
If I was wrong, OK. Since you refuse to explain yourself and insist on hurling childish abuse instead, I guess we cannot have a discussion. Fine with me. I am getting a bit bored of talking to you anyway, to be honest.
Gaslighting Graham quotes me saying:
How does that agree with his (1)?
Isn’t that an argument against using a ball-on-string to model the motion of the Moon, and more generally the very idea of trying to describe that motion using only an external rotation we’d call the orbit?
Even if this was plausible (it’s ridiculous, but let’s grant it for argument’s sake), this would make orbit and spin dependent on one another. Something that the CSA Truther con exploits!
I explained in the linked comment how it supports my point 1).
No, it does not make “orbit” and “spin” dependent, Little Willy. It just means “orbit” is motion like the MOTL rather than the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A pure rotation is one motion.
Describing a ball on string using a pure rotation creates two dependencies. The orientation of the ball depends on the string. The orientation of the string depends on the guy who whirls the string!
Can the string change orientation when the orientation of the ball stays the same? No.
Can the ball change orientation when the orientation of the string stays the same? No.
Gaslighting Graham simply has no geometrical intuition.
The beauty of language is that you take one action, and add layers of other actions to it with other descriptive words.
Joe is walking.
or
Joe is walking and humming a tune.
or
Joe is is walking and chewing gum.
Obviously, the first sentence, Joe is walking, doesn’t specify whether he is chewing gum or humming a tune, or not.
These are independent actions.
But some people think actions that are independent are somehow still linked.
“No, it does not make ‘orbit’ and ‘spin’ dependent, Little Willy. It just means ‘orbit’ is motion like the MOTL rather than the MOTR.”
The MOTL has a specific rotation rate wrt the stars.
If the word ORBIT means motion like the MOTL, then the word ORBIT specifies a rate of rotation.
Which it doesn’t, because rotation rate and orbit are independent motions.
And the definition of the word ORBIT, and usage of it makes this obvious.
These planets are orbiting with these orbital periods:
Mercury: 88 days.
Venus: 225 days.
Earth: 365 days.
Mars: 687 days.
Jupiter: 4,333 days.
Saturn: 10,759 days.
Uranus: 30,687 days.
Neptune: 60,190 days.
None of these specify the rotation rate of these planets, because rotation is an INDEPENDENT motion.
It requires additional specification.
Clearly this notion that the word ORBIT specifies a rotation rate, makes no sense, and has no evidence to support it.
We understand that it is simply the latest post-hoc attempt to rationalize the initial impression that comes from looking up at the Moon, keeping the same face to the Earth, and then deciding that the Moon is not rotating.
Exactly, Nate. But it’s worse than that:
Suppose you want a more realistic model of a ball on string swing. One could wish to improve one’s hammer throw, for instance. Here are some approximations that would break down:
The string would not be a simple line. The swinger would not be spinning on a single point. The ball would not always be perpendicular to the string. The ball would move in more than two dimensions. The ball could have a variety of speeds. Etc.
Our new realistic model could even include when the swinger releases the string, or what happens if the string breaks.
All this could be much more interesting if Gaslighting Graham could stop gaslighting people from time to time.
Little Willy is confused again. Orbit and spin need to be independent motions, as in: independent from each other. That is all. In the CSAItruth video, orbit and spin are independent. It is just that orbit without spin is motion like the MOTL.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
When the CSA Truther’s Earth changes direction, the Moon changes direction. Gaslighting Graham ought to know what would happen if it did not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412407
In principle, the CSA Truther could accomplish that motion. The CSA Truther pretends that it is not possible. Gaslighting Graham fails to recognize that the CSA Truther is running a con. He has yet to call him out for it.
The CSAItruth equipment can indeed accomplish motion like the MOTR. By combining orbit and spin. See the third experiment (scenario three).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Perhaps he forgot:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?feature=shared&t=180
The CSA Truther clearly states that reproducing the Plotter’s translation because “the moment we have separated the [M]oon from the motor it has lost its normal orbital motion.
The CSA Truther thus presumes that the normal orbital motion is when the Moon changes direction as the Earth spins.
It’s really not that complex.
> The CSA Truther clearly states that reproducing the Plotter’s translation
fails …
So, the CSA Truther only replicates the transmographer when he deconstructs his contraption.
The CSAItruth equipment can replicate motion like the MOTR, by combining orbit with spin, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of one spin per orbit.
It can replicate motion like the MOTL by orbiting only (no spin).
"The CSA Truther thus presumes that the normal orbital motion is when the Moon changes direction as the Earth spins"
Or, in other words, he presumes that "orbit without spin" is motion as per the MOTL.
Or, you could presume that "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTR, and then "demonstrate" that using the XY plotter.
I’m not arguing that the CSAItruth video settles the moon issue. Far from it.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Does he not recall the CSA Truther’s pretends to have MATHEMATICALLY PROVED that the Moon cannot spin at all?
Here it is:
https://youtu.be/KdFPty67D-4
Gaslighting Graham is being a Machiavellian prick once again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551936
Astute readers may appreciate a simple explanation of the CSA Truther con. I call it the 1+1:
Every time he spins the Earth one degree, the Moon changes orientation one degree. That’s 1.
If at the same time the Earth spins we add to that degree that comes with the Earth spin another degree, the Moon changes orientation 1 + 1 degree.
Ergo, the Moon can’t spin!
A truly fantastic demonstration.
But wait, there’s more! What if we spun the Moon in the other direction? Let’s check out:
Every time he spins the Earth one degree, the Moon changes orientation one degree. That’s 1.
But now, get this: we remove one degree to the one we gained. So we get 1 – 1 = 0
Ergo, could the Man on the Moon faces the Earth at all times, but only if it spun contrary to how we say it does!
Astute readers ought to be flabbergasted by so much fact and logic. They might also know that orbit and spin are independent. In that case, they may realize that the CSA Truther’s trick resides in turning the Moon’s orientation one degree simply by spinning the Moon.
> simply by spinning the Moon.
The Earth, that is.
The CSA Truther con is quite magnificient, come to think about it.
In the grand tradition of fakirs before him!
Orbit and spin are independent with the CSAItruth equipment. The equipment can spin the moon independently of the orbital motion. "Orbit and spin being independent" means orbit and spin being independent from each other. It doesn’t mean that "orbit" and "spin" each need to have some undefinable quality of "independence", or else there’s a problem!
You really are a classic sophist, Little Willy.
"But wait, there’s more! What if we spun the Moon in the other direction? Let’s check out:
Every time he spins the Earth one degree, the Moon changes orientation one degree. That’s 1.
But now, get this: we remove one degree to the one we gained. So we get 1 – 1 = 0
Ergo, could the Man on the Moon faces the Earth at all times, but only if it spun contrary to how we say it does!"
This appears to be written in a language besides English; however, if you are saying that with the CSAItruth equipment, when the moon orbits in one direction whilst spinning in the opposite direction once per orbit, the resulting motion is like the MOTL, then you’d be wrong. Again. The resulting motion is like the MOTR. See the third experiment in the video.
” It just means orbit is motion like the MOTL rather than the MOTR.”
Sure. And ‘walking’ is a leg transport while chewing gum, rather than
Just kidding, walking is leg transport while chewing gum or humming, while doing any number of other things.
And ‘orbit’ is motion like the MOTL and the MOTR, and all the planets and Moons.
And
The MOTL is orbiting and rotating once per orbit.
The MOTL is orbiting and not rotating.
“Does he not recall the CSA Truther’s pretends to have MATHEMATICALLY PROVED that the Moon cannot spin at all?”
What’s that got to do with me? They can claim what they like, doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
The video I link to (with the three experiments) has its uses, but I don’t personally think it settles the moon issue. I think it helps explain the “Non-Spinner” position and I think it helps explain my point 3). It’s not that “Non-Spinners” are judging spin itself wrt a non-inertial reference frame (although they would have to measure rotation rate wrt such a frame), it’s just that “Non-Spinners” see “orbit without spin” as being motion like the MOTL. The key to the argument overall is whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Nothing to do with reference frames.
While gaslighting for the most part, Gaslighting Graham asks –
“What’s that got to do with me?”
He claims that the CSA Truther can implement what the transmographer.
The transmographer has the proper function: 0 + 1.
That is, the Earth spin does not provide any change of orientation.
Zero degree.
Then the inner rotation can change the orientation of the Moon.
That way, it does not matter in which direction the Moon spins.
Orbit and spin are independent.
> He claims that the CSA Truther can implement what the transmographer.
What the transmographer does, that is.
Astute readers will recognize that 1 + 1 refers to the degree of orientation of the Moon. The first number is provided by the Earth spin, i.e. the rotation of the Earth. The second number is provided by the Moon spin.
For each degree that the Moon orbits, it spins one degree.
So it is the spin adjusts the orientation of the Moon, not the orbit itself.
Little Willy is trying to claim that orbit and spin are independent from each other with the XY plotter, but somehow not independent from each other with the CSAItruth equipment. He is wrong. The principle is exactly the same with both, the only difference is that with the XY plotter “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, and with the CSAItruth equipment “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
ORBIT has a clear definition in reputable dictionaries.
Both MOTR and MOTL are ORBITING.
Independently,
the MOTL has rotation rate of one per orbit in the rest frame, and
the MOTR has NO rotation in the rest frame.
Does anybody disagree?
OK then. Can we be done?
Astute readers will recall Gaslighting Graham’s own words:
[GG] If you were to press both buttons, and the moon motor rotated the moon in the same direction as the orbital motion at a rate of once per orbit, you would get motion like the MOTL.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412407
They will also recall that the CSA Truther proves that this was impossible:
https://youtu.be/KdFPty67D-4
Astute readers might suspect that Gaslighting Graham knows how that refutation fails.
Yeah, my own words about the XY plotter, not the CSAItruth equipment. Boy, are you getting desperate.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther posted a video with a demonstration that what Gaslighting Graham did with his plotter was impossible.
Who should we believe?
With the XY plotter, "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR. So of course you can combine "orbit" with "spin" and get motion like the MOTL.
With the CSAItruth equipment, "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL. So of course you cannot combine "orbit" with "spin" and get motion like the MOTL.
I could argue that with the XY plotter, it is not possible to combine "orbit" with "spin" and get motion like the MOTR, thus (according to Little Willy’s logic) "orbit" and "spin" are not independent from each other with the XY plotter.
However, that would be very silly indeed.
"Orbit" and "spin" are independent with both the XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment.
Here is again the CSA Truther’s demonstration:
https://youtu.be/KdFPty67D-4
Astute listeners will recognize that the CSA Truther’s argument is not that his contraption is limited. His argument is that the Moon simply cannot spin.
Yet the XY plotter shows that the Moon can spin, and astute readers should already know why. More than that, they should already know that Gaslighting Graham himself knows why:
Thus the CSA Truther’s argument begs the question at hand by changing the orientation of the Moon at it orbits.
Once Gaslighting Graham will accept that the CSA Truther’s contraption makes orbit and spin interdependent, everything should be clear to him.
Astute readers already know he won’t.
…thus the XY plotter begs the question at hand by not changing the orientation of the moon as it orbits.
DREMT will not accept that the CSAItruth contraption makes orbit and spin interdependent, because Little Willy can offer no clear, concise logic as to why we would consider it to be so with that contraption, but not with the XY plotter.
When the CSA Truther rotates the Earth, the Moon orbits and changes direction.
When the XY plotter orbits the Moon, the Moon does not change direction.
Gaslighting Graham may never concede that the difference is that the CSA Truther makes orbit and directional change (i.e. rotation) dependent.
See also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552190
The rather obvious fatal flaw with your argument is that a change in orientation does not equal “spin”.
For one, to assume that a change in orientation equals “spin” is to assume that “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR in the first place. So, your logic would be circular.
For two, as you have already agreed, an object can change orientation by rotating about an external axis, with no “spin”.
“Orbit and spin are independent with the equipment in the video, and with the XY plotter, Little Willy.”
Vagueness is the best friend of the obfuscator.
The definition of SPIN is clearly different for DREMT and Willard.
Of course it is not a science word, it is a colloquial word.
It appears to me that Willard is defining SPIN as a changing orientation of an object (eg the Moon) wrt to the rest frame.
This equates SPIN with ROTATION.
Whereas for DREMT it appears to me that he is defining SPIN as equipment dependent. It is the ADDED rotational motion obtained by turning on a motor.
Of course that definition of SPIN makes it reference-frame dependent. In the Video, the rotating arm is carrying the Moon’s orientation along with it.
To define SPIN as a rotation that is ADDED to this arm rotation, is to define SPIN as relative to the arm’s rotating frame of reference.
If everyone sticks with the science defined words, ORBIT and ROTATION, and sticks with the rest frame, there would be less confusion.
Ah, I see Nate commented. Presumably he was chipping in to support my 12:33 PM comment, since we all know that he agrees “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTL. Thus he must agree that a change in orientation does not equal “spin”, or “internal axis rotation”.
Ah, I see that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again:
First, it’s the converse: a spin implies a change in orientation.
Second, a rotation implies</strong a change of orientation
Third, a spin implies an internal rotation.
The converse of these is also true –
No change of orientation, no rotation.
No rotation, no spin.
No spin, no change of orientation.
Astute readers may notice that it has become too easy.
No refutation of my points, just your usual nonsensical abuse of language. Noted.
[GG] change in orientation does not equal spin
[ME] First, it’s the converse: a spin implies a change in orientation. Second, a rotation implies a change of orientation. Third, a spin implies an internal rotation.
[GG] No refutation of my points
Pure, unadulterated gaslighting.
What a Machiavellian prick.
I made two distinct points. Your response refutes neither of them.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Any rotation implies a change of orientation.
Here is the general definition of a rotation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)
Try it at home. Pick any object. Move it while fixing one point. That point can be anywhere: inside the object, at the extremity of the object, outside the object. Does not matter.
Now, rotate that object along an axis.
That object will change its orientation relative to a coordinate system.
Gaslighting Graham only delays the inevitable.
“Thus he must agree that a change in orientation does not equal spin, or internal axis rotation.”
As I said SPIN is a colloquial term, and is vague, allowing people to make-up various definitions, thus it is the obfuscator’s best friend.
Whereas science words have universal definitions that everyone who wants to explain a phenomena can use, without ambiguity.
Both of you agree what ROTATION wrt the rest frame means.
And both of you know what the dictionary definitions of ORBIT are.
“Spin”, of course, means “internal axis rotation”.
Yes, a rotation involves a change in orientation…but like I said, an object can rotate about an external axis, without spinning, and there will still be that change in orientation. So a change in orientation does not mean an object is spinning, and if an object is spinning it will not necessarily change in orientation (e.g. the MOTR from the “Non-Spinner” perspective).
So your point fails. “Orbit” and “spin” are independent in the CSAItruth video, as they are with the XY plotter. The only difference is whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
We were done some time ago. We only continue because you keep baiting me.
And FYI, distant astronomers looking at the Moon can measure its ROTATION rate.
They can measure its ORBIT around the Earth.
They cannot determine a unique axis of rotation, so of course they do not measure it.
I wonder who Nate is responding to, what he is saying, and why he feels the need to keep responding. My guess is he must be repeatedly reminding Little Willy that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL, since that refutes his point, and it is what integrity would dictate Nate do.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A rotation is a transformation that takes an object and displaces it around an axis. In 2D, the axis is a point. This point does not move. Everything else does. This works for both internal and external axes.
So when Gaslighting Graham realizes that the Moon changes orientation when rotated around an external axis, he does contradict my point. He is in fact confirming it!
As soon as the CSA Truther rotates the Moon by spinning the Earth, the Moon must change orientation. It follows by definition! This is after all the main ingredient of his con: orbit and spin become interlocked.
Astute readers should anticipate that Gaslighting Graham will become more and more Mike Flynnesque.
“As soon as the CSA Truther rotates the Moon by spinning the Earth, the Moon must change orientation. It follows by definition!”
Yep. One single motion, though. Not two.
“This is after all the main ingredient of his con: orbit and spin become interlocked.”
False, obviously, since only “orbit” is occurring. Gee whizz this is becoming tedious.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights more and more.
It is possible to add spin to the Moon when the orbit is not the result of a pure external rotation, like with the XY plotter, and get the motion we observe.
That’s because spin and orbit are independent.
When the orbit is the result of a pure external rotation, then adding spin becomes impossible. Why? Because the change of rotation by the Moon is already included by spinning the Earth!
Thus spin and orbit are not independent.
Astute readers should recognize that Gaslighting Graham is mostly playing dumb at this point.
It does not matter anymore.
> the change of rotation
The change of orientation, of course.
A word of caution. When I speak of a change of orientation, I’m not talking about the change of the orientation structure. I’m talking about the change of orientation of an object within such structure.
If we all change of orientation structure, we could consider flips as orientation. To get flips, one does not rotate the object, but the structure itself.
Now, back to our slaying program.
Little Willy has a learning disability.
It is impossible for the XY plotter to combine “orbit” and “spin” and get motion like the MOTR. Do we thus conclude that “orbit” and “spin” are not independent for the XY plotter? No.
Your logic is flawed, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time by looping into something we already refuted. Astute readers should see that he has everything to solve his pickle all by himself already:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] It is impossible for the XY plotter to combine orbit and spin and get motion like the MOTR
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] With the XY plotter equipment, the orbit without spin motion does not change the orientation of the moon.
If orbit without spin does not change the orientation of the Moon, then two things obtain:
First, the Moon moves like his silly MOTR.
Second, it’s possible to add a spin to the Moon and emulate the motion of our actual Moon (*), which means spin and orbit are independent and that the CSA Truther’s proof is refuted.
Gaslighting Graham is a Machiavellian prick.
* Very roughly, but still. Astute readers will get the point.
If “orbit without spin” does change the orientation of the moon, then two things obtain:
First, the Moon moves like his silly MOTL.
Second, it’s possible to add a spin to the moon and emulate the motion of the MOTR, which means spin and orbit are independent and that Little Willy’s argument is refuted.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again and again.
Here is what the XY plotter can do that the CSA Truther contraption can’t {1}:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If you were to press both buttons, and the moon motor rotated the moon in the same direction as the orbital motion at a rate of once per orbit, you would get motion like the MOTL.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412407
Let’s decompose what the plotter does:
(ORBIT) One unit of translation.
(SPIN) One unit of internal rotation.
So one translation and one internal rotation can replicate the motion of the Moon.
In fairness, one translation and one rotation can replicate any motion!
{1} Unless we count reversing the Moon’s orbit or detaching the Moon from the clock axis. Gaslighting Graham already tried the first gambit.
> its possible to add a spin to the moon and emulate the motion of the MOTR
🤦
Here is what the CSAItruth contraption can do that the XY plotter can’t:
[HONEST DREMT] If you were to press both buttons, and the moon motor rotated the moon in the opposite direction to the orbital motion at a rate of once per orbit, you would get motion like the MOTR
Let’s decompose what the CSAItruth contraption does:
(ORBIT) One unit of external axis rotation.
(SPIN) One unit of internal axis rotation.
So one unit of external axis rotation and one unit of internal axis rotation (in opposite directions) can replicate the motion of the MOTR. One unit of external axis rotation and one unit of internal axis rotation (in the same direction) can replicate the motion seen in the first experiment. One unit of external axis rotation and no units of internal axis rotation can replicate the motion of the MOTL.
> 🤦
I might as well explain why this is facepalm-worthy:
The CSA Truther’s contraption can only emulate a pure translation (i.e. the MOTR) by adding an internal rotation that goes clockwise.
Gaslighting Graham confirms:
The reason is quite simple, if we allow converse, we can cancel the orientation change that the external rotation imposes. In other words, a series of simultaneous rotations can cancel each other and emulate a translation! {1}
For more on the idea:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/28259/rigid-motions-the-product-of-two-rotations-around-different-points-is-equal-to
{1} Canadian drivers do that every winter when they try to steady their car on a slippery road.
So you did not explain why it was facepalm-worthy.
Seems you have run out of arguments, Little Willy. So that, as they say, is that.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham has returned to simply denying what I just said or did. Pure, unadulterated gaslighting. Astute readers may recognize at least two reasons –
First, moving the Moon in the opposite direction she moves might not be the best way to describe what she does.
Second, if two rotations equal a translation, then two rotations plus another rotation equal general motion, something that spells doom on the project of describing the motion of the Moon with a pure rotation.
Each reason justifies a facepalm.
In any event, none of that counters the fact that an external rotation indeed creates a dependencie between orbit and spin. There is some thing that the XY plotter can emulate that the CSA Truther’s contraption can’t. A thing that allows him to claim that our Moon cannot be spinning.
Since an XY plotter implements both translation and rotation, it could be called an universal motion emulator.
> Here is what the CSAItruth contraption can do that the XY plotter cant:
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
“Each reason justifies a facepalm.”
At your incoherent rambling, maybe.
“In any event, none of that counters the fact that an external rotation indeed creates a dependencie between orbit and spin. There is some thing that the XY plotter can emulate that the CSA Truther’s contraption can’t. A thing that allows him to claim that our Moon cannot be spinning.”
There is some thing that the CSAItruth contraption can emulate that the XY plotter can’t. So what? That doesn’t mean that there is a dependency between orbit and spin with the XY plotter. You can repeat the same flawed logic as many times as you like, Little Willy, it remains flawed every time.
Facepalm all you like, Little Willy. It remains a fact that the XY plotter cannot replicate the motion of the MOTR with both “orbit” and “spin” combined. Thus, according to your flawed logic, we should say that for the XY plotter, “orbit” and “spin” are not independent!
Gaslighting Graham is reduced to direct gaslighting.
Astute readers can check for themselves:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
This transmographer offers everything to represent any motion: rotation, translation, and reflection.
Reflection is unnecessary, but it speeds things up.
Now, astute readers may ask themselves:
How can the CSA Truther contraption succeeds in emulating more than everything?
> according to your flawed logic, we should say that for the XY plotter, orbit and spin are not independent!
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Little Willy, the CSAItruth contraption does not have to be any more able to generate all the different combinations and rates of “orbit” and “spin” than the XY plotter contraption. They are equally able to produce these. “Orbit” and “spin” are independent for both of them. It is just that for the CSAItruth contraption, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, and for the XY plotter it is as per the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham now denies what he himself said:
[GASLIGTHING GRAHAM] Here is what the [CSA Truther] contraption can do that the XY plotter can’t:
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] the CSAItruth contraption does not have to be any more able to generate all the different combinations and rates of orbit and spin than the XY plotter contraption.
Besides, here is the CSA Truther contraption:
https://youtu.be/k1cziZt92BQ?si=6hxpEjjZccBGoMTa&t=80
Are these bi-directional motors? No. According to the CSA Truther himself, the motors can only go anti-clockwise!
So the whole line of argument of cancelling changes of direction using inverse rotations isn’t allowed by the contraption.
Gaslighting Graham is just being a Machiavellian prick.
Both statements are correct, Little Willy. There is no contradiction or inconsistency.
The XY plotter cannot replicate motion like the MOTR with both “orbit” and “spin” combined, but it can still replicate motion like the MOTR.
The CSAItruth contraption cannot replicate motion like the MOTL with both “orbit” and “spin” combined, but it can still replicate motion like the MOTL.
Have you actually watched the whole video, Little Willy? Only reason I ask is because they demonstrate motion like the MOTR, and the moon is most definitely rotating clockwise on its own internal axis.
https://youtu.be/k1cziZt92BQ?si=6hxpEjjZccBGoMTa&t=80
Watch this one at 2:18 and they explain the moon’s internal axis rotation motor is indeed bi-directional. It’s only the orbital motion motor that rotates in one direction.
So, once again, you were wrong.
OK. The second motor is indeed bidirectional:
https://youtu.be/k1cziZt92BQ?si=qpuCmFTAa9rHdaFX&t=154
I stand corrected.
Then the CSA Truther’s mathematical proof is basically baloney.
And of course Gaslighting Graham is equivocating here:`
for the XY plotter can replicate any motion.
The main difference between the XY plotter and the CSAI Truther contraption is this:
The XY plotter has translation and rotation.
The CSAI Truther contraption only has two rotations.
So while the XY plotter can translate the Moon, the CSAI Truther contraption can only rotate it.
So in the end, confusions remain when we focus on these claims:
The first [1] and the third claims [3] are only true if we forbid cancelling rotations. So what is meant by “orbit” and “spin” needs to be clarified.
And if we forbid cancelling rotations, the XY plotter can emulate more motions than the CSAI Truther contraption. To determine that, we need to cover all cases, and not present a parallel that could be deceptive.
I might as well clarify that there is one obvious way by which the XY Plotter is more expressive than the CSAI contraption: the shape can move in all the plane.
However, such generality isn’t necessary for our current problem. We only want to move a circular object around another, and in only two different ways. The two ways are that the Moon orbits anti-clockwise around the Earth:
[MOTL] with the Man on the Moon always facing the Earth.
[MOTR] with the Man on the Moon always keeping the same direction.
The two models under discussion are:
[Contraption] The Moon, which can rotate, is attached to the Earth, which only rotates anti-clockwise.
[Plotter] The Moon can rotate or translate.
Astute readers who followed us so far (there must be thousands) can intuit two things:
(I1) The Plotter can do MOTL and MOTR without any difficulty.
(I2) The Contraption can do MOTR simply by making the Earth spin, whereas MOTL could only be done if we allow the Moon to rotate clockwise.
It should also be observed that the “cancelling effect” of two rotations looks better in maths than in mechanics, for we’d need to have a lot of tiny rotations to emulate a straight line!
And of course I knew I’ll make a typo with these clunky acronyms:
> The Contraption can do MOTR simply by making the Earth spin, whereas MOTL
It’s the other way around. The contraption can do MOTL simply by, whereas MOTR…
Besides being esoteric, the “MOTL” and “MOTR” nomenclature has a more serious drawback: it opposes observable reality to a mere counterfactual. The Man on the Moon always faces us.
But that provides a clue to how to name the two without forgetting which is which: the MOTL is the actual one, the MOTR is only a fictive one. So I’m tempted to go with real and fixed.
One letter is a small price to pay for more clarity.
As usual, what I have said is completely correct:
“The XY plotter cannot replicate motion like the MOTR with both “orbit” and “spin” combined, but it can still replicate motion like the MOTR.”
Since the XY plotter replicates motion like the MOTR as its “orbit without spin” motion, then adding spin to that motion (so that you now have two motions) will mean the result is no longer like the MOTR. Thus, you cannot replicate motion like the MOTR with both “orbit” and “spin” combined.
This is, of course, exactly the same principle as what occurs with the CSAItruth contraption relating to the MOTL.
Since the CSAItruth contraption replicates motion like the MOTL as its “orbit without spin” motion, then adding spin to that motion (so that you now have two motions) will mean the result is no longer like the MOTL. Thus, you cannot replicate motion like the MOTL with both “orbit” and “spin” combined.
As usual, Gaslighting Graham sets himself some kind of illusory stronghold.
That helps him repeat his pet abreviations, so there is some compensation.
No rebuttal? Well, of course not! How could you rebut what is obviously correct?
An instance where his own wordology seems to lead him astray:
[GG] Since the XY plotter replicates motion like the MOTR as its “orbit without spin” motion
Since the Moon on the Right does not change orientation, there is no need to emulate a non-existing motion! Our Graham simply added an empty requirement.
Astute readers may also wonder why he keeps omitting how the contraption emulates the motion of a Moon that keeps the Man on the Moon in the same direction as it travels…
However the contraption will emulate that motion, the plotter could do the same!
“Since the Moon on the Right does not change orientation, there is no need to emulate a non-existing motion! Our Graham simply added an empty requirement.”
The MOTR is not a “non-existing motion”. It is as much a motion as the MOTL. What a weird argument…
“Astute readers may also wonder why he keeps omitting how the contraption emulates the motion of a Moon that keeps the Man on the Moon in the same direction as it travels…”
Also weird. That would be motion like the MOTL. Just with the “Man on the Moon” face in a different place on the moon’s surface.
Are you feeling OK, Little Willy?
Gaslighting Graham is having a slow afternoon.
The non-existing motion is what he calls the “spin” of the MOTR.
The Man on the Moon keeps the same direction on the right frame of that GIF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
So by this:
“Astute readers may also wonder why he keeps omitting how the contraption emulates the motion of a Moon that keeps the Man on the Moon in the same direction as it travels…”
you meant motion like the MOTR. OK…but I haven’t omitted how the CSAItruth equipment emulates that motion. It does so by rotating the moon about an external axis in one direction whilst rotating the moon about an internal axis in the other direction, at the same rate. It is the third experiment in the CSAItruth video I first linked to.
The XY plotter can’t replicate motion like the MOTR using two separate motions and the CSAItruth equipment can’t replicate motion like the MOTL using two separate motions.
Also, the XY plotter can’t replicate the motion of the MOTL with only one single motion, and the CSAItruth equipment can’t replicate the motion of the MOTR with only one single motion.
Gaslighting Graham claims he hasn’t omitted how the CSAI Truther contraptions simulates the counterfactual Moon.
Let’s quote his last comment in full:
There are four cases, yet only two are mentioned.
Weird.
Also, Gaslighting Graham is a bit confused and wrong here:
“Replicating a motion with a motion”: really?
Perhaps we should distinguish motion i.e. what is being simulated from the geometry transformations themselves.
Oh, and the plotter can indeed do external rotations. After all, it can emulate whatever the contraption could do.
Oh, when you said, “keeps omitting” I assumed you meant what you said, rather than just talking about that one specific comment.
So…did you have a point, or?
Since it has been admitted that the same motion, the MOTR, can be achieved with SPIN or without SPIN, depending on the equipment, the definition of SPIN is vague.
Pleas give us a clear definition!
“Spin’, of course, means ‘internal axis rotation'”
Nope!
Define a vague, undefined term using another vague undefined term!
A thing of beauty for the obfuscator, but not helpful for facilitating genuine debate.
Since it has been admitted that the MOTL can be described as having an ‘internal axis of rotation’ or not, then again, this terminology is completely vague.
Oh well! The goal here is not to find understanding.
“Oh, and the plotter can indeed do external rotations.”
Erm…no, it can’t, Little Willy. The XY plotter pen can only translate. Then there is a moon attached to the pen with a motor to rotate it on its own internal axis. That’s it.
You are getting confused between an XY plotter and the transmographer. Google an XY plotter and see how it works.
> The XY plotter pen can only translate.
This is getting weirder and weirder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552414
A transmographer is not an XY plotter, and an XY plotter is not a transmographer. As I said, Google an XY plotter and see how it works.
And weirder still:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552195
Are these two buttons for translation?
“The XY plotter pen can only translate. Then there is a moon attached to the pen with a motor to rotate it on its own internal axis. That’s it.“
So, two different things, Little Willy. Translation in a circle, and internal axis rotation. One button for each.
So Gaslighting Graham is just not confused:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
Under the “Rotate” button, there is “Around the point.”
One can then specify around which XY point the object can rotate.
That point can be outside that object.
Thus an XY plotter can do external rotations.
Graham is just wrong here.
When you are up to speed with the equipment being used, you may want to read through everything from yesterday again, realising that I am of course correct in every word I said.
All this time and you didn’t even know what the XY plotter equipment even was! No wonder you have been so confused.
Yes, Little Willy, a transmographer can perform both translation and external axis rotation, and internal axis rotation, etc etc.
However, a transmographer is not an XY plotter. The equipment I have been referring to throughout is not the transmographer, it is an XY plotter with a model moon on the pen which can be spun using a motor.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=xy+plotter
It’s not like Gaslighting Graham doesn’t know the transmographer, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412379
The XY plotter is, wait for it, a plotter. It draws. It is not meant to illustrate geometry transformations!
Nate mentioned one back in 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-379459
It was to establish a different point, viz. that a curvilinear translation does the job for just about any task.
Is Gaslighting Graham “borrowing” Nate’s example?
I know what the transmographer is, yes. That’s how I know it is different to an XY plotter.
Calm down. Take a few deep breaths. Have a pause from commenting for a couple of hours. Just read through the thread again now that you understand what the XY plotter equipment can do, and what it can’t.
The XY plotter equipment can only translate the moon in a circle, and rotate the moon about an internal axis.
It’s weird, though, because you seemed to understand here what the XY plotter could do:
“Let’s decompose what the plotter does:
(ORBIT) One unit of translation.
(SPIN) One unit of internal rotation.”
Then you somehow got yourself lost.
You’re an odd duck, Little Willy.
One of the first hits I get for “online xy plotter” is to Desmos dot com. Would that be good?
Something tells me it’s been a while Gaslighting Graham worked on these things. He looks a bit rusty.
No, Little Willy. The XY plotter equipment is meant to be a physical contraption, so that it is comparable with the CSAItruth contraption.
The XY plotter equipment can only translate the moon in a circle, and rotate it about an internal axis. That is the whole point! So that it then conforms to the “Spinner” viewpoint.
Gaslighting Graham is getting weirder, but also even more confused:
The plotter can also do that.
Since translation and rotation is powerful enough to create general motion, it can also do a pure rotation!
Astute readers ought to think about it: what is a curvilinear translation along a circular path whose axis is outside the object?
The XY plotter equipment can only translate the moon in a circle, and rotate it about an internal axis. That is the whole point! So that it then conforms to the “Spinner” viewpoint.
Weirder still by the minute:
Wow. Just…wow!
Here could be a simple way for Gaslighting Graham to create an illusory strong point:
(Rule 1) Say that the plotter is a physical object.
(Rule 2) Ask if the response rebuts that point.
(Rule 3) GOTO Rule 1.
We sure can compare the plotter with the CSAI truther contraption: one can only rotate, while the other can rotate and translate!
You’re starting to have another meltdown, Little Willy.
XY plotter:
[ORBIT] Translation in a circle (meaning, motion like the MOTR).
[SPIN] Rotation about an internal axis.
CSAItruth equipment:
[ORBIT] Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis (meaning, motion like the MOTL).
[SPIN] Rotation about an internal axis.
Gaslighting Graham still does not get it:
A translation and a rotation around a circle is equivalent to a rotation around an external axis. When rotation and translation happens at the same time, it’s the same thing!
Besides, the XY plotter can also translate the Moon in a circle, something the contraption can’t do as easily. It needs a bidirectional motor for cancelling rotations!
Astute readers might ponder on the physical smoothness of a Moon spinning clockwise as it rotates counterclockwise!
Gaslighting Graham does not seem to realize how he’s confusing himself.
The contraption can only rotate.
The plotter can translate and rotate.
Which one is physically more able?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551570
Calm down, go back to the beginning, and read through, Little Willy.
And so Gaslighting Graham falls back to his favorite: gaslighting, and handwaving to an illusory strong point.
The CSAI Truther contraption can only translate.
The plotter can translate and rotate.
Let’s ask astute readers to choose their fighter!
They’re exactly equal, for our purposes, Little Willy.
The XY plotter can move like the MOTR in one single motion, but it cannot move like the MOTL in one single motion.
The CSAItruth equipment can move like the MOTL in one single motion, but it cannot move like the MOTR in one single motion.
And so Gaslighting Graham returns to his latest strong point. Mine is stronger:
The plotter can emulate the contraption. The contraption can’t emulate the plotter unless we accept cancelling rotations.
To only work with rotations carries a physical price. It also carries a conceptual price, for it’s what the CSAI Truther exploited to run his con.
One reason to hold that my position is stronger is that I can generalize it:
The plotter can simulate any orbit and spin of the Moon. Could the CSAI Truther do that?
Not without being able to stretch the arm that holds the Moon!
"The plotter can emulate the contraption. The contraption can’t emulate the plotter unless we accept cancelling rotations."
OK, try to focus. This will be more of a complicated one than normal.
I’ve been assuming that the XY plotter functions according to the CSAItruth equipment in the following ways, to enable a valid comparison:
1) The "moon spin" motors for both devices are bi-directional.
2) The "moon spin" motors have only one speed setting – a rate that matches the speed that the moon orbits.
Under these conditions, each device can emulate three motions. For the XY plotter it would be: MOTL, MOTR, and a third motion that we haven’t seen so far, in which the orientation of the moon changes whilst it orbits, but in the clockwise direction.
For the CSAItruth equipment it would be: motion like the first experiment in the video, MOTL, and MOTR.
If you removed the "cancelling rotations" – in other words, made the "moon spin" motors for both devices only able to spin the moon anti-clockwise, rather than both ways…then both devices would only be able to emulate two motions.
For the XY plotter it would be: MOTL, MOTR. For the CSAItruth equipment it would be: motion like the first experiment in the video, and MOTL.
Either way, I hope you can see…the devices are equal.
So instructive:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, A TRUE GOD, on October 30, 2023 at 11:20 AM] If you removed the “cancelling rotations” – in other words, made the “moon spin” motors for both devices only able to spin the moon anti-clockwise, rather than both ways…then both devices would only be able to emulate two motions.
[ME, A MERE MORTAL, on October 29, 2023 at 9:22 PM] It should also be observed that the “cancelling effect” of two rotations looks better in maths than in mechanics, for we’d need to have a lot of tiny rotations to emulate a straight line!
[ALSO ME, October 29, 2023 at 6:33 PM] If we allow converse, we can cancel the orientation change that the external rotation imposes. In other words, a series of simultaneous rotations can cancel each other and emulate a translation! Canadian drivers do that every winter when they try to steady their car on a slippery road.
I’m so glad that Gaslighting Graham could at last explain the following to me:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/28259/rigid-motions-the-product-of-two-rotations-around-different-points-is-equal-to
I was trying to be afraid of not getting it!
OK, well, you’ll have to excuse me for being cautious, since we have been discussing this issue for several days already, and then you suddenly turned round and revealed that you hadn’t actually been following at all because you thought the XY plotter was a transmographer!
So…assuming that you can follow what I just posted, I guess you agree that the CSAItruth equipment and the XY plotter equipment are equal for our purposes, and thus there is no reason for you not to accept that "orbit" and "spin" are independent for both pieces of equipment – the only difference being that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL for the CSAItruth equipment, and "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR for the XY plotter.
That should be that.
> I was trying to be afraid of not getting it!
Hmmm. Let’s replace that with “I was so afraid of not getting it!
OK. Focus. Again the geometry facts we need:
(General) Translation and rotation suffice to represent any motion.
(Cancelling) The product of two distinct, opposite rotations is a translation.
(Pure rotation) A pure rotation applies on a circle.
(Plotter) A plotter can represent any motion on a plane.
(Contraption) A contraption with Cancelling can represent any motion on a circle.
From these we can conclude that both plotter and contraption are equivalent on a circle. But only if our contraption has Cancelling.
Do our astute readers all agree on these facts?
> you thought the XY plotter was a transmographer
Indeed, I was confused by the fact that the plotter is equivalent to a transmographer.
What a maroon I am!
"From these we can conclude that both plotter and contraption are equivalent on a circle. But only if our contraption has Cancelling."
Well, no, Little Willy. You obviously didn’t understand what I’d posted, despite your outburst. The XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment are equal on a circle, whether you make the "moon spin" motors bi-directional or only spinning anti-clockwise.
If you are about to move to elliptical orbits, don’t bother. That’s outside the scope of my points 1) – 3), so I won’t be discussing it.
No, Little Willy, I am afraid you are wrong once again. The XY plotter is not equivalent to the transmographer. The latter can most definitely do things that the former cannot. Learning sure is tough for you.
Is Gaslighting Graham gaslighting again, or is not OK?
In the contraption, if the Moon rotates clockwise and the Earth anti-clockwise, how many direction does that make? Two.
So that device will work using cancelling rotations.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is just playing dumb?
No, he can’t be that dumb.
You have misunderstood. Try again.
And so Gaslighting Graham returns to one of his favorite, naked assertion:
Should be easy to prove, right?
If only Gaslighting Graham could have access to an XY plotter…
Me, a lowlife who believes that translation and rotation suffice to generate general motion, something both devices can do, I am willing to be surprised!
A transmographer could move an object like the MOTL with only one single motion. The XY plotter cannot. It can only do it with two motions.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his happy place – his pet GIF.
There seems to be a confusion about motion generality. When we say that a machine emulates general motion, its implementation does not matter much. As long as it does not hinder the scope of what it can emulate, anything goes.
Can the XY plotter emulate the actual motion of the Moon? Yes. Can the transmographer emulate it? Yes. How about the CSAI Truther’s contraption? Yes!
All our machines can emulate the actual motion of the Moon. At least if we allow for some stylistic license. The contraption models a Moon that looks like a Moon, but with an imaginary arm connected to the Earth. The transmographer I saw only moves a square, a parallelogram, or a triangle. Even weirder is the plotter: it’s just a pen.
But then I suppose we always need to be concrete in case one of our astute readers has litteralist tendencies.
Again – a transmographer could move an object like the MOTL with only one single motion. The XY plotter cannot. It can only do it with two motions.
I’m keeping it as simple as I possibly can, and you still don’t get it.
I can’t keep holding your hand through this. Sooner or later you are going to have to start thinking for yourself.
It’s like pulling teeth.
> I repeat –
Responsiveness is always facultative with Gaslighting Graham, but not repetitiousness.
The CSAI Truther (perhaps HV Mohanlal himself) tries to demonstrate that the Moon can’t spin, not even one degree:
https://youtu.be/A1uLyWr-XDU?si=0XPAzoUVKZz1LclU
He is even willing to bet Rs 7 Lakhs on it, so around 10K cad! But to win the prize, one must do two things. First, offer a refutation of the proof, second build a physical countermodel!
Those who are into robotics, please contact me – my email is on my website.
I don’t care what he claims. That is not why I linked to his video.
This discussion has helped illustrate why my points 1) – 3) are correct, to any astute readers. It has also settled the issue that orbit and spin is independent with both contraptions. So, that’s that.
> I repeat –
No, scratch that. Gaslighting Graham rather wrote “Again -”
Having to scroll back is becoming cumbersome a bit. Nevermind. Gaslighting Graham can’t be able to hide that much longer, now, can he?
😁
“Orbit” and “spin” are independent with both contraptions.
☺️
Gaslighting Graham is showing impatience:
Should astute readers care about that? Perhaps not, but I do. After all, he’s Roy’s Care Bear.
I was going to follow up on the distinction between motion and transformation. Rotation and translation are transformations. The Moon’s spin and the Moon’s orbit are motions. A transformation is formal whereas a motion is physical.
Here I’m distinguishing between the Moon’s spin and the Moon’s orbit, because there seems to be a weird confusion about what we’re supposed to emulate:
Are we trying to emulate the overall motion of the Moon, or are we trying to emulate each of its component, i.e. its orbit and its spin?
I suppose it’s both. In fact I would go so far as to say that we’re looking for a way to describe any way the Moon could ever move. Not just from a geometrical perspective, but from a physical perspective.
Something Gaslighting Graham might try to impede until the end of times.
There are two motions, “orbit without spin” (hereafter simply “orbit”, for short), and “spin”.
“Spin” consists of one transformation, rotation about an internal axis. This is the case for both pieces of equipment.
With the XY plotter, “orbit” consists of one transformation – translation in a circle (like the MOTR).
With the CSAItruth equipment, “orbit” consists of one transformation – rotation about an external axis (like the MOTL).
“Orbit” is thus different for both pieces of equipment. However, “orbit” and “spin” are still independent for both pieces of equipment. Each piece of equipment can “spin” the moon independently of the “orbit”, and “orbit” the moon independently of the “spin”.
Gaslighting Graham is trying to confuse astute readers:
So far three different tools have been mentioned: a plotter, a contraption, and a transmographer. I’d be willing to say that the plotter is equivalent to the transmographer, but I’ve been told I was being Very Bad for doing so. Caveat emptor.
It was always just meant to be the two contraptions, Little Willy. The XY plotter equipment and the CSAItruth equipment. You brought the transmographer into it – wrongly.
The transmographer (TM) is not equivalent to the XY plotter equipment (XY) because the TM could replicate the movement of the MOTL using only one transformation (rotation about an external axis) whereas the XY would need two (translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis). The XY cannot replicate movement of the MOTL using only one transformation.
Using “transformation” rather than “motion” is quite helpful in this instance. Thanks.
I propose:
“Movement” for the overall thing, i.e. the “movement” of the MOTL, MOTR, first experiment in the video, etc.
“Motion” for either “orbit” or “spin”.
“Transformation” for translation in a circle and rotation about an external or internal axis.
The distinction between transformation and motion is taking hold:
There still seems to be some kind of conceptual confusion: what is it exactly that models the motion of the Moon, the machine or the drawing? The pen does not seem to rotate at all. I’d be hard pressed to say how the XY plotter itself emulates the orbit of the Moon!
In fact, astute readers might wonder how a plotter really “translates” in a circle, i.e. how implementing curvilinear movement works. I need to look at some programs and languages. Will report.
The XY plotter equipment was described in full some time ago. You may not remember, though you linked to a comment from that discussion at one point, I think. Anyway…
…the pen itself can only translate from place to place. It cannot rotate about either an external or internal axis. The idea was to attach a model moon to the pen, with a motor that can rotate that moon about an internal axis. Now, the moon can translate from place to place, and it can be “spun” about an internal axis.
The idea was to create a program that would translate the moon, in a circle, anti-clockwise, at the push of a button. Then there would be a separate button to activate the internal axis rotation motor.
Ah, well:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552855
Oh, good grief.
THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION OF THE MOON DRAGON CRANK MISTAKE
It’s as if Moon Dragon cranks forgot that we do not see the Moon spinning when we look at the Moon from the Earth.
We can only know that it spins.
To know that, we need physics, not just geometry.
And physics tells us that the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits the Earth.
We’ll finally be able to discuss that physics when all the "Spinners" have agreed on points 1) – 3). You’ve agreed on the first two, so that’s a start. Norman agrees on 1), Nate on 2) and Bindidon on 3). Slowly, but surely, we’ll get there.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his default stance (H/T Kennui):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7v_TdLviUE
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Well finally be able to discuss that physics ”
No we won’t. This is all a diversion.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Nate.
Dragin crankz haz no phyziks.
…please stop trolling.
Nate,
Still funny that Gaslighting Graham knows what you agree about, don’t you think?
…stop trolling.
When has Nate discussed (2) with Gaslighting Graham?
I quoted Nate on 2) further upthread, Little Willy. It was from back when I used to read his comments. He quoted me saying words to the effect that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was motion like the MOTL, then wrote “TRUE” in response. He then went on to disagree that “rotation about an external axis” was another way of saying “orbiting”. Other “Spinners” disagree with him on that, but there you go.
He agrees on 2). As do you. He will just point out that there is another way to describe motion like the MOTL, however I’m not arguing otherwise.
Gaslighting Graham handwaves again.
Instead of twisting himself in another pretzel, why don’t he put the link?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
No wonder Gaslighting Graham will not quote that comment:
Now, why won’t Gaslighting Graham remind readers of his 2), to show this comment by Nate agrees with it? They will notice that there are more than 100 occurences of “2)” on this page.
Oh, and astute readers might notice this comment by Mighty Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566771
Astute Readers might like to read Mighty Tim’s comment:
Emphasis not mine.
Outside the scope of points 1) – 3). Thus it is bait that I will not be taking.
Gaslighting Graham arwaves.
Let’s add armwaving to his tricks to break communication.
It is outside the scope of points 1) – 3), Little Willy, so I will not be discussing it. It can wait until all “Spinners” have agreed on points 1) – 3).
And here is another trick Gaslighting Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552142
The unresponsive quote fest.
“Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.”
equals
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
In the MOTL the object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own centre of mass, i.e internal axis) always presents the same face to that external axis whilst it moves around it.
And so at last Gaslighting Graham reveals that his (2) was in fact the mere rephrasing of the definition of a rotation.
Does he at least realize that this also applies to internal rotations?
For internal rotations, it’s even stronger than that: every point of the object will remain at the same length from the axis of rotation, and every pair of point will keep preserve the same distance between themselves!
A rotation only changes one thing: orientation.
It’s as if Gaslighting Graham has no idea what is an isometry.
Sheesh.
> its even stronger than that
Astute readers may see that I’m being facetious here. Isometry applies to all rotations!
If my point 2) is so obviously correct, Little Willy, then why do both bob and Ball4 disagree with it to the extent we have exchanged thousands of comments about it over several years? bob and Ball4 think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR, not the MOTL.
They…are…WRONG. Why am I not allowed to say so?
Gaslighting Graham tries to make me relitigate thousands of comments, but he won’t show any. Why should I trust his word on what Bob or B4 said?
Here’s B4 himself:
What’s the problem with that statement?
B4 only added a component that Gaslighting Graham himself was required: a frame of reference!
Physics kinda matters when trying to model physical motion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548362
There is bob once again wrongly saying it is like the MOTR rather than the MOTL.
Ball4 implies that only wrt a non-inertial reference frame is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” motion like the MOTL. That is like saying wrt an inertial reference frame that it would be motion like the MOTR. What Ball4 does is more subtle, so it goes over your head, Little Willy.
Great. Now Gaslighting Graham now asks me to debunk Bob’s proofs. Why would I do his homework for him? That’d be dishonorable.
What Bob said is perfectly fine if you understand simple things:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] A ball on a string is just rotating, about an axis that is external to the ball.
[BOB] Only one? When it is possible for an object to rotate around an infinite number of external axes.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-567207
I wish I could refute Chasles’s theorem!
So in the end, it always comes down to Gaslighting Graham’s unwillingness to accept two things:
First, pure motion is subsumed by general motion.
Second, since orbit and spin are independent, the whole idea of using pure rotation to describe the motion of the Moon is preposterous.
Now, my turn: when was the last time Gaslighting Graham called out Flop for his trick?
bob is incorrect. I am correct. It is that simple.
Bob is correct. Gaslighting Graham is not. It’s that simple.
I bet Gaslighting Graham still believes that what Bob says in his two is incompatible with what I said so far:
[BOB] Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is the Moon on the right. Just like the caption on the giff you refer to.
Here’s what the GIFF says
[GIFF] If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.
Bob’s claim is not about geometry. It is about physics.
All this because Gaslighting Graham still fails to understand that one can interpret his pet GIF differently if one sees it as a physics or a geometry problem.
You are just being ridiculous, Little Willy. bob says it is like the MOTR. He is wrong. It is motion like the MOTL.
Bob holds what every scientific institutions known to mankind holds.
Astute readers ought to ask themselves what is more plausible: Gaslighting Graham destroying centuries of celestial mechanics by interpreting the motion of the Moon as a pure rotation, or Gaslighting Graham gaslighting again.
The Moon spins, because physics. Not geometry.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551570
Bob is correct. B4 is correct. They both are correct.
If the Moon did not spin, we’d see all its sides. Because physics.
If the Moon was the object of a pure rotation, the Man on the Moon would always face the Earth. Because geometry.
What will it be when Gaslighting Graham will rediscover Euler’s theorem?
> If the Moon was the object of a pure rotation
A pure external rotation, to prevent further misrepresentation.
You are jumping forward to argue about things that I’m not currently talking about. I’m simply stating the fact (which you have already agreed with, by the way) that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR. bob says it is motion like the MOTR, not the MOTL. He is completely wrong about that, and I am completely right.
Ball4 argues that it is motion like the MOTR, but in a slightly more subtle way. He’s also wrong.
There really is no point in talking to you if you can’t even be honest about this! I will give you one more chance to give a reasonable response.
So once again Gaslighting Graham gets lost as soon as he can’t recognize the mental model he himself imposes on otters.
Astute readers should recognize that I am talking about Bob’s and B4’s responses to his (2).
His Moon-on-the-left (MOTL) illustrates the situation where the Man on the Moon always faces the Earth.
His Moon-on-the-Right (MOTR) illustrates the situation where the Man on the Moon makes a full rotation as he turns around the Earth.
Both the MOTL and the MOTR have a geometrical and a physical interpretation. It is by switching between the two all the times that he ends up confusing himself and his marks. And when his marks get lost, he lulzes.
He could express himself so that astute readers don’t have to search through all of his 1-2-3/a-b-c. He could stop handwaving to previous comments he made elsewhere.
I gave you the chance to give a reasonable response. Instead, all you’ve done is insult me.
There is no point me continuing to debate someone who I don’t feel is arguing in good faith.
We’re done, here.
Gaslighting Graham is being is usual Machiavellian prick. He won’t get what he wants, so he takes his marbles and go home.
Suppose B4 and Bob had two opposite takes on (2). How could they both be wrong? Only one would be!
Yet they’re both basically right. B4 is making a point about geometry. Bob is making a point about physics.
The Moon orbits and spins. Both motions are independent. There’s nothing Moon Dragon cranks can do about that, even if one day they opened a damn book.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham lost that privilege to claim the last word by PSTing. What Roy implied earlier in the thread was quite clear.
OK, then I’ll just keep repeating that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR. This repetition will occur once per day, until such time as I am no longer receiving a response. If this must continue for the rest of our lives, so be it.
Since you won’t debate honestly, and won’t ever shut up, you leave me no choice.
#1
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Orbit and spin are independent.
When he tries to portray the motion of the Moon with a pure rotation, he forfeits that independence.
That leads him to fall for the CSA Truther’s con.
That leads him to fall for Flop’s trick.
Also, that leads him to confuse geometry with physics.
No wonder he can’t grok what Bob keeps telling him!
Sad Machiavellian.
“Orbit and spin are independent.”
From each other, yes.
“When he tries to portray the motion of the Moon with a pure rotation, he forfeits that independence.”
“A pure rotation” meaning “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, which you have agreed is motion like the MOTL and not the MOTR? No, that doesn’t “forfeit independence” between orbit and spin. It just means “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL and not the MOTR.
“That leads him to fall for the CSA Truther’s con.”
There is no con.
“That leads him to fall for Flop’s trick.”
There is no trick.
“Also, that leads him to confuse geometry with physics.”
No confusion on my part.
“No wonder he can’t grok what Bob keeps telling him!”
bob isn’t making some sort of special, secret point that only you understand, Little Willy. He is simply and wrongly stating that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTR rather than the MOTL. He is just mistaken. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.
Now, back to the daily repetition:
#2
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Next response will be tomorrow!
A quote fest. Great.
Gaslighting Graham indeed forfeits independence between orbit and spin when he describes the motion of the Moon using a pure rotation.
Rotating the Moon around the center of the Earth one degree makes the Moon rotate one degree.
When the CSA Truther moves the Moon one degree forward, he also changes its orientation one degree.
The orbit and the spin of the Moon are thus interlocked.
There is nothing else to the CSA Truther’s trick.
The reasons Little Willy is wrong were got into yesterday, if you read onwards from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552137
So, there is no need to repeat the same arguments in two places.
Now, back to the daily repetition:
#3
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Next response will be tomorrow, if need be.
Since Gaslihting Graham has yet to get that the XY plotter can emulate the CSAI contraption but not vice versa, there might be a need to revisit how he still misrepresents independence.
He was right about the bidirectionality of one of the motors of the contraption, however.
#4
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Next response will be tomorrow, if need be.
A question Gaslighting Graham has yet to answer:
How does the CSAI Truther’s contraption emulate the motion of the infamous Moon-on-the-Right, i.e. the situation where the Man on the Moon always looks in the same direction?
#5
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Next response will be tomorrow, if need be.
Since Gaslighting Graham has found a way to get around his promise, the discussion has been redirected over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553416
#6
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Next response will be tomorrow, if need be.
PRELUDE – THE TWO LOONIES
(VLAD) Check my fortune – I have 2 bucks!
(ESTR) Me too!
*Shows his two loonies**.
(VLAD) Ah! But that’s not like what I have!
*Shows his two-dollar coin.**
(ESTR) But we have the same about, right?
(VLAD) Yes, but I can do something you can’t!
(ESTR) What is that?
(VLAD) I can waste in one go.
*Looks in the direction of the bar.*
(ESTR, perplexed) But I can do that too…
(VLAD) Not in (pause) one go.
*Throws his two-dollar coin on the ground.*
(ESTR) So am I!
*Follows suit and throws his two pennies on the ground.*
(VLAD) No, you did not.
(ESTR, astonished) What?
(VLAD) You did not use one go… *Looks smugly at Estragon.*
(ESTR) Ah… I see. You indeed did something I can’t do.
(VLAD) Thank you.
(ESTR) But then you couldn’t be able to spend it in two… “goes”?
(VLAD) Doesn’t matter.
(ESTR) Ah, I see. You sure are very wise, Vladimir.
Whether the movement of the MOTL can be modelled with only one motion, or if it has to be two motions, is kind of a big deal, Little Willy.
“Spinners” argue that it has to be two, you see. “Orbit” and “spin”.
“Non-Spinners” argue that it can be done in just one. “Orbit” only.
I mean…how can I make it any simpler?
Gaslighting Graham has a happy place (his pet GIF) and he won’t leave it.
Looks like the repetitions he promised daily have turned into hourly repetitions.
No – still daily, in the correct place, Little Willy.
You just started another sub-thread, to bait me into another long, fruitless back and forth. So, here we are. Another few days of pointless discussion, I guess, before you finally stop responding.
[HOW IT STARTED] Next response will be tomorrow, if need be.
[HOW IT’S GOING] still daily, in the correct place
I guess I should put this on Gaslighting Graham’s tab of quirks.
OK, Little Willy.
The moon is tidally locked, most moons orbiting planets are tidally locked.
Exactly, gb.
Yet the Earth is not tidally locked. Not for now. One day it might.
The global warming cult cargo is interested in Venus.
Venus is not tidally locked.
It’s going backward, it’s day is longer than it’s year.
Cool story, gb.
What are Venus satellites, again?
Venus might have quasi moons:
“Venus has one known quasi-satellite, (524522) 2002 VE68. This asteroid is also a Mercury- and Earth-crosser; it seems to have been a “companion” to Venus for approximately the last 7,000 years only, and is destined to be ejected from this orbital arrangement about 500 years from now.”
Good.
“This orbital body, asteroid, has the same orbital resonance as Venus, meaning it makes an orbit around the sun in the same amount of time as Venus.”
Willard,
You haven’t got the faintest idea what that means, have you?
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
“An orbit around the sun” isn’t that hard to understand.
Unless an orbit means some kind of pure external rotation, that is.
Willard,
You haven’t got the faintest idea what that means, have you?
Your reply is nonsensical – you understand something unless it means something else!
Very clever – not!
Mike Flynn,
Are you telling me that you understand something nonsensical?
That’s quite possible.
You have the power!
Willard,
You havent got the faintest idea what that means, have you?
Your reply is nonsensical you understand something unless it means something else!
Very clever not!
The “Tidal Locking” nonsense has been debunked, if anyone is interested….
Gaslighting Graham might be interested, Pupman.
He has yet to deny tidal locking.
Other people comment here. Become obsessed with one of them.
[PUPMAN] The “Tidal Locking” nonsense has been debunked, if anyone is interested…
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I accept tidal locking theory.
Yes, we disagree…and unlike the “Spinners”…we discussed it.
When have Gaslighting Graham ever discussed a disagreement with Pupman before this?
When have any two “Spinners” ever discussed their many, many disagreements?
Gaslighting Graham won’t say when he has settled his dispute over tidal lock with Pupman.
I can live with that.
OK, Little Willy.
The intellectual and scientific discussion above this point in time has already been seen, no need for me to waste time scrolling through it again.
You’re missing something, Kennui. Something like the filling of a crank gap. It’s one thing to know that Dragon cranks are wrong. It’s another to prove them wrong. And another to make sure they can’t cheat their way out of their predicament.
The same applies to contrarian gaps in general. So you can wait. The other contrarians are next.
All you have proven so far is that I’m correct on my points 1) and 2). Keep going with your “proofs”, you might get to prove me right on all three of them eventually.
Willard,
You have proved you live in a rich fantasy world, where reality can be ignored without penalty.
In the real world, nobody can describe the GHE. Your fantasy world description – “not cooling, slower cooling” is an example of the fact that you live in a universe detached from reality.
No Willard, in the real world, cooling is not heating. That’s wishful thinking of the SkyDragon cult variety.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You have proved that you bray a lot.
And you still deny having received many descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
But that has nothing to do here, isn’t it?
Carry on braying!
Willard,
You have proved you live in a rich fantasy world, where reality can be ignored without penalty.
In the real world, nobody can describe the GHE. Your fantasy world description “not cooling, slower cooling” is an example of the fact that you live in a universe detached from reality.
No Willard, in the real world, cooling is not heating. Thats wishful thinking of the SkyDragon cult variety.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You have proved that you can describe the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Well done!
Willard,
You have proved you live in a rich fantasy world, where reality can be ignored without penalty.
In the real world, nobody can describe the GHE. Your fantasy world description “not cooling, slower cooling” is an example of the fact that you live in a universe detached from reality.
No Willard, in the real world, cooling is not heating. Thats wishful thinking of the SkyDragon cult variety.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You live in the real world.
You can describe the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You are loved.
Willard,
You have proved you live in a rich fantasy world, where reality can be ignored without penalty.
In the real world, nobody can describe the GHE. Your fantasy world description “not cooling, slower cooling” is an example of the fact that you live in a universe detached from reality.
No Willard, in the real world, cooling is not heating. Thats wishful thinking of the SkyDragon cult variety.
Keep trying.
By all means keep linking to Mike Flynn pointing out that cooling means cooling, not rising temperatures. No wonder you cannot bring yourself to quote him. You would look really foolish then, wouldn’t you?
Peanut.
Mike Flynn,
Here is you describing the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Buffoon.
Willard,
You have proved you live in a rich fantasy world, where reality can be ignored without penalty.
In the real world, nobody can describe the GHE. Your fantasy world description “not cooling, slower cooling” is an example of the fact that you live in a universe detached from reality.
No Willard, in the real world, cooling is not heating. Thats wishful thinking of the SkyDragon cult variety.
Keep trying.
By all means keep linking to Mike Flynn pointing out that cooling means cooling, not rising temperatures. No wonder you cannot bring yourself to quote him. You would look really foolish then, wouldnt you?
Peanut.
You are real, Mike, and here’s you describing the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Willard,
You have proved you live in a rich fantasy world, where reality can be ignored without penalty.
In the real world, nobody can describe the GHE. Your fantasy world description not cooling, slower cooling is an example of the fact that you live in a universe detached from reality.
No Willard, in the real world, cooling is not heating. Thats wishful thinking of the SkyDragon cult variety.
Keep trying.
By all means keep linking to Mike Flynn pointing out that cooling means cooling, not rising temperatures. No wonder you cannot bring yourself to quote him. You would look really foolish then, wouldnt you?
Peanut.
Solar wind
speed: 453.6 km/sec
density: 1.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 57
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 126 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH (G1): A minor G1-class geomagnetic storm is likely on Oct. 30th when a solar wind stream is expected to hit Earth’s magnetic field. The gaseous material is flowing from a double-lobed hole in the sun’s atmosphere.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.01×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Low
Got four numbered sunspots, 3468 and 3471 in southern hemisphere, 3468 largest and closest to going to farside. I think 3471 may grow and is about 3 to 4 days from farside. A unnamed spot in southern also looks like it will grow and become a numbered sunspot.
The two in northern hemisphere just coming from farside are small spots and I guess that they will fade within a day or two.
Solar Storms, Fast Wind, and Flare Risk Rises | Space Weather Spotlight 26 October 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ2yz7ZHSj8
Solar wind
speed: 528.6 km/sec
density: 3.59 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 66
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 128 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.11×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Low
3468 hasn’t left nearside, yet. I was biggest spot while on nearside,
as it’s leaving it’s faded into small, and new big {which is small} is 3472- which guessed would fade, but it grew a bit, and I guess it could grow some more. But all these small spots could fade or grow while on the nearside. And don’t see any spot coming from farside.
So 3468 is leaving and we going to remain around 50 sunspot and be around this level to end of month.
So, 1/2 the month has had low solar activity, will Nov have very low activity- which is my guess.
So Oct month will be around 100 sunspots, my guess is Nov will be below 90 sunspot and cross the curved line and thereafter averaged months will be below that curved line. And before this, it’s been well above that curved line.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
23 October – 18 November 2023
Solar activity is expected to range from very low to low levels
throughout the period with a chance for R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)
events over 24 Oct-11 Nov. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
NOAA is forecasting what I guessing for next month.
But NOAA is guessing for whole cycle in recent prediction calls an ever increasing solar active for next year {or more}. Which the opposite of what I am guessing.
And I would guess it will take a few months, sometime after Feb 2024,
to change again their forecast. There current graph seems to correct
as in mostly correct, though the new prediction shorten the Solar Max, which only thing I think is “mostly” correct about their new prediction.
The graph is right if averaging things, at first it was much higher than their curve, well above the gray area of curve, and soon it will cross the line, and get well below the gray area below the curved line. Or in terms strength of Solar Max it about the average, or it is never going to follow a curve exactly. And in theory this is not a normal or average solar cycle- unless you allow for being in a solar grand min, which haven’t been in for a century, though it started more than decade ago.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar wind
speed: 575.0 km/sec
density: 1.68 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 70
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 128 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.13×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
48-hr change: -0.4%
Five small sunspot numbers. Biggest is 3473 {it grew quite a bit} and they gave number, 3474 to spot in southern hemisphere I mentioned- and it grew more small sunspots. So, 3473 and 3474 probably grow more.
Don’t see spots coming from farside, and no spots leaving nearside within a day- though they could fade completely before getting to farside {which are two spots, 3471 and 3475, which are so small it’s hard to see them.}
Solar wind
speed: 589.4 km/sec
density: 0.14 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 61
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.28×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
48-hr change: -0.7%
“Growing sunspot AR3474 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares. ”
3474 grew a lot- it’s in southern hemisphere.
It’s a lot bigger than other spots- which might fade soon.
Spot number 3475 has not left nearside yet and don’t any coming from
farside. And I think there a good chance of spotless day within a week.
Solar wind
speed: 527.5 km/sec
density: 2.33 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 62
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.54×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
48-hr change: -1.0%
“FAST-GROWING SUNSPOT: When this week began, sunspot AR3474 didn’t exist. Now it is 50,000 km wide with 2 dark cores bigger than Earth. The fast growing sunspot (movie) has a beta-gamma magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares.”
Yes it grew even more. Bigger than two moderate size sunspots- and might continue to grow. The other two spot also have grown a bit- or didn’t fade as I guessed they might.
I see no spots coming from farside, and it’s about 4 days before any of three spot numbers go to farside.
But the pattern seems to indicate fast growth and then fading, but could continue growing for couple of days and not fading away before getting to the farside.
But Oct should still total around 100 sunspot number but the seemingly more active sun, might mean my Nov guess is wrong.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“SUNSPOT NUMBERS ARE BOUNCING BACK: After a two week decline, which reminded some observers of Solar Minimum, sunspot numbers are bouncing back. The emergence of multiple new sunspots on the solar disk plus a new farside sunspot rotating over the sun’s eastern limb is driving the sunspot number back up to 100. This is a normal fluctuation en route to Solar Max.”
See the spot:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/31oct23/farsidesunspot_crop.jpg
I can’t see from the current picture, but the picture will change in several hours.
That picture also indicates small spot following 3474 {the biggest spot} so this small spot might numbered also.
But if Oct gets “sunspot number back up to 100”, 100 for Oct number is low number for month.
And I am/was guessing Nov would lower than Oct.
I might guess that Nov has 50% chance of being 100 or higher and 50%
chance if it being lower than 100. Or more 50% chance of being between 110 to 90. I am going to wait until they tally Oct, first.
Also another thing the linked picture seems indicate is 3474 is weakening rather possibly grow much bigger, as I thought was possible.
Solar wind
speed: 444.4 km/sec
density: 2.05 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 116
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.56×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
48-hr change: -4.0%
So, had 3 numbered spots, and now have 5 numbered spot, and there small spot coming from farside {in northern hemisphere} which will be
given number soon- it’s about same size as 3476, a biggish small spot, which is following behind the biggest spot, 3474. Which didn’t grow bigger, as I thought it might- and may have faded a bit.
The new moderate to large spot, 3477, I think has good chance of growing bigger
Who Is Mike Johnson, the New House Speaker? | SYSTEM UPDATE
https://rumble.com/v3ru4rj-who-is-mike-johnson-the-new-house-speaker-system-update.html
Dilbert take on climate shystering
https://youtu.be/vc9uN_1YLmo?t=1967
I would urge you to get your science from scientists, and not from cartoonists.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Anyone Saying Dilbert Creator Scott Adams’ Career Collapsed Overnight Hasn’t Been Paying Attention
https://www.themarysue.com/anyone-saying-dilbert-creator-scott-adams-career-collapsed-overnight-hasnt-been-paying-attention/
This man has been shoveling sh*t for years.
No wonder Sky Dragon cranks love him.
As another month comes to a close, a quick review of comments is beneficial.
1) The cult won’t leave the Moon issue alone. They’ve lost yet they keep bringing it up, somehow hoping something they throw at the wall will save them. It won’t….
2) The cult STILL has no description/definition of the GHE that they will stick with.
3) The cult appears to be composed entirely of children. There’s not one responsible adult in the bunch.
Prove me wrong.
How far in the future will it be when rocket fuel {LOX} is sold at $500,000 per ton {$500 per kg} in Low Earth orbit?
Within 5 years? Before 2029?
Does the lunar polar region have mineable water?
What is mineable lunar water?
Roughly, it’s lunar water which can be bought at about $500 per kg.
And if got water at $500 per kg, one can make LOX from about $1000 per kg. Or mineable water is cheap enough water than one can buy LOX
at about $1000 per kg or 1 million dollars buys a ton of LOX.
But cost to mine lunar water, will be lower, if the cost to get to the Moon is lower. Or if someone is selling LOX at Low Earth for $1000 per kg, the cost to get to the Moon would be lower, and if $500 per kg, it will lower. Or selling LOX for $1000 or $500 per kg at LEO, makes whatever water there is on the Moon, more mineable.
Also if you could buy LOX in low lunar orbit for about $3000 per kg, you lower cost to mine lunar water. And if have mineable lunar water one could sell Lunar LOX in low lunar for about $3000 per kg. Or if cheap enough LOX in Low Earth orbit, you bring it to low Lunar orbit and sell it for about $3000 per kg.
In terms of lowest cost of lunar water or rocket fuel, it depends when you reach peak lunar water- depends how much lunar water there is which is mineable. So you might 1 million tons of mineable water and say 10 million tons of less mineable lunar water, and total in one polar region of 1 billion tons of water which is not mineable, now, or in foreseeable future. It might be extracted because you mining something else. Or iron mine can also mine gold but the main revenue is from mining iron.
Only 1 million tonnes of mineable lunar will mean, you aren’t going to bring lunar rocket fuel to LEO. Though if mining lunar water, one could find more mineable lunar water. Or known reserves which was 1 million tons, within 5 or 10 year become 10 million tons, and therefore it’s a longer time before Peak Lunar water, and could sell lunar rocket fuel to LEO- depending on price of rocket fuel in LEO.
Instead of LEO, lunar rocket fuel could be shipped to high earth orbit, Venus and/or Mars orbits. Or Moon could make Mars a more habitable planet. And/or Mars exploration and settlements could make the Moon more mineable.
I thought I would give some prospective.
A garden hose can do about 9 gallons per minute or
since gallon of water is 3.79 kg. 3.79 kg times 9 = 34.11 kg
per minute. And there is 525600 minutes in year, so garden hose
can do: 525600 x 34.11 = 17928216 kg or 17928.216 tons of water per year.
A mining area on the moon might have 20,000 tons of mineable water and it could take more 10 years to mine. And then you have to move
the mining operation somewhere else.
And it might be a lot better if mining area 100,000 tons of water near it, within 2 km radius and then might mine that location for more than 20 years.
If 1 meter depth of lunar regolith had 5 cm of water in it or .05 meter of 1.0 meter it has 5% per volume of water in it. No plant on Earth can grow with less than 5% per volume of water in the dirt.
[And with clay in it, one needs more 10% for plants to get the water.]
And dry concrete has about 15% of water, one could mine the water- though requires a significant amount of heat to do this.
And one could argue whether lunar regolith with 5% water in mineable, many claim 1% is not mineable.
An 1 square km which has depth of 1 meter is 1 million cubic meter
times .05 = 50,000 tons of water or about 2 1/2 years of running a garden hose of water in it. But in a square km of lunar surface one could have patches of higher amounts of water and patches lower amounts of water. And you would mine areas which have the higher amounts of water.
If someone is mining lunar water, then probably many other people will mine lunar water- or there competition or at least the threat competition- which means the price of mine water if there is 1 million tons of mineable water found in a polar region- will lower over time. And if there is 2 million tons of mineable lunar, more will mine and each will mine faster, and price of water will lower, faster.
If there is 10 million tons of mineable water, one will have mine a lot more lunar water per year to stay in business, though others might may consolidate mining companies to reduce competition and to increase amount of water mined by a company.
And there would other volatiles other than water {frozen CO2, methane, CO, and others]. And could also be mining metal oxides, like iron ore- which can pure iron and iron oxide which has been pounded into dust. So separate dust from rocks. And use the dust. Being magnetic, iron dust is quite easy to separate from non magnetic metals. You could grind up the rocks, but the Moon suppose to have a huge amount of compacted dust.
John Kerry with his two horsefaced Lolitas sacrificing themselves to save the planet in Australia
https://i.postimg.cc/Z5RL6cLZ/kerrys.jpg
This private lander could be the first US machine on the moon this century
The NOVA-C spacecraft, launching in November, should help pave the way for Artemis astronauts.
By Jon Kelvey | Published Oct 22, 2023 1:00 PM EDT
https://www.popsci.com/science/nova-c-moon-south-pole/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“THE NEW SPACE RACE: This private lander could be the first US machine on the moon this century.”
Posted at 4:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
The Moon will be mostly about machines, but will have some humans
there to do stuff which would be hard for machines to do, by themselves. And lots of tourists which could be call explorers, later, in time.
We dont still dont know a lot about the moon, Whitman Cobb adds. The moon has variable gravity depending on where there are more metallic materials. Finding out where those places are, how lunar dust is going to kick up when youre trying to land or take offall of these things are really key.
The south pole was hit by a very large rock, which probably had a lot metallic material.
But also the lunar spinners, “might be” right. {and there is more gravity at the poles- in addition to lot metal {{iron mostly, I would guess}} }.
Yes there’s a lot of garbage out there, gb. And you seem obsessed with bringing it here, regardless of the hints from Dr. Spencer.
Why?
Cause there are lunar spinner who post. And you play with them- why do you do that?
And since all are interested in the Moon….
That’s no excuse for bringing your garbage here.
That seems anti-religious.
Does Clint have any religion?
Sorry gb, but that’s just an irrelevant distraction, like tr0lls use.
You have no excuse for the nonsense you promote.
Does the nonsense have a list of topics, which goes from most to least nonsense?
Your nonsense starts with the fact that you have NO science, or interest in Dr. Spencer’s posts, and extends to your clogging up this blog.
Why?
gbaikie says:
September 26, 2023 at 11:52 PM
Berkeley Earth determined global average land temperature was about
10 C.
How much of 10 C is due to urban heat island effect?
Reply
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
September 27, 2023 at 1:12 PM
Good question. Based upon our calculations so far, Id say less than 1 deg. C, but more than 0.1 deg. C. We will have an estimate at some point.
-Roy
Reply
gb, you’re as much a phony as the other tr0lls.
You pick ONE comment from your thousands. Like that means much.
You use this blog to fantasize about space travel, likely because you’re fascinated with Star Trek.
Like the rest of the tr0lls here, you need to grow up and learn some science.
And quit clogging this blog.
Roy says less than 1 C, how much do you say it is?
I say you’re as much a phony as the other tr0lls.
You use this blog to fantasize about space travel, likely because you’re fascinated with Star Trek.
Like the rest of the tr0lls here, you need to grow up and learn some science.
And quit clogging this blog.
gbaikie watched one episode of “Martian” too many
I only saw parts of Martian,
I need more coffee.
I am waiting to end of Nov, regarding solar grand minimum.
“You pick ONE comment from your thousands. Like that means much.”
I picked my best one, that I could recall.
This blog, I posted 202, you posted 208.
Pick your best one. Or however many you want.
And then I will give 4 times more than you did.
There you go again, gb!
It’s NOT about comment count. It’s about WORD count. You clog the blog with long endless rambling, that typically has NOTHING to do with the subjects.
Worse, you are unable to learn. Here’s one of your mindless comments:
“The moon has variable gravity depending on where there are more metallic materials.”
Gravity is not affected by metals. You may be thinking about magnetism, but you may not even know what you’re thinking about.
A good example that you can’t learn:
“But also the lunar spinners, “might be” right.”
No, the “lunar spinners” are NOT right. You haven’t been able to learn anything.
Like the other tr0lls, you will be here throwing crap against the wall. But, I’ve learned to stop feeding tr0lls.
You can ignore Pupman, gb.
You may take space, but you’re mostly unobstrusive.
Unlike Bordo, Mike Flynn, Pupman, and Gaslighting Graham.
Lunar mascons:
“Lunar and Martian mascons
The Moon is the most gravitationally “lumpy” major body known in the Solar System. Its largest mascons can cause a plumb bob to hang about a third of a degree off vertical, pointing toward the mascon, and increase the force of gravity by one-half percent.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy)
Now gb has dropped the “metallic” and changes to “mascon”.
Did he learn something?
But he ignored addressing his “might be” nonsense.
Oh, Pupman.
Lighten up.
Grow up, silly willy.
Iron has more density than iron oxide.
Pupman is denser.
Russian space boss warns ISS equipment beyond warranty
https://www.spacedaily.com/
“Moscow’s Roscosmos space chief warned Friday that most Russian equipment on the International Space Station (ISS) was beyond its warranty, weeks after the station’s Russian segment sprang another coolant leak.
The leak, Russia’s third in less than a year, raised new questions about the reliability of the country’s space programme, even as officials said crew members were not in danger.
“The International Space Station is approaching the finish line of its existence,” Roscosmos boss Yuri Borisov said on state television.
“We extended the operation of the Russian segment by government decision until 2028, but, unfortunately, it has already exceeded all permissible periods of existence,” he said.”
Background:
“Mir (Russian: Мир, IPA: [ˈmʲir]; lit. ’peace’ or ‘world’) was a space station that operated in low Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001, operated by the Soviet Union and later by Russia. Mir was the first modular space station and was assembled in orbit from 1986 to 1996. It had a greater mass than any previous spacecraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir
“The International Space Station (ISS) is the largest modular space station in low Earth orbit. The project involves five space agencies: the United States’ NASA, Russia’s Roscosmos, Japan’s JAXA, Europe’s ESA, and Canada’s CSA.[11][12] The ownership and use of the space station is established by intergovernmental treaties and agreements.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
“The first ISS component was launched in 1998, and the first long-term residents arrived on 2 November 2000 after being launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome on 31 October 2000. The station has since been continuously occupied for 22 years and 361 days, the longest continuous human presence in low Earth orbit, having surpassed the previous record of 9 years and 357 days held by the Mir space station. ”
NASA and Americans said Mir was too old- though some in private sector wanted to **Save Mir** though their efforts weren’t very successful. And Mir crashed- and, it didn’t kill anyone.
Skylab was first station in orbit:
“Skylab was the United States’ first space station, launched by NASA, occupied for about 24 weeks between May 1973 and February 1974”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab
Jeff Bezos and NASAs administrator share a sneak peek at Blue Origins moon lander
“In his Instagram post, Nelson said that NASA is proud to partner with Blue Origin, especially on the Blue Moon lunar landing system, which will help ensure a steady cadence of astronauts on the moon to live and work before we venture to Mars.
Neither Bezos nor Nelson mentioned the timetable in todays postings, but Blue Origin has a $3.4 billion NASA contract to make its crew-capable lunar lander available for Artemis moon missions starting with Artemis 5, which is currently slated for 2029. At least one uncrewed cargo mission would be flown to the moon before then.”
Hmm, so, SpaceX AND Blue Origin will have uncrewed landing {or at least, one uncrewed landing}. So similar to COTs and crewed mission to ISS.
And above that:
MK1s early missions will pave the way and prove technologies for our MK2 lander for @nasas Human Landing System, Bezos said on Instagram. He also recapped a few technical details noting that the MK1 is designed to deliver up to 3 tons of cargo to anywhere on the moons surface, and that itll fit in the 7-meter fairing of Blue Origins New Glenn rocket. New Glenn is slated for its first launch next year.”
And:
“Eventually, Blue Origins lunar landers could be refueled on the moon using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen extracted from lunar water ice.”
So, if can only deliver 3 tons to lunar surface, you don’t have enough fuel to leave the Moon. So to have crew leave the Moon, you need rocket fuel made on the Moon.
Or perhaps, you have to refuel in LEO, then you land more on the Moon or return crew from the Moon without refueling on the Moon.
Whereas SpaceX doesn’t really have option of refueling on the Moon, it going to refuel in LEO. Though it could possibly land a Starship with some payload on the Moon without refueling in LEO. But if it refuels on LEO, it can return crew from the Moon.
If fully fuel in LEO, it been said, Starship could land 100 ton on Lunar surface and return crew from the Moon.
Oh, there another option, either could bring rocket fuel to Gateway, and return to Earth surface or orbit, and if return orbit, refuel in LEO, then return to Gateway, get the rocket fuel at Gateway and land on Lunar surface and return to Gateway and/or Earth.
Oh, I forgot, but SLS’s capsule suppose to take and return crew to Earth- until such time that either Starship or New Glenn have tested a Moon to Earth return as a demo {as SLS has done already- Artemis 1 and will have done again with crew in Artemis 2} before they can take any crew back to Earth.
What the guess for Oct temperature?
I don’t have one, it’s going down to 29 F tonite and do same
tomorrow.
Which isn’t unusual for almost being in Nov when I usually have bring my dwarf lemon tree.
Usually when cold here, it warm everywhere else, but it seems the bump we had over last two month has come down at some point.
–THEYRE JUST HERE TO DO THE CRIMES AMERICANS WONT: Venezuelas worst gangsters have crossed into the US illegally and are unleashing chaos in Dallas, Chicago and Miami with fearful residents saying theyve had tires slashed, windows shot out in retribution for reporting them to cops.
Posted at 10:38 am by Stephen Green —
https://instapundit.com/
Dow Jones is up today, though been crashing for a year.
Big corporations do just fine, well, until go bust and govt bails them out.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/djia
Why Elon Musk ardently approves of Bill Maher’s latest New Rule
–SpaceX, anxious to relaunch Starship, has been railing against FAA regulations. CEO Musk isn’t the only one who has a problem with red tape.–
Ian Krietzberg 5 hours ago
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/why-elon-musk-is-in-such-ardent-approval-of-bill-mahers-latest-new-rule
You all know what causes all these unnecessary laws/rules?
Big corporation which can’t compete in a free market.
Politicians are too lazy to do this, unless it involves funding for
the next election. And then they get there large staffs to write laws which involved staffs of corporations doing most of heavy lifting.
The WAIT Is on For The Next STARSHIP Launch | SpaceX Starbase Update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8n6yy5e3es
{the space cadets, or some of them, don’t like ship 26. I hope they use it as a test item for floating breakwater.}
Astute readers may envy Gaslighting Graham’s overconfidence:
First, the transmographer has been introduced by Moon Dragon cranks themselves in a related context. Second, if the transmographer is not equivalent to the plotter, then there’s every reason to consider its power alongside it. Third, it’s obvious that the transmographer can both translate and rotate.
Lastly, the plotter and the transmographer are far from being contraptions! At least not Nate’s or Tim’s. Wait – is Gaslighting Graham referring to his silly Moon glued to a pen?
Looks like my suspicions were confirmed in crossposting:
Something tells me that Gaslighting Graham has never used an X-Y plotter.
Perhaps he should stick to a transmographer!
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552842
So Tim suggests attaching a wooden horse to an XY plotter, and you have no problem with that, but a model moon is a step too far!? Little Willy is having another meltdown, methinks.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Yes, I have a problem with a Machiavellian prick who casually refers to an XY plotter that happens not to be an XY plotter at all, whence he just handwaves to a lmgtfy when being asked to clarify, and that, after *I* find the source to three different versions, realize that this prick modified the functionality of the version he borrows, without attribution it goes without saying, and while changing its intent. And all this while emphasizing the physical nature of what appears to be a mere thought experiment, it should go without saying.
I’ve seen people react to less sloppiness, if not downright malfeasance.
Lol, so you quoted from this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551895
but you didn’t read the whole thing!? It explains the XY plotter equipment and you were quoting from that comment to me earlier on in this discussion!
Then all of a sudden you just forgot what I meant by the XY plotter equipment!?
The whole thing seems a bit like you’re just trolling, Little Willy.
…and you didn’t notice this comment, from earlier today, when I explained it to you clearly enough?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552640
Gaslighting Graham only has trenches over trenches of pure defensiveness to show for himself.
The plotter-with-a-motor-and-a-Moon-that-rotates he “borrowed” from Tim without attribution has been presented to Barry to prove the opposite of what Tim wanted to prove when he created it.
Here is how he reintroduced the idea in the thread:
That’s supposed to mean something for someone else who isn’t in his head.
And this is on top of his usual litany of cryptic crap:
All this to say that the actual motion of the Moon follows a pure rotation.
The motion of the actual Moon can be described as a pure rotation.
That’s it. No need to invoke any other kind of fanfare.
***
The transmographer I cited comes exactly one comment before the one he’s lulzing about right now.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412379
I also quoted Nate’s X+Y plotter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552658
But these are not relevant, because they’re not part of Gaslighting Graham’s trenches.
You didn’t pay enough attention to the comment you quoted, you ignored my explanation earlier today of what the XY plotter equipment was, you mistook the XY plotter for the transmographer to such an extent that it completely confused your understanding of all my refutations of your arguments, and you let this go on for days before suddenly realising today that your understanding of the whole issue was off…and now you want to blame this all on me.
Hilarious.
Gaslighting Graham lulzes once more.
Once it is clear that this is the XY plotter he had in mind all along, his whole defensive maneuver falls down:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552941
Give it up, Little Willy.
Take a couple of days off, read through the thread, realise where you went wrong. It’s no big deal, unless you make it into one. Like you’re currently doing with this, your second consecutive meltdown on the same issue.
Gaslighting Graham, who swinged and missed on cancelling rotations today, gaslights again.
No, you just failed to understand this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552704
Never mind. You fail to understand most things.
Gaslighting Graham tries to dodge by handwaving to another quagmire.
Three of his tricks for the price of one!
Still can’t understand the comment? OK then.
Gaslighting Graham goes for the same fallacy as yesterday.
By now he should expect I will turn it against him until he gets it.
Do you, or do you not, understand the comment?
Gaslighting Graham reverses the burden of proof once more.
How can I prove that you understand it!?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Incorrect.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A plotter with a head that rotates can simulate a rotation around an axis external to this head. Just rotate its head as it translates on a circle. Same as with a transmographer, or any machine that can rotate and translate at the same time.
An external translation happens when the plotter glides on the circle. The motion can be described either as a general motion or an external rotation. It does not matter. They’re equivalent.
Because Gaslighting Graham does not see the arm rotating as with the CSAI Truther’s contraption, the motion absolutely needs to be different. There are differences: the contraption must rotate the Moon, whereas the plotter could simply translate; the Moon is attached to the Earth, which makes little physical sense; etc. These are more bugs than features. More on that later.
Nevertheless, the external rotation remains there, whether he wishes to see it or not.
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. b) Translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis.
Little Willy is once again reminding me of what I taught him, that a) and b) are equivalent. Thanks for the reminder, but I didn’t need it. I will just copy and paste from where I refuted him up-thread:
The transmographer (TM) is not equivalent to the XY plotter equipment (XY) because the TM could replicate the movement of the MOTL using only one transformation (rotation about an external axis) whereas the XY would need two (translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis). The XY cannot replicate movement of the MOTL using only one transformation.
Gaslighting Graham can’t resist digging more trenches:
Is that mud supposed to clarify anything? He even had to touch the concept of motion!
Nevertheless, the equivalence is about the range of motions that can be expressed with the devices, not their transformations. The transmographer and the plotter can replicate what the Moon actually does, and everything else. In fact they can replicate any 2D motion on a plane. As such we could call them general motion devices.
“Is that mud supposed to clarify anything?”
Yes, it clarifies that the transmographer can do something that the XY plotter cannot, thus they are not equivalent. You made a mistake, Little Willy. Just own it and move on.
Gaslighting Graham makes a good point.
His jargon indeed clarifies that according to Gaslighting Graham, the more ways he can describe a machine, the more that machine can do!
The transmographer can perform both the relevant (to this discussion) types of transformation, i.e. "rotation about an external axis" and "translation in a circle", each as "one single transformation". The XY plotter cannot perform "rotation about an external axis" as a single transformation. As in, physically it cannot! It doesn’t have the physical mechanism in place to allow that to be produced as a single transformation.
It would need some sort of arm to physically rotate the moon about a central, external axis…
Gaslighting Graham doubles down on his confusion.
The fact that, P H Y S I C A L L Y (as opposed to what – spiritually?) a machine can’t operate a motion in one transformation is of no relevance whatsoever. What counts is the range of motion the machine can do.
It doesn’t matter if a robot can traverse a building by hopping or walking. What matters is the range of motion it can accomplish overall.
The XY plotter equipment and the CSAItruth equipment neatly encapsulate each side of the debate, "Spinner" and "Non-Spinner". The transmographer can do it all, so it adds absolutely nothing to this particular debate.
Not that it doesn’t have it’s uses in other areas of the debate, of course. Like supporting my point 2).
Gaslighting Graham walks around what I just said and provides a commentary about the deep intuitions to justify why he chose his pet examples.
The transmographer can do rotation and translation. A plotter with a rotating head can do rotation and translation. That’s all I need to know to predict the range of motions I’ll be able to emulate with them. They’re general motion machines!
“Emulate,” “simulate,” and “replicate” have various meanings in the literature. But the basic idea is that a simulation is virtual, an emulation is physical, and a replication is epistemic. Implementation is going from the formal to the physical. Etc.
These words are not always coherent from one author to the next. I am mostly using them interchangeably here. So astute readers can identify them as distinctions without any tangible difference.
Since the XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment can each produce the same number of movements (e.g. MOTL, MOTR etc), your point up-thread that "the XY plotter can emulate the CSAI contraption but not vice versa" is wrong, so your "there might be a need to revisit how he still misrepresents independence" is also wrong…
…and the transmographer changes nothing about that.
Gaslighting Graham relitigates again and again.
Two machines having the same range of motion does not imply they’re the same machine, for goodness’ sake!
That’s right, they’re different machines.
And?
What part of
Gaslighting Graham does not get?
I will take it that you concede the point that “orbit” and “spin” are independent with the CSAItruth equipment.
Gaslighting Graham deflects to his most recent misunderstanding.
What else is new?
Sorry to “deflect” the discussion back on topic.
I know I’m correct. In fact I might add it to the list of points:
4) “Orbit” and “spin” are independent motions, as shown in the following video: https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
Here is the topic of this subthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552941
There is also a mention that “the contraption must rotate the Moon,” a point that either flies about Gaslighting Graham’s head or is ignored by him, probably because that forces him to admit that the CSAI Truther must invoke inverse rotations to cancel the rotation that imposes the absolutely fantastic external rotation that Gaslighting Graham insists on having.
Well, the external axis rotation (single transformation) is the “orbit”, Little Willy. Try to keep up. As that is independent from the “spin” with the CSAItruth equipment, when “orbiting” in one direction and “spinning” in the other, at a rate of once per “orbit”, you will of course get movement like the MOTR. When you “spin” in one direction and “orbit” in the same direction, at a rate of once per “orbit”, you get movement like in the first experiment. And when you “orbit” without “spinning”, you get movement like the MOTL.
… as observed from the MOTL inner circle.
Gaslighting Graham found another labyrinth for his logorrhea:
“That” should refer to The orbit, most probably. The rest is just irrelevant filler that acts as smoke and mirror. Let’s see how orbit and spin works in the contraption:
When the Earth rotates on its axis, the Moon changes direction. That’s the orbit. When the Moon rotates on its axis, the Moon also changes direction. That’s the spin.
Astute readers should smell a problem here.
Suppose you want to model a situation in which the Moon orbits, but the Man on the Moon never changes orientation. How do you that with the CSA Truther’s contraption? You spin the Moon clockwise while you rotate the Earth counterclockwise!
Think about it for one second. To create a pure translation, you need a rotation. To make the Moon not change orientation, you have to apply a transformation that changes orientation!
Translation depends on rotation. The orbit of the Moon depends on the rotation of the Earth. That is, shall we say, counterintuitive.
It probably is perfectly intuitive to Gaslighting Graham, so it all balances out.
Little Willy no longer has any argument as to why he thinks “orbit” and “spin” are not independent with the CSAItruth equipment. So he just tries to implore to readers that they should “smell a problem” and makes vague insinuations without ever getting specific as to what that problem actually is!
Gaslighting Graham, failing to understand another argument, gaslights again. Astute readers should already get how preposterous are his last two tricks. Let’s spell them out.
First, he claims that in *his* model, illustrated by the CSAI Truther’s contraption, spin and orbit are independent. Why? Here is how the motions are effectuated:
Moon orbit = Earth rotation
Moon spin = Earth rotation + Moon (cancelling) rotation
The Moon orbit obtains by spinning the Earth in the anticlockwise direction. A Moon spin obtains by the same Earth spin, but with a clockwise (internal) rotation of the Moon. The clockwise rotation cancels the anticlockwise rotation from orbiting.
Now, suppose you want to isolate the Moon spin. That is, you want only the Moon to spin. Objective: the Moon spins but does not orbit. How do you do that in that model? You can’t, Unless you have access to a bidirectional motor that you can activate on the fly.
Suppose you do, as I always supposed. Does the earlier correspondence work? No, you have to add another line:
Moon orbit = Earth rotation
Moon spin = Earth rotation + Moon (cancelling) rotation
Moon stationary spin = Moon anticlockwise rotation
So far so good. Now, suppose you want to make the Moon spin in a stationary fashion and you want the Earth to spin. Or that you want the the Earth to spin and the Moon to orbit in opposite directions.
Good luck with that. There are many things one can’t do when both the Moon and the Earth are interlocked together to simulate motions! This is what I mean when I said that this silly model has two dependent motions. It is the orbit-as-translation and spin-as-rotation that I was referring to, not his ball-on-string-like contraption! Who cares about that!
***
So that’s the first trick. What about the second trick? Simply this: that this correspondence table can’t be emulated by the other machines, thus it makes it more powerful! He’s using the autonomy of the Moon in general motion machines to argue for his contraption!
That’s just preposterous.
So there you have it. Once again, Gaslighting Graham fails to understand a point because he’s translating it into his own personal dictionary, and he’s willing to push his literalism to its most absurd conclusions instead of conceding anything.
I did not mean to make such a STRONG comment!
I forgot to fill the bracket after “This is what I mean” and for some reason the parser rendered something that could have been way worse!
"First, he claims that in *his* model, illustrated by the CSAI Truther’s contraption, spin and orbit are independent."
From each other, yes. Absolutely they are.
"Here is how the motions are effectuated:
Moon orbit = Earth rotation
Moon spin = Earth rotation + Moon (cancelling) rotation"
The Moon orbit obtains by spinning the Earth in the anticlockwise direction. A Moon spin obtains by the same Earth spin, but with a clockwise (internal) rotation of the Moon. The clockwise rotation cancels the anticlockwise rotation from orbiting."
What on Earth are you talking about? It doesn’t just have to be clockwise. The moon can "spin" in both directions, same as with the XY plotter equipment. Have the moon completely stationary…so don’t activate the "orbit" motor. You can now activate the "spin" motor, in either direction, and the moon spins either clockwise or anti-clockwise. "Spin" is completely independent from "orbit". You can also activate both motors together, and the motions combine. Anti-clockwise "spin" plus anti-clockwise "orbit" is illustrated in the first experiment. Clockwise "spin" plus anti-clockwise "orbit" is illustrated in the third experiment. Have you even watched the video? In the second experiment, only the "orbit" motor is activated, and the moon just "orbits", with no "spin".
"Now, suppose you want to make the Moon spin in a stationary fashion and you want the Earth to spin. Or that you want the the Earth to spin and the Moon to orbit in opposite directions."
The actual model Earth spinning or not spinning is completely irrelevant, Little Willy. I’m not saying the "orbit" is irrelevant. I’m saying the actual model Earth spinning or not spinning is completely irrelevant. Don’t you get that?
"What about the second trick? Simply this: that this correspondence table can’t be emulated by the other machines, thus it makes it more powerful! He’s using the autonomy of the Moon in general motion machines to argue for his contraption!"
What!? I’m arguing no such thing! I’ve repeatedly said that the XY plotter equipment and the CSAItruth contraption are equal. This entire post just reveals that you’ve paid absolutely no attention to anything I’ve said.
Watch as Little Willy now dismisses all this as a "quote fest" and repeats all the same mistakes over and over again.
Gaslighting Graham really has no business here:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM TODAY] What on Earth are you talking about? It doesn’t just have to be clockwise.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM YESTERDAY] Then it spins the moon in the opposite [direction] to the orbit in the third experiment, at a rate of once per orbit.
He’s entitled to his confusion.
Ah, what the hell. Another one for the road:
[GASLIGHTING TODAY] I’ve repeatedly said that the XY plotter equipment and the CSAItruth contraption are equal.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM EARLIER] The XY plotter can’t replicate the motion of the [real Moon] with only one single motion.
He’s certainly entitled to his own confusion.
First supposed confusion:
I said, "it doesn’t just have to be clockwise."
That does not mean that it can’t spin clockwise. Sheesh.
Second supposed confusion: The CSAItruth equipment can do something the XY plotter cannot, and the XY plotter can do something the CSAItruth equipment cannot. So, they’re equal.
Gaslighting Graham has every right to try not to understand what has been said.
He’s entitled to his gaslighting.
Little Willy loses another one, with his usual grace.
Gaslighting Graham’s meltdown continues.
My solidify-up continues.
Is Gaslighting Graham OK?
Perhaps he should take a break.
Yes, fine thanks. No break needed.
Looks like Little Willy is the one in need of help, since he apparently believes that the CSAItruth equipment can only "effectuate" spin in the clockwise direction, opposing the "orbit". It’s like he hasn’t watched the video at all. It’s literally the first experiment that they do. He spins the moon in the anti-clockwise direction, whilst it "orbits" anti-clockwise. What did Little Willy think was happening there?
I’d be fascinated to know what goes on in that tiny wee mind of his.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham tries to relitigate a topic that has been discussed elsewhere. No discipline. Always a bit disgraceful.
All this because he won’t accept that representing an orbit as a rotation carries a cost.
Oh well.
No worries. I will keep patiently explaining things.
…said Little Willy, without explaining his confusion over the CSAItruth equipment at all.
It can "spin" the moon in both directions. I thought you already understood that. It can do so independently of the "orbit".
…said Gaslighting Graham, without recognizing that he once again found a way to misunderstand what was being said.
Perhaps he should specify himself the CSA Truther’s contraption?
He already started elsewhere.
Should be fun.
I’m happy with the explanation I’ve already provided, over and over again, Little Willy.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham could link to the explanation that represents his position best. Meanwhile, astute readers may appreciate:
OPR stands for Objective Physical Reality, XY stands for the X-Y axes {1}, and MOTR is the Moon On The Right. The Right being the right side of his pet GIF of course, which he never cites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
According to this piercing remark, the Moon does not spin, for the XY plotter is “not spinning.” That is, “in” the Objective Physical Reality of the XY plotter. For if we take another tool, say the CSAI Truther’s contraption, another Objective Physical Reality obtains.
Models are that decisive.
A “movement” like the “MOTR” (by that our fellow only means that the Man on the Moon never changes direction) is obtained by “spinning” the Earth counterclockwise and “spinning” the Moon clockwise.
Thus the “motor of the Moon spin” is switched on and clockwise, and the “motor of the Earth spin” is switched on and counterclockwise. Which means that the Objective Physical Reality of the CSA Truther for the MOTR {2} is that the Moon spins clockwise while the Earth spins counterclockwise. According to that Objective Physical Reality, the Moon orbits because the Earth spins and the Moon spins clockwise.
Objective Physical Reality is quite powerful stuff. No need to invoke any physical law at all. It’s motors all the way down.
***
Astute readers may prefer the Boring Reality of Origin (BRO). According to BRO, the actual motion of the Moon is explained by the fact that it orbits thanks to gravity, and the fact that celestial objects (eo ipso the Moon) spin because of some primordial whirl they carry since they origin.
OPR or BRO – you be the judge!
{1} Incidentally, XY coordinates also appear on transmographers.
{2} Astute readers ought to get dizzy by then.
"According to this piercing remark, the Moon does not spin, for the XY plotter is “not spinning.” That is, “in” the Objective Physical Reality of the XY plotter. For if we take another tool, say the CSAI Truther’s contraption, another Objective Physical Reality obtains.
Models are that decisive."
No, no, Little Willy. It is nothing to do with "models", and everything to do with what’s physically occurring with the equipment.
1) When the XY plotter recreates movement like the MOTR, the "moon spin" motor is not engaged, thus the OPR is that the moon is not spinning.
2) When the CSAItruth equipment recreates movement like the MOTR, the "moon spin" motor is engaged, thus the OPR is that the moon is spinning.
1) and 2) above have nothing to do with "models". That’s just the OPR of what is occurring due to the constraints imposed by the equipment. Since "spin" is the same in both cases, we know the difference must lie in the other motion. "Orbit".
This debate, overall, is about what "orbit without spin" is. What is "orbital motion"? Is it best represented by the ball on a string…or do the "Spinners" finally have their own model for "orbit without spin" that they’d like to share?
Seeing celestial “orbit without spin” would be the MOTL observed from the wiki inner circle as DREMT has been informed for several years.
Ball still disagrees on point 3). He can go and argue that with Bindidon.
Gaslighting Graham spreads more layers of profundity:
What is “it”? Let’s hope it’s not the plotter or the contraption, for that’s exactly what they are. The contraption is a toy model, with an arm that connects cardboard shapes with images of the Earth and the Moon on them! The plotter too is even less material: it’s a thought experiment to show what happens if we replace the arm of the contraption with a XY plotter and put a rotational head on it.
As for how these devices implement the motion they’re supposed to model, who cares? Looking under the hood only helps for validation. We only check if it meets our specification. Only the specification matters, which is why I introduced the concept of transformation.
The whole idea of introducing an acronym like “OPR” to speak of implementation is beyond caricature. And to make what point: that the main area of disagreement is how the concept of orbit is conceived? Even astute readers who recently joined the exchange know that! There’s no Very Deep realization there.
This disagreement needs not be solved with geometry. And considering the equivalence between external rotation and translation with internal rotation, it might be possible. But even if it did, it’d be utterly useless, for we’re trying to solve a physics problem.
In fact, we can reduce the whole ordeal to a very simple question:
What physical force keeps the Man on the Moon facing us?
The Man on the Moon keeps facing us. What physical force does that: gravity? How does gravity “rotate” the Moon?
Nothing else matters much. Moon Dragon cranks won’t face that question. We’ll get more of “until everybody agrees about my bridge, nobody will cross it” tolling. So we dance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kjLBkLqgBo
> it might be possible
It might not be possible.
“What is “it”?”
“It” was the point I was making.
“And to make what point: that the main area of disagreement is how the concept of orbit is conceived? Even astute readers who recently joined the exchange know that! There’s no Very Deep realization there.”
If only you knew the trouble I’ve been through to get others to realise that.
Then Gasligthing Graham needs to concede that all these models distract him from making that point.
Once he agrees that an external rotation is equivalent to an internal rotation and a translation, there’s nothing to be gained from these models. Except to show how clunky joining two transformations into one can become, it should go without saying.
You are the one agreeing that “an external rotation is equivalent to an internal rotation and a translation”, I’m the one who taught you that…and you agreeing to it is tacitly accepting that my point 2) is correct, by the way. Well done.
Why do you guys argue endlessly about specific equipment, neither of which operate like the Moon or planets?
Their capabilities prove nothing about the motion of the Moon.
The issues are how to describe MOTION, which should not change with equipment.
It seems to me that all agree that the motions can be reproduced with combinations of rotations and translations, as seen with the Transmographer.
ROTATION and TRANSLATION of a body in the rest frame are well defined and all seem to agree on what they mean.
It appears that the only disagreement is over self-defined labels on the motions.
SPIN, ORBIT
There is no sound reason to use the word SPIN, since it is a vague colloquial word without a universal science definition.
There is no sound rationale for anyone to invent a different definition of ORBIT, since it already has a universal definition that all can agree on.
The word “spin” is four letter long and it obviously refers to a rotation on an internal axis. There’s no problem with that word. No Ball-on-string fanatic has ever taken issue with it.
The word “orbit” is perfectly fine too. To say “The Moon orbits and spins” is short and quite natural. The concept of orbit in scientific discourse is usually clarified using equations, not affine geometry.
As a scientific discussion, the whole issue has very little merit. As a study of how contrarians use rhetorical tactics to stall and stick around even if they have been refuted a thousand times, it’s worth gold.
Haven’t been refuted once, let alone a thousand times, Little Willy. Points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless of who is right overall on the moon issue, so they cannot be refuted.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
False.
“The word spin is four letter long and it obviously refers to a rotation on an internal axis. Theres no problem with that word. No Ball-on-string fanatic has ever taken issue with it.”
But the definition is not agreed upon, since you think the Monn fixed to the arm produces both orbit and spin. And DREMT does not.
“The word orbit is perfectly fine too.”
It is well defined in dictionaries.
But DREMT is unsatisfied with the dictionary definitions. So makes his own definition of it, which he bizarrely changes depending on the equipment used.
“the definition is not agreed upon”
Show me.
***
“It is well defined in dictionaries”
Oh, you mean that the concept of spin is not well defined in dictionaries?
Oh, is Nate talking about "definitions" again? I’m getting that from Little Willy’s responses. He used to talk about that, back when I bothered reading his comments. He would always point out how "orbit" was just defined as a "path", or "trajectory", with the definition not mentioning anything about the orientation of the object. In most cases, that is correct (apart from the various sources I used to present where "revolution" was defined as "rotation about an external axis").
However, that ambiguity in the majority of definitions doesn’t help settle this argument. Of course, Nate used to pretend that an "orbit" being just a path or trajectory somehow supported the "Spinners", when obviously it does not. Not any more than it supports the "Non-Spinners"! In both the mental models, an orbiting body is of course following a path, or trajectory. So, that settles nothing. With the XY plotter machine, the model moon follows a path, or trajectory. With the CSAItruth equipment, the model moon follows a path, or trajectory. So…that definition is inconclusive from the point of view of settling this debate!
The fact is, "Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as being motion like the MOTR. The movement of the MOTR involves orientation (specifically, the moon moving around in a circle whilst maintaining the same orientation). Thus their internal definition of "orbit without spin" involves orientation. Just like the "Non-Spinners", who see "orbit without spin" as being motion like the MOTL.
So excluding orientation from the definition of "orbit" ultimately solves nothing.
Show me.
You guys both define SPIN as internal rotation, which seems fine, turns out to be vague, since, the MOTL either does or does not have SPIN, depending on who you ask.
It either does or does not have SPIN according to the device.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that according to you, me, DREMT, and most others:
-the MOTL has ROTATION (orientational change), in the inertial frame.
-the MOTL is ORBITing.
-the MOTR has no ROTATION in the inertial frame.
-the MOTR is ORBITing.
So it seems we agree when using the words ORBIT and ROTATION, as universally defined in dictionaries.
The only time we don’t agree is when non-universal definitions are used for ORBIT and SPIN.
Gaslighting Graham interposes himself in a subthread in which I am discussing with someone he said he was not responding to. That’s just how honest and decent he is.
Astute readers can easily see through his fog of war. Scientists usually say that a celestial body orbits around another, and that they rotate around themselves {1}.
Since Moon Dragon cranks hold that the Moon does not rotate on itself but rotates around an external axis, to speak of rotation the way scientists confuse their viewpoint. So they introduce the concept of spin instead for better distinction. Fine with me.
Spin it is. Now, what about orbit? Our cranks insist that it can be described as an external rotation. Does that make any physical sense? Not at all, hence why scientists seldom {2} interpret orbits that way.
Let’s indulge our cranks and consider the possibility. An orbit is an external rotation, just like a ball on a string. And spin is a internal rotation, the same concept as rotation. Astute readers could ask themselves – where’s translation? Without that transformation, it’s be hard to model anything else than a ball on string. Recall how tortuous was the CSAI Truther’s contraption just to represent the right side of Gaslighting Graham’s pet GIF!
This returns us to the reason why scientists say that the Moon rotates instead of saying that it spins. Associating an orbit to a translation and spin to a rotation is quite natural, for it is clearly how the motions work in the physical world. {2} In the real world, the Moon does not orbit because the Earth rotates, as in CSAI’s Truther contraption or with the Ball on string. When we use rotations both for orbit and spin, the motions themselves become dependent on one another. This makes our model very fragile.
To move things forwards, Moon Dragon cranks need to come up with a physical model. Not mere “intuition pumps” (h/t Daniel Dennett) around the concept of rotation. But workable, numerical models, with equations. That’s where they get stuck, and that’s why Gaslighting Graham plays his silly word games.
Astute readers will notice that Moon Dragon cranks are simply exploiting a confusion between formal and material modes of speech in the scientists’ terminology. Orbit refers to a motion, and rotation refers to a transformation. Nobody ever gets confused by it. Only literalists like Gaslighting Graham do.
That, I believe, solves the Moon Dragon crank puzzle.
Thank you.
{1} No, it’s not scientists that rotate around themselves. It’s celestial bodies. But were scientists celestial bodies, they’re rotate too. Every celestial body known to mankind rotates on itself.
{2} Prudence in quantifying usage suffices to parry GG’s pet content farm entry.
FYI, a distant observer doesnt need to know or observe anything about spin or rotation of a moon to measure its orbital properties.
Thus Galileo looked through his primitive telescope and could determine the ORBITS of Jupiter’s moons.
The later observations of their rotations, axes, etc did not change their ORBITS in the least.
Because they are independent motions!
Little Willy writes another long essay in which he again asserts that "orbit" and "spin" are dependent with the CSAItruth/"Non-Spinner" model. He’s wrong about that, as I have patiently and comprehensively demonstrated already. So, let’s destroy Little Willy’s essay another way. Let’s simplify.
1) The objective physical reality (OPR) is that the model moon is spinning in the third experiment in the CSAItruth video, where movement like the MOTR is created. We know that’s the case, because there is a motor physically turning the moon about its own internal axis.
2) The OPR with the XY plotter, when it recreates the exact same movement, is that the model moon is not spinning. The "moon spin" motor is switched off when movement like the MOTR occurs.
The difference between the two scenarios is not "spin". We know what that is. We know it’s initiated by the "moon spin" motor. The difference between the two scenarios is what "orbit without spin" is. Is "orbit without spin" motion like the MOTL or the MOTR? That’s still the only relevant question.
Gaslighting Graham tries to evade another argument by trying to inject two talking points that have already been refuted elsewhere:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553572
He soldiers on, entitled to his opinion.
> Because they are independent motions!
Preach.
You’ve refuted nothing. You can’t even address what I’ve said.
Gaslighting Graham’s meltdown amplifies.
My solidify-up amplifies.
Is Gaslighting Graham OK?
Perhaps he should take a break.
Yes, fine thanks. No break needed.
Then perhaps Gaslighting Graham should find back a recent comment he made that should belong here.
The only comment that belongs here is a PST.
Astute readers will observe that there is no comment from Gaslighting Graham that belongs in this subthread.
That one is between me and Nate.
“We know thats the case, because there is a motor physically turning the moon about its own internal axis.”
So here again, DREMT decides to define SPIN as motion added with a motor in this apparatus.
Fine! Let him have this self-definition useful for this apparatus.
But not at all useful for planetary motion lacking motors!
Astute readers will have noticed Little Willy’s obvious baiting in his 6:29 PM comment from yesterday.
In fairness, spin indeed comes from some kind of “motor”:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis
Astute readers will note the word “spin.”
But if the Moon rotates when it orbits, where does that rotation come from: the “motor” of the Moon?
Sooner or later, Moon Dragon cranks will have to elaborate their conception of how the Earth “rotates” the Moon!
Indeed, once points 1) – 4) have been acknowledged by all "Spinners" as being correct, then we will have to get into discussing what "orbit without spin" really is!
I look forward to it.
As astute readers already anticipated:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553838
I look forward to it.
A PREVIEW
https://tinyurl.com/tim-and-graham-on-torques
We’ll see. Do you agree on all points 1) – 4) yet, Little Willy?
Perhaps if Gaslighting Graham acknowledged that his latest revision of the concept of spin based on Pupman’s hint was overly silly, he’d have more bargaining power.
All of a sudden, Little Willy goes from:
“The word “spin” is four letter long and it obviously refers to a rotation on an internal axis. There’s no problem with that word.”
to not knowing what “spin” is any more. All to prolong the discussion.
All of a sudden Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, oblivious to his profound misapplication of the concept of spin.
Perhaps he forgets that the Milky Way spins at 210 km/sec?
…which does not mean that everything within the Milky Way is rotating on its own internal axis.
Gaslighting Graham always makes one inference, never two at the same time.
So the Milky Way spins. Is that a celestial body like the Moon? No, it’s a celestial object, a system of celestial bodies. This example shows that systems can spin.
Now, what is spinning in the CSA Truther’s contraption? Not what does the spinning. It can be a body, an object, a system. We know that the Earth or the Moon spin.
What about the arm – does it spin? What about the system as a whole? How do we determine if something spins?
Checking for the motors is all well and good, but that’s certainly not enough!
Answering these questions might help expand how “ball-on-stringers” such as Graham conceive the concept of rotation along an internal axis!
Little Willy is off on one again. Another meltdown. Expect a new thread to be posted soon enough.
Gaslighting Graham’s cognitive energy is completely depleted.
Perhaps if you could just concede any point, ever, I might be able to feel re-energised and like there is some point to all this. Then we can continue this endless, draining discussion afresh. Is there really none of the points 1) – 4) that you can just openly admit is correct? Considering I’m correct on all 4 it shouldn’t be difficult. Surely you can at least admit I’m right on 2) and 4)!? You have tacitly agreed on 2) a hundred times over, but refuse to make your agreement explicit.
Gaslighting Graham already tried that one. Here’s how it ended:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1550707
Perhaps he should lighten up.
Fine, suit yourself. Find somebody else to troll.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham “forgets” that he’s a subthread in response to one of Nate’s comments.
Astute readers may suggest that he gets lost.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For good measures, here’s why Nate introduced his X-Y plotter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-379459
The X-Y plotter has not been introduced to model the full motion of the Moon, but to explain why the orbit should be a translation, (i.e., because, engineering)!
And here’s Mighty Tim’s X-Y plotter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757424
So not only Gaslighting Graham stole Mighty Tim’s idea, but he elides what Tim proved with it, i.e. that reference frames indeed matter!
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, and the discussion we’ve had involving the CSAItruth equipment and the XY plotter helped explain that quite clearly to any astute readers, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552003
In Tim’s comment, the horse would appear to be rotating on its own axis, wrt the reference frame that he chose. However, if instead your reference frame:
a) has its origin at the COM of the merry-go-round.
b) has its axes aligned East, North, and Up (i.e aligned with the fixed ground).
Then you can now get the bigger picture. Wrt that reference frame, you could describe the movement of the horse as:
1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
So we now see that only if 2) is the right description, could the wooden horse really be rotating on its own internal axis. However, that description does not match what is actually, physically occurring with the wooden horse on the merry-go-round, whereas 1) does.
However, in his a) – d) description, he ends with a situation like the XY plotter equipment from our discussion. In that, 2) would be the appropriate description, since that is what is actually, physically occurring with the wooden horse there.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his ready-made stock of non-responses.
This, by Mighty Tim:
is what is meant when Gaslighting Graham’s opponents keep reminding him that frames of reference matter.
But since he is hiding behind some kind of “frames do not resolve the moon issue,” he’s safe to repeat the same crap ad nauseam.
Not without trying to bait me with his silly plotter-non-plotter and contraption for about the 30th time today.
Some people think it’s as simple as saying, “the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, but it doesn’t wrt a non-inertial reference frame”, and they think that’s it. Argument over. Well, those people are wrong, and that’s what I mean by “reference frames do not resolve the moon issue”.
Other people can simplify the whole ordeal to general motion is just better, which means that Gaslighting Graham is fighting about something that can be settled by five words.
All the hours Gaslighting Graham spent creating absurdist strong points centered on irrelevant talking points could have been spent coding the damn thing. He could try to turn this into something creative, worthy of reading, with heart and soul, at least with the honor he pretends to live by.
The last thing that needs to be traced before this sad sire is ignored for good (not like what he does to Nate, that’s just sleezy and dishonest) is the variety of loops he constantly interjects, along specific sequences. There is some art behind his gaslighting.
Describing the movement of the MOTL as general plane motion means that you are saying it is the sum of two transformations, a translation in a circle plus a rotation on an internal axis. However, the real “Spinner” argument is that the movement of the MOTL is the sum of two motions, “orbit” and “spin”, where “orbit” is a translation in a circle (meaning movement like the MOTR), and “spin” is a rotation on an internal axis.
So, describing the movement of the MOTL as general plane motion actually just obfuscates and hides the real issue, which is, as always: is “orbit without spin” motion like the MOTL or the MOTR?
And so Gaslighting Graham once again returns to his archaic crap that has nothing to do with what I just said.
What he calls “the real issue” is not a real issue at all. Everybody’s free to describe anything as they please. Nobody cares about his “MOTL,” “MOTR,” “spinner,” “orbit without spin” and what not. If that builds him a following, more power to him. So far the research programme has yet bootstrap itself.
Here is a real question: how would a model of the motion of the Moon such as he would prefer work? Until he or any other Moon Dragon produces a numerical model that rests on sounds physics, he’s just kidding himself. Astute readers may see that
he shies away from having to deal with physics, because he sucks at physics and there are physicists in the house.
If he ever wanted to construct a model with a Moon that does not spin, he could very well use translation and rotation to describe just about every bit of motion he pleases. General motion applies generally! There is nothing it can’t describe.
Is this where Little Willy furiously paints himself as a “Non-Spinner” by claiming that “orbit without spin” can be modelled using rotation and translation, then gets mad and accuses me of gaslighting for pointing out that this makes him a “Non-Spinner”!?
More goading by Gaslighting Graham.
Since he has no more argument, I consider the matter settled in favor of Team Science.
“If he ever wanted to construct a model with a Moon that does not spin, he could very well use translation and rotation to describe just about every bit of motion he pleases.”
So a moon that does not spin can be modelled with translation and rotation. That means rotation about an external axis, obviously, since you said a moon that does not spin. As soon as you introduce that transformation for a non-spinning moon, you know you will have motion more like the MOTL than the MOTR.
So “orbit without spin” would be as per the MOTL.
Meaning you are in agreement with the “Non-Spinners”.
… that observe from the surface of the Earth.
More jargon by Gaslighting Graham:
He’s just returning to his silly idea that the Moon must be some kind of ball on string. As if it was responsive or anything.
It must be cumbersome to always have to translate what everyone says in his own private language.
But then he responded. So it’s all good. The game is on.
"If he ever wanted to construct a model with a Moon that does not spin, he could very well use translation and rotation to describe just about every bit of motion he pleases."
So a moon that does not spin can be modelled with translation and rotation. That means rotation about an external axis, obviously, since you said a moon that does not spin. As soon as you introduce that transformation for a non-spinning moon, you know you will have movement more like the MOTL than the MOTR, since external axis rotation will change the orientation of the moon.
So, “orbit without spin” would be more like the MOTL than the MOTR.
Meaning you are in agreement with the “Non-Spinners”.
More subtile subtitles by Gaslighting Graham.
If one can agree with non-spinners and still believes that the Moon spins, either that makes him a non-spinner or that makes the whole non-spinner thing completely undetermined.
So Gaslighting Graham has no other choice than to believe that this person is a non-spinner!
Or, option 3) it reveals that Little Willy has not properly thought through the consequences of describing "orbit without spin" as general plane motion.
Gaslighting Graham makes an interesting suggestion for once.
He’s suggesting that how I interpret the concept of spin will stop the Moon from spinning.
Oh I wish.
He should report to Pupman. He’s not a fan of those who try to change reality with their word games.
"He’s suggesting that how I interpret the concept of spin will stop the Moon from spinning."
No, not "spin", Little Willy. It’s how you interpret the other motion: "orbit without spin" (or "orbit" for short) that matters. .
More word games by Gaslighting Graham.
Will he be able to change reality with them?
Asking for physicists.
I just point out the logical consequences of your own words, Little Willy. You then get upset by it. That’s not my fault, however. It’s your fault.
” Its how you interpret the other motion: “orbit without spin” (or “orbit” for short) that matters. .”
There is no ambiguity in dictionaries, in the minds of astronomers, physicists, or engineers about what ‘orbit’ means.
Gaslighting Graham goes for logic:
That’s a big ask, for I know what I mean, and I know that what I mean is shared by a community of scientists that interpret the world differently than Moon Dragon cranks.
It’s also a form of gaslighting. First, because he’s basically suggesting that I don’t really know what I mean. Second, because he never really spells out that famous logical consequence. It’s always under some form of innuendo.
I wouldn’t mind the logical demonstration that the belief that the Moon spins and orbits implies it does not spin!
And no, redefining “orbit” does not count.
6:53 AM was the clearest explanation, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham handwaves again, this time to this gem:
The first claim is too narrow: Moon that spins too can be modeled as translation and rotation. It is general motion!
The second claim is simply false. An external rotation eliminates the need for translation. Hasn’t he followed his own argument over the years to that effect? Good grief.
At this point that becomes pure bait.
The first "claim" was simply repeating what you said, Little Willy. The second "claim" is so obviously correct it should go without saying. If we’re talking about modelling a moon that does not spin (which you were), and you’re saying it can be modelled with rotation and translation, then obviously you must and can only mean external axis rotation. No spin, remember!?
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb so well sometimes I think he’s just Mike Flynn with a thesaurus.
“If the Moon does not spin, then we can model using general motion” does not imply that we can’t model a Moon that spins with general motion. Nor does it imply that I believe does not spin. Being able to understand a position does not make be a proponent of it!
Little Willy, to be a "Spinner" you have to believe that "orbit without spin" is purely translation (think MOTR). Just so long as you realise that…
Gaslighting Graham graces us with glorious galimatias.
Spinners hold that the Moon spins. That’s it.
…and what I said.
The claim that the Moon spins does not in any way imply whatever MOTL-MOTR mumbo jumbo Gaslighting Graham is trying to convey as some kind of deduction.
Little Willy still fails to grasp the absolute basics of this discussion. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. That’s OK.
We’re so far from the original point that this has all stemmed from.
You said that with the CSAItruth equipment, “orbit” and “spin” were not independent. You had a colossal meltdown about it, saying that it was the simplest refutation of the whole “Non-Spinner” position and all the rest of it. I brought up the XY plotter (yes, my silly version with the model moon attached to the pen with a motor to rotate it on its internal axis) and you decided that “orbit” and “spin” were independent for that but not with the CSAItruth equipment!
Then you introduced the transmographer, and I am starting to think you did this just to obfuscate. Yes, it obviously can rotate objects about an external or internal axis and translate objects. So it combines elements of both the CSAItruth equipment and the XY plotter…so doing nothing to help resolve anything.
The XY plotter is meant to represent the “Spinner” position, and the CSAItruth equipment the “Non-Spinner” position. What, then, does the transmographer represent? Both positions!?
Sheesh.
After sending me after a wild goose chase for a day, Gaslighting Graham declares himself the King of Topics.
Perhaps he forget that I already told him I would be returning to his misrepresentation of independence over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552525
The only comment to which he did not respond so far.
I can offer the TL;DR – his argument is ridiculouser than it looks at first!
We have already settled the argument up-thread that both the CSAItruth equipment and the XY plotter equipment treat “orbit” and “spin” as independent motions. There is nothing more to be said on the subject. All it will be is further confusion on your part, if you do try to continue.
I will certainly not be responding on that issue there, as I only intend responding once per day at that location. Which, as you know, is why I haven’t responded to your ignorant comment yet.
Gaslighting Graham is a gift that keeps on giving:
He says stuff. That settles it.
OK, well astute readers can judge for themselves, reading through from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1551436
As far as I’m concerned, it’s settled. All the arguments have been made. Everything you raised, I refuted.
If you have something to add, please do.
Gaslighting Graham returns to what he always does: tying himself in knots while doing exactly what he said he would not do.
Another tick in the “Machiavellian prick” box.
Woolly Wee Willy,
Have you figured out where the IR emitted by ice goes, when the ice is fully submerged?
No?
Why am I not surprised?
If you have nothing substantive to add, then the issue remains settled.
Gaslighting Graham self-seals himself in a fallacy.
So, you have no further arguments. OK then!
Gaslighting Graham is asking for more argument in a thread that was mostly documentary.
He shall get one:
Suppose a device that translates and rotates at the same time.
As it traverses a circle, it creates a rotation around the center of that circle.
Can we say that this device only translates?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You can say anything you like. Why do you need to ask permission?
You can say that you can describe the GHE if you want. I suppose you will say that you have to ask permission of Mike Flynn first. Why is that?
You are a strange but curiously diverting chappie, always good for a laugh!
Carry on.
“Suppose a device that translates and rotates at the same time.”
Meaning it rotates around an internal axis, presumably.
“As it traverses a circle, it creates a rotation around the center of that circle.”
If it translates around a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis it can replicate a motion equivalent to a “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. However it does so using two transformations whereas a device like the CSAtruth equipment can replicate that motion with only one.
“Can we say that this device only translates?”
You can say it only translates and rotates about an internal axis.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] You can say it only translates and rotates about an internal axis.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The XY plotter pen can only translate. Then there is a moon attached to the pen with a motor to rotate it on its own internal axis. Thats it.
And so another equivocation by Gaslighting Graham.
I said “plotter” and he heard “plotter pen,” that is the part of the head that does not matter at all for his actual point.
Glorious.
Sure, no contradiction or inconsistency between those two comments. The XY plotter pen can only translate, and with the moon attached that means the moon translates along with it. The motor means the moon can rotate about an internal axis, thus the moon can only translate and rotate about an internal axis with that equipment. Those are the only two transformations that the XY plotter equipment permit.
On an unrelated note, I’ll amend this earlier paragraph for clarity:
"If it translates around a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis, it can move like the MOTL. However it does so using two transformations, whereas a device like the CSAItruth equipment can replicate that movement with only one."
Sure, Gaslighting Graham can repair just about any incompatibility by redefining things on the fly. It’s when he does that about what other people says that it amounts to gaslighting.
When I say that the plotter emulates the transmographer, I’m not talking about the plotter’s pen. But when he’s insisting that the plotter’s pen only translates, then it’s easy to think that he’s referring to Nate’s setup. After all, a real plotter only translates!
So why does he think I’m referring to the plotter pen? It is completely irrelevant to a model he did not completely introduced!
He still has yet to come to terms that independence refers to motion, not transformation, so OK. Baby steps.
The model moon can only translate and rotate about an internal axis with that equipment. Those are the only two transformations that the XY plotter equipment permit.
"He still has yet to come to terms that independence refers to motion, not transformation, so OK. Baby steps."
No, Little Willy, I’ve absolutely "come to terms" with that. The XY plotter only allows the two transformations "translation" and "rotation about an internal axis". The CSAItruth equipment only allows the two transformations "rotation about an external axis" and "rotation about an internal axis". Since the latter transformation in either case is equal to the motion "spin", then the former transformation in either case must be equal to the motion "orbit".
Since obviously the two transformations are independent for each piece of equipment, the two motions ("orbit" and "spin") must be also.
Gaslighting Graham tries to work around his confusion:
From a guy who keeps rooting for a model in which the Moon’s orbit and spin are a single external rotation, no less.
He even insists that this unicity is what makes his model so special that no other model can really replicate it!
I’m not the one confused, Little Willy.
The motions "orbit" and "spin" are independent for both pieces of equipment.
The difference is that for the CSAItruth equipment, "orbit" consists of the single transformation "rotation about an external axis" (think MOTL), and for the XY plotter "orbit" consists of the single transformation "translation in a circle" (think MOTR).
Gaslighting Graham tries to build himself a dictionary:
Let’s help out.
“Orbit” refers to the motion of the Moon around the Earth.
“Spin” refers to the motion of the Moon onto itself.
In the CSAI Truther model, orbit is characterized (described, represented, etc. – I use “characterized” because it’s kinda important to the whole endeavour) by an external rotation.
That rotation changes the orientation of the Moon.
A change of orientation is called a transformation. That transformation is called a rotation. That rotation can be interpreted as external or internal.
That interpretation is irrelevant to the fact that the Moon changed orientation.
The Moon moved onto itself.
It spun.
So orbit and spin are interlocked.
a) I mount a toy horse on the vertical shaft of a motor and turn the motor on. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
b) I mount the motor on an x-y plotter (https://www.robotshop.com/media/files/images2/makeblock-xy-plotter-robot-kit-no-electronics-desc1.jpg). The plotter moves left/right at various speeds as the motor continues to turn. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
c) the plotter moves forward/backward at various speeds. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
d) the plotter moves in left/right & forward/backward in just the right way to move in a circle at the same rate the motor is spinning. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757424
In semantic terms, here’s what Gaslighting Graham did.
Take two dictionaries, D1 and D2. In D1, characterize “orbit” as a translation, and “spin” as a rotation. In D2, characterize “orbit” as an external rotation. Observe that D1 is equivalent to D2.
So in effect the concept of orbit on which Moon Dragon cranks bet their farm subsumes the concepts of orbit and spin everybody use elsewhere {1}.
For Moon Dragon cranks, the Moon orbits, it does not spin. For everybody else, it orbits and it spins. According to Gaslighting Graham, this does not imply that orbit and spin are made dependent.
Such a giant at creating dictionaries. What is he doing here? He should work at Google. They need formal buffs like him.
{1} But only for one specific case. A case that breaks down for every other configuration the Moon could ever have. When the Moon changes more orientation than the Earth does, only then it truly spins! This is all so ridiculous.
In semantic terms, here’s what Gaslighting Graham did.
Take two dictionaries, D1 and D2. In D1, characterize “orbit” as a translation, and “spin” as a rotation. In D2, characterize “orbit” as an external rotation. Observe that D1 is equivalent to D2.
So in effect the concept of orbit on which Moon Dragon cranks bet their farm subsumes the concepts of orbit and spin everybody use elsewhere {1}.
For Moon Dragon cranks, the Moon orbits, it does not spin. For everybody else, it orbits and it spins. According to Gaslighting Graham, this does not imply that orbit and spin are made dependent.
Such a giant at creating dictionaries. What is he doing here? He should work at Google. They need formal buffs like him.
{1} But only for one specific case. A case that breaks down for every other configuration the Moon could ever have. When the Moon changes more orientation than the Earth does, only then it truly spins! This is all so ridiculous.
"The Moon moved onto itself.
It spun."
No, the moon changed orientation. That means rotation has taken place, but not necessarily rotation about an internal axis, or "spin". It could be rotation about an external axis, with no "spin".
You make the same mistake every time. In other words, you can’t learn.
Since you can’t learn, we make no progress. Hence the discussions go on indefinitely.
"Take two dictionaries, D1 and D2. In D1, characterize “orbit” as a translation, and “spin” as a rotation. In D2, characterize “orbit” as an external rotation. Observe that D1 is equivalent to D2."
No, D1 would not be equivalent to D2. In D1, "orbit" would be like the MOTR. In D2, "orbit" would be like the MOTL. Two completely different ways of moving!
Little Willy reaches peak confusion.
Gaslighting Graham denies once more:
So a pure external rotation does not equal a translation and a pure internal rotation anymore?
Good to know.
It does, but that’s not what you said, is it?
Here’s what you said:
"Take two dictionaries, D1 and D2. In D1, characterize “orbit” as a translation, and “spin” as a rotation. In D2, characterize “orbit” as an external rotation. Observe that D1 is equivalent to D2."
The D2 dictionary will still have "spin" as an internal axis rotation, same as in D1. So the two dictionaries are not equivalent, the difference being what is meant by "orbit".
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once more.
Here’s what I said:
In D1, there is a translation and a rotation.
In D2, there is an external rotation.
To say that D1 and D2 are equivalent is to say that translation and rotation is equivalent to an external rotation.
Equivalence and transformations are formal properties. Not orbit and spin.
Dictionaries are a list of words with their meanings.
If you say that "orbit" means one thing in one dictionary, and another thing in another dictionary, then those two dictionaries are not equivalent, are they!?
Gee whizz.
Gaslighting Graham pontificates:
Dictionaries are equivalent if their meanings are interchangeable.
Orbit and spin from D1 is synonymous to orbit in D2.
But of course Gaslighting Graham, being the little Machiavellian prick that he is, will try to make believe that what I’m really saying is that “orbit” means the same thing in both dictionaries, or that I should mean it, or whatever.
He’s trying so hard to misunderstand.
So Little Willy doesn’t understand how dictionaries work. We’ll add that to the list of things he doesn’t understand.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
My character was based on a guy who was made famous by offering an argument against (strictly analytic) synonymy. His main thought experiment is based on the idea of a translation manual. The dictionaries I’m discussing have three words in them. Only to illustrate that Moon Dragon cranks interpret the concept of orbit like everyone else interpret orbit and spin. I could simply say that an external rotation is equivalent to a translation and an internal rotation and be done with it.
However, merely stating a geometric theorem wouldn’t explain Gaslighting Graham’s bag of tricks. The dictionary games does. Our Machiavellian prick is simply twisting and turning between various modes of speech. Equivocation is his main weapon. Mindless literalism is a close second.
No, I am just an honest man trying his best to express himself as clearly as possible.
An honest man would never use all the bag of tricks Gaslighting Graham used over the years to stall every single exchange in which he is involved. Not to simply inflate a problem that revolves around (pun intended) a basic equality between transformations. Not to create an endless prolegomenon before Moon Dragon crank physics. And certainly not to always kick things out with you-and-him fight games!
Mostly either false accusations or too vague to rebut. On the "you and him fight games"…well, I think that "Spinner" should be able to argue against "Spinner" where they very clearly disagree. Otherwise, we’ll get nowhere. I can’t do everything.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I am just an honest man
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, TO PUPMAN] decent human being, stay.
I am entitled to my opinion.
I’m just now catching up with the latest effort from the cult to pervert reality. Apparently Folkerts put out some more of his fraud. He mounted a toy horse on the vertical shaft of a motor so that the horse was “spinning”, ie, rotating about its CoM axis.
No problem so far.
Then Folkerts moves the assembly around, somehow trying to assert that means Moon is also spinning???
Something that is spinning is spinning. But something that is NOT spinning is NOT spinning.
The toy horse is spinning. Moon is NOT spinning.
I’m sure Gaslighting Graham is glad that you kick that can down again, Pupman:
Got a quote to support your “trying to assert”?
As far as I can tell, only the CSAI Truther asserts that the Moon does not spin because his model can’t make her spin without some unnatural cancelling trick.
Willard,
You have given up on trying to describe the GHE, have you? Maybe you could try lying, and say that Mike Flynn, for example, had described the impossible GHE. Or me, or maybe the Man in the Moon! You do seem a little obsessed with the Moon at the moment.
If the GHE is proving too much for you, you could always try describing what happens to the IR photons emitted by ice at 270 K, which is totally submerged in water.
The ice is definitely emitting IR (it is certainly above absolute zero), so why doesn’t the water totally surrounding the ice get hotter?
Oh well, maybe you should just keep talking nonsense about the Moon. Does that make you a lunatic, or just an average confused and ignorant SkyDragon cultist?
The world wonders.
“…Moon does not spin because his model can’t make her spin without some unnatural cancelling trick.”
His model spins the moon in the same direction as the orbit in the first experiment, Little Willy, at a rate of once per orbit. So, you’re wrong again.
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TK_f2NMvqg-JESJf
Then it spins the moon in the opposite motion to the orbit in the third experiment, at a rate of once per orbit.
Gaslighting Graham equivocates again.
Perhaps he should stick to the meaning of spin that the CSAI Truther uses.
It is the correct one anyway.
Gaslighting Graham equivocates again. Just to fall back to his starting point.
Here is the CSAI Truther’s “mathematical proof” along with experiment that the Moon does not spin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFPty67D-4
But he says “rotate” instead of spin.
Perhaps we should infer that the CSAI Truther refutes Gaslighting Graham’s years of ratiocination about “external rotation” instead?
After all, he indeed says that the Moon does not “rotate.”
Could be fun.
You said the CSAItruth equipment could only make the moon spin with "some unnatural cancelling trick". You were wrong. Instead of accepting you were wrong, you change the subject.
“Here is the CSAI Truthers mathematical proof ”
Where is any proof in there?
The silky voiced guy is off his rocker!
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
Cancelling rotations equal translation. Add another rotation and you got both. What happens when we have translation and rotation?
Astute readers know the answer – general motion! And what happens when a device emulates general motion? It can simulate whatever motion one pleases!
So if we add counterclockwise rotation to the Moon in CSAI’s Truther contraption, not only do we refute his own “proof” – we have a general motion machine!
But of course Gaslighting Graham will try to grapple with what I said instead of trying to understand anything.
"Cancelling rotations equal translation. Add another rotation and you got both."
The CSAItruth equipment will not permit you to "add another rotation", Little Willy. So your argument falls down immediately.
The CSAI Truther’s contraption has two motors that rotate.
But now that Gaslighting Graham tells me that this does not allow me to add rotations, I’m not sure anymore.
Once one motor is rotating the moon about an external axis in one direction, and the other motor is rotating the moon about an internal axis in the other direction…where is the third motor to add another rotation, Little Willy?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here is the Moon going counterclockwise in the CSAI truther’s setup:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=bpI6Glp4pvEOhzO0&t=29
Astute viewers will note that the Earth is also going counterclockwise.
Besides, the motor on the Moon is bidirectional:
https://youtu.be/k1cziZt92BQ?si=atKG_ZoL85pPdyVw&t=145
Has he forgotten one of his rare wins already?
Is Little Willy the purest sophist on the planet? I guess it’s possible.
Here’s what he said:
"Cancelling rotations equal translation. Add another rotation and you got both."
"Cancelling rotations" means that one motor is rotating the moon about an external axis in one direction, and the other motor is rotating the moon about an internal axis in the other direction…
…he then said to "add another rotation".
Where is the third motor to add another rotation, Little Willy?
For how long will Gaslighting Graham try to break the communication of basic affine geometry?
One rotation is one rotation. One rotation and one inverse rotation cancel to make one translation. Two rotations that cancel and another rotation makes one translation and one rotation. And so on and so forth. Once we get to general motion, the sky’s the limit.
To reinforce the point, let him work on the case he tries to hide for so long: how does the CSAI Truther’s contraption emulate the motion of the infamous Moon-on-the-Right, i.e. the situation where the Man on the Moon always looks in the same direction?
"Two rotations that cancel and another rotation makes one translation and one rotation"
Indeed. Your only problem is that the CSAItruth equipment cannot produce that "another rotation" since the two available motors are already taken up producing "the two rotations that cancel".
Gaslighting Graham asserts that the CSA Truther’s contraption cannot produce that “another rotation.”
It can’t be reversed? It can’t rotate twice as fast? It can’t be used in stopped motion? It can’t be moved by hand?
Gaslighting Graham simply lacks imagination.
"It can’t be reversed?"
If you reverse the "moon spin" motor from spinning clockwise back to spinning anti-clockwise you no longer have two cancelling rotations.
"It can’t rotate twice as fast?"
Not with the current equipment he’s using, no. However, if it could, you would just have the moon being rotated about an external axis in one direction at one speed, and rotated about an internal axis in the opposing direction twice as fast. The resulting movement would no longer be like the MOTR.
"It can’t be used in stopped motion? It can’t be moved by hand?"
Well, it can, but it doesn’t change any of the principles.
I suppose I should have expected Gaslighting Graham’s quote fest. Generalizing is just too hard for him.
To speak of one rotation is not meant to refer to a rotation in general. Each is executed in time and space.
One rotation of N degrees counterclockwise at time t1.
One rotation of M degrees clockwise at time t2.
One rotation of N degrees counterclockwise at time t2.
If N = 2M, then the overall process cancels.
If N = M, then there’s an extra counterclockwise rotation.
Having to explain how a combination lock works to a Moon Dragon crank who spent six years on this shit just takes the cake.
> N = 2M
Arrgh.
If 2N = M.
As gb would say, more coffee.
You have three motors there again, somehow, buddy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Well, you would have to have three motors if you’re trying to relate it to the CSAItruth equipment.
If you’re only talking about a combination lock, so you’re talking about rotating one object anti-clockwise then clockwise and then anti-clockwise again, then yes. Obviously, that’s correct. So what?
If you rotated the moon about an external axis anti-clockwise, with one motor, whilst rotating the moon about an internal axis clockwise twice as fast with the other motor, you would get a movement which would be equivalent to a translation in the anti-clockwise direction and an internal axis rotation in the clockwise direction at the same apparent rate. However, this is just an extension of the principle that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is equivalent to "translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis".
It changes nothing about the fact that "orbit" is independent to "spin" with the CSAItruth equipment. In fact, it just helps to illustrate that further by extending the range of the CSAItruth equipment and thinking about what would happen.
Gaslighting Graham is just hopelessly confused.
Does he really think that a combination lock requires three motors?
Funny you say that, Pupman, for that’s what we say of trulls.
Riddle me this: how does the CSAI Truthers contraption emulate the motion of the infamous Moon-on-the-Right, i.e. the situation where the Man on the Moon always looks in the same direction?
"Does he really think that a combination lock requires three motors?"
No.
Then Gaslighting Graham should understand that there’s no need for three motors to create an extra rotation with the CSAI Truther’s contraption.
Astute readers will appreciate this prose:
No idea why reminding the equivalence between an external rotation and a translation with an internal rotation is relevant (“however”?), but I can’t get enough of it!
I know you have no idea. That’s OK.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his old gaslight-until-you-get-room-service routine.
I really don’t want anything from you, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights. That’s OK.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The toy horse is spinning. Moon is NOT spinning.”
Clint hasnt been replaced by an alien.
We can tell, because when Clint posts, it is almost guaranteed to be ‘argument by assertion’ without anything to back it up.
Nate, your childish tr0lling backs me up.
The more attacks and false accusations I get, the more credibility I have.
Funny you say that, Pupman, for that’s what we say of trulls.
Riddle me this: how does the CSAI Truthers contraption emulate the motion of the infamous Moon-on-the-Right, i.e. the situation where the Man on the Moon always looks in the same direction?
Silly willy, a responsible adult does NOT start a question with “riddle me this”.
That’s for children.
Does Little Willy genuinely still not understand that, or is he just trolling?
Do Gaslighting Graham and Pupman understand the question?
I understand that you’re a troll.
Gaslighting Graham reveals once again how honest he is as a human bean.
If you were honest, you would acknowledge that the question has been answered a dozen times already, most recently here:
“Then it spins the moon in the opposite [direction] to the orbit in the third experiment, at a rate of once per orbit.”
Gaslighting Graham plays Pupman’s whiteknight once again.
Willards gibberish generator is functioning.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
” false accusations”
Oh?
Show us where you supported this assertion:
‘The toy horse is spinning. Moon is NOT spinning’
in your post?
If not, then my accusation was perfectly TRUE.
Because that is what you always do. You assert things that you do not and cannot back up.
Thus your posts are worthless.
"He mounted a toy horse on the vertical shaft of a motor so that the horse was “spinning”, ie, rotating about its CoM axis…
…the toy horse is spinning"
As usual, Clint writes a simple and direct comment that cuts through all the crap. If something is spun by a motor, then the objective physical reality is that something is rotating on its own internal axis.
So if the resulting overall movement for the toy horse "looks similar" to the MOTL, that means "orbit without spin" must be like the MOTR in that scenario.
That doesn’t mean "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR for the scenario of orbiting celestial bodies!
With orbiting celestial bodies, there is no giant XY plotter in space. Instead, there is actually something linking the orbiting object to the object its orbiting – gravity.
Gaslighting Graham promotes his confused conception:
Let’s apply this with the CSAI Truther’s contraption.
The CSAI Truther activates the Earth motor. The Earth spins. The Moon rotates, but does not spin, at least according to these cranks.
So the Earth’s spin caused the Moon to rotate? Hmmm. Let’s make sure it’s correct.
The CSAI Truther stops the Earth motor and activates the Moon motor. The Earth does not spin. Only the Moon does.
In the two cases, the Man on the Moon behaves the same with respect to the center of the Moon. Only how Moon Dragon cranks define that motion changes. When the Moon orbits, they call it orbit. When it does not orbit, they call it spin.
That should be enough to show that Moon Dragon cranks should not try to dictate what a celestial object does by toying with another one.
The OPR with the XY plotter, when it recreates the exact same movement, is that the model moon is not spinning. The “moon spin” motor is switched off when movement like the MOTR occurs.
> The OPR with the XY plotter, when it recreates the exact same movement, is that the model moon is not spinning. The moon spin motor is switched off when movement like the MOTR occurs.
Oups. That’s a quote from Gaslighting Graham that I will cherish for a long while. More on that later.
Little Willy felt the need to ramble, without saying anything coherent.
Gaslighting Graham fails to understand an argument and concludes there is no argument.
What else is new?
It’s motors all the way down:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553773
Let’s re-write Little Willy’s comment in English:
DREMT makes an obviously correct statement:
"If something is spun by a motor, then the objective physical reality is that something is rotating on its own internal axis."
Let’s apply this to the CSAItruth equipment.
Activate the "orbit" motor. The moon "orbits," but does not "spin", according to the the physical limitations imposed by the equipment.
So the "orbit" motor caused the moon to "orbit". Hmmm. Let’s make sure it’s correct.
Stop the "orbit" motor and activate the "spin" motor. The moon "spins".
In the two cases, the moon changes orientation, obviously. Only how "Non-Spinners" define that motion changes. When the moon "orbits", they call it "orbit". When the moon "spins", they call it "spin".
This should be enough to show that Little Willy is having another meltdown.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time going full Mike Flynn.
Astute readers may wish to help him out by emphasizing:
Astute readers might even emphasize the operative bit to help improve his next meditation.
Yes, Little Willy, that paragraph was especially meaningless. I really had to wrestle with that one to get anything even remotely coherent out of it. I think I’ve done a pretty good job, though, overall.
You write long screeds that essentially say absolutely nothing at all.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more.
Here are the definitions astute readers need for the ongoing exchange:
Translation df= transformation that preserves the orientation of an object.
Rotation df= transformation that changes the orientation of an object around an axis.
Orbit df= motion of a celestial body around another.
Spin df= motion of a celestial body around itself.
Earth df= Our planet.
Moon df= Earth’s satellite.
The Man on the Moon df= the side of the Moon that looks at the Earth at all times in the actual motion of the Moon.
Contraption df= machine in which the Moon is attached to the Earth via an arm. Comes with two motors, to spin the Earth and the Moon. The one on the Moon is bidirectional, but it’s unclear if changing orientation in the middle of a simulation would allow me to win the 10K cad offered by the CSAI Truther.
CSAI Truther df= Some guy on YT who has PROVED that the Moon does not spin, nay, that it mathematically CANNOT.
(To be continued.)
Now, let’s revisit the two cases I proposed, but while tracking the orientation of the Man on the Moon (MoM), standing at 270 degrees if we follow the unit circle conventions.
Case 1. Make the Earth spin 90 degrees counterclockwise. The Moon rotates accordingly. MoM = 180 deg.
Case 2. Make the Moon spin 90 degrees counterclockwise without moving the Earth. MoM = 180 deg.
The Moon made the same change of direction in both cases. In the first case, Moon Dragon cranks claim the Moon does not spin. In the second case, they claim the Moon spins.
Odd, isn’t it?
By looking at the Moon, we see that there is a problem with how Moon Dragon cranks define their terms. The reason should be obvious to astute readers. Allowing both orbit and spin to change the direction of an object brings trouble.
Alright, Gaslighting Graham is gone to sleep.
He should wake up refreshed and ready to spot the glaring typo.
“Odd, isn’t it?”
No. It’s as I said:
“In the two cases, the moon changes orientation, obviously. Only how "Non-Spinners" define that motion changes. When the moon "orbits", they call it "orbit". When the moon "spins", they call it "spin".”
Allowing both “orbit” and “spin” to change orientation leads to no “trouble”, it just confuses you, personally. You can’t follow it. That doesn’t mean astute readers can’t follow it.
Gaslighting Graham is so close to getting it.
The concept of spin entails a change of orientation. The concept of orbit usually does not entail a change of orientation. If Moon Dragon cranks decide to define an orbit as implying a rotation, then there will be a problem with their conceptual apparatus at some point.
They don’t have a concept that entails a translation! We already know that when they describe translation they need to cancel the rotations with which they start. Were they truly honest they’d have to speak of something like an orbit with counteracting spin.
What will it be when they’ll meet (say) precession?
In any event, it’s quite clear that the concept of orientation requires a frame of reference. Gaslighting Graham at least conceded that. Thus this iteration has shown some progress.
Oh, and astute readers ought to be looking for that typo!
"…then there will be a problem with their conceptual apparatus at some point."
There’s absolutely no problem that you are able to coherently state. Thus we can conclude that there’s no problem.
"In any event, it’s quite clear that the concept of orientation requires a frame of reference. Gaslighting Graham at least conceded that. Thus this iteration has shown some progress."
I always "conceded" that. The reference frame throughout the entire discussion, from its earliest origins, has been an inertial one – for both sides of the argument. Thus, reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. The only way reference frames could resolve the moon issue were if one side were using a non-inertial reference frame whilst the other side were using an inertial reference frame. However, that’s not the case. The orientation changes referred to in deciding between translation or rotation are always wrt an inertial reference frame.
Here is the typo:
> 180 deg
Astute readers ought to wonder why Gaslighting Graham failed to spot it. Wouldn’t have been great for him to play another round of NIGYSOB?
It didn’t even make him revisit the unit circle. Shame.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“So if the resulting overall movement for the toy horse “looks similar” to the MOTL, that means “orbit without spin” must be like the MOTR in that scenario.
That doesnt mean “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR for the scenario of orbiting celestial bodies!”
Again, DREMT makes it clear that his personal definitions of ORBIT and SPIN vary from device to device, because they are his personal definitions, and not the universal ones that are useful to humanity.
Astute readers might recall this pocket dictionary of Moon Dragon cranks science:
Orbit df= external rotation around the center of the orbitted body, usually the Earth.
Spin df= internal rotation, usually the Moon.
Orbit without spin df= external rotation minus some cancelling internal rotation; usually called a translation.
Translation df= no need for that shitty concept, we do rotations!
Um…no, Little Willy.
"Orbit without spin" is just another (clearer) way of saying "orbit".
You can remove your "orbit without spin df" sentence from the list, since that just shows your abject confusion and desire to humiliate yourself.
Here is a more sensible list:
Orbit, or orbit without spin df = rotation about an external axis.
Spin df = rotation about an internal axis.
That is all. Thank you.
Gaslighting Graham should lighten up a bit.
Everybody here knows that for Moon Dragon cranks, “Orbit without spin” is “just another” way of referring to orbits. But it’s just not another way for astute readers – it’s a ridiculous way that confuses more than it clarifies anything. Orbits are not things that have spin; celestial objects have spin. They should simply say “orbit” because that’s their own damn interpretation of the concept.
Nevertheless, let’s look at a proposition Gaslighting Graham would never offer Nate, because astute readers know that he’s never responding to his comments:
It confirms two things:
1. Spin is indeed the same for everyone.
2. Moon Dragon cranks indeed have no need for that shitty concept – they do rotations!
But then it leaves open how to consider an orbit with a spin. Is it an orbit without spin that has a spin, or orbit with spin, or just an orbit and we pretend the spin does not exist, like in the case of our actual Moon?
It’d be interesting to know of some orbits with spin.
“Orbit without spin” is clearer, because if you just say “orbit”, some bright spark will say, “well, both the MOTL and the MOTR are doing that – orbiting” To which you have to reply, “yes, but only one of them can be doing “orbit without spin” to convey what you really mean.
“Orbit with spin” would be any conceivable combination of your chosen “orbit without spin” motion (MOTL or MOTR) plus “spin” at any rate and in either direction.
Astute readers may concede that there’s at least one way by which “orbit without spin” is clearer.
It clearly shows that Gaslighting Graham’s difficulties in interpreting the concept of orbit have nothing to do about how clear the concept of spin is.
He knows that spin refers to a change of orientation of a celestial object onto itself.
He recognizes that when the Moon is spun by its own motor in the CSA Truther’s contraption, it spins, at least when the Moon does not orbit.
But he categorically refuses to *see* that the Moon spins when it changes orientation during its orbit, because he defines orbiting as a rotation external to the celestial object.
That’s all there is to it. At best.
"He recognizes that when the Moon is spun by its own motor in the CSA Truther’s contraption, it spins, at least when the Moon does not orbit."
No, it “spins” when the "moon spin" motor is activated, and does not "spin" when the "moon spin" motor is not activated, regardless of whether the moon is "orbiting" or not.
Wait:
That means Gaslighting Graham really believes that when the CSA Truther spins the Moon counterclockwise to cancel the rotation that the Earth’s motor imposes on the Moon, the Moon truly spins, perhaps even in both direction {1}!
Oh, no. When the Moon “rotates on an external axis” it does not spin. I mean, an external rotation is equivalent to a translation with an internal rotation, which would imply a spin… But no. *Shakes off the perilous thought.* So it’s not in both direction. My bad.
The only way that contraption could ever simulate a translation is by cancelling two spins. Thus when the Moon translates, ball-on-stringers will say that it is truly spinning!
The human mind is an amazing engine.
"That means Gaslighting Graham really believes that when the CSA Truther spins the Moon counterclockwise to cancel the rotation that the Earth’s motor imposes on the Moon, the Moon truly spins, perhaps even in both direction"
No. It means the model moon is truly "spinning" in the clockwise direction, whilst it "orbits" anti-clockwise.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham stopped short from reading the full comment!
“Orbit, or orbit without spin df = rotation about an external axis.”
Apparently DREMT is counting on people looking up the definition of ORBIT elsewhere, like a dictionary.
Then accept that:
ORBIT actually means ORBIT (as defined in the dictionary) plus or minus some other motion.
Tee hee hee!
There was nothing much else to say about your comment, Little Willy.
“Orbit with spin would be any conceivable combination of your chosen orbit without spin motion (MOTL or MOTR) plus spin at any rate and in either direction.”
But then he makes clear that there really is NO RHYME OR REASON for what he thinks the word ORBIT means.
Here at least is some rhyme:
“In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
But now, God knows..
ANYTHING GOES”
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] No. It means the model moon is truly “spinning” in the clockwise direction, whilst it “orbits” anti-clockwise.
[ME, A LOWLY PEASANT] Oh, no. When the Moon “rotates on an external axis” it does not spin. I mean, an external rotation is equivalent to a translation with an internal rotation, which would imply a spin… But no. *Shakes off the perilous thought.* So its not in both direction. My bad.
We were talking about the CSAItruth equipment, Little Willy. There is a motor turning the moon on its own internal axis. So the objective physical reality is that the moon is rotating on its own internal axis with the MOTR movement.
We are just endlessly retreading the same steps. You’re not learning.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his monotonous gaslighting.
Take two devices: an old windmill, and a drone. They simulate the motion of the actual Moon.
According to Moon Dragon crank geometry, the windmill does not spin: there is no motor “inside” any of its component. On the other hand, . the drone spins because an inner motor makes it so.
Yet the drone emulates the windmill.
This is all so silly.
Little Willy finds a new way to confuse himself, and tries putting words into my mouth at the same time.
So, Gaslighting Graham has no further arguments.
OK then!
Astute readers might like:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/453/2/1779/1141944
I never said there had to be a motor for there to be spin.
Both the windmill sails (when the wind is blowing) and the drone propeller (when the motor is activated) are spinning, Little Willy. Neither replicate the motion of the moon. Firmly affix a model moon to the end of the sail, or propeller. The model moon is rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis. Now you have a "device" (the model moon, and what it is attached to) that is replicating the motion of the moon.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I never said there had to be a motor for there to be spin.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If something is spun by a motor, then the objective physical reality is that something is rotating on its own internal axis.
Little Willy has a reading comprehension fail, and expects me to fix it for him again. Both statements are correct, and there is no inconsistency or contradiction between them.
Me, a mere pawn, create a thought experiment with two devices that simulate the motion of the actual Moon.
Gaslighting Graham, a gaslighting tower, rejects the whole artifice and that’s that.
A true intellectual giant we have there.
I didn’t reject anything, I simply made the necessary corrections to make your "devices" actually model the movement of the MOTL, and corrected you on your misunderstanding about motors.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He is being told what my imaginary devices do. He refuses to play along. And now he denies that he’s refusing!
Such splendor.
Alright. Let’s take two simpler more familiar devices, a spinning top and a ball on string. I hope astute readers can agree that they can spin. Then they should ask themselves: what exactly is spinning?
All this is great for proving my point 1) correct, Little Willy; it’s just I’m not sure I have the patience to play along at the moment. Maybe answer your own questions, i.e. just directly make the point you want to make. If I can be bothered, I will tune in with any corrections from time to time.
Once again Gaslighting Graham claims victory before entering the contest.
Is he really so ignorant that he’s just fishing for answers?
"When it rotates, it displaces the Moon and it changes its orientation.
One motor, two movements."
Google "angular displacement". Maybe that will help alleviate your confusion. Maybe not.
It seems Little Willy is now in denial about the existence of the single transformation, "rotation about an external axis", and also about the objective physical reality (OPR) that neither the CSAItruth equipment, nor the XY plotter equipment, can "spin" their model moons unless the "moon spin" motor is engaged.
The CSAItruth equipment replicates motion like the MOTR and the OPR is that the model moon is spinning. We know that, because there is a motor physically spinning the moon on its own internal axis.
The XY plotter equipment replicates motion like the MOTR and the OPR is that the model moon is not spinning. We know that, because the motor to spin the moon is not engaged.
Thus, as Little Willy already agreed upthread:
"And to make what point: that the main area of disagreement is how the concept of orbit is conceived? Even astute readers who recently joined the exchange know that! There’s no Very Deep realization there."
We know what "spin" is. So what we need to ascertain is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL (as per the CSAItruth equipment) or the MOTR (as per the XY plotter equipment).
So now we’re back to the point that started this sub-thread:
There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
So…now Little Willy, once again, needs to respond to the point I made in this sub-thread, and to stop evading it.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
It took Gaslighting Graham *five* days to repeat his gaslighting.
…that doesn’t mean "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR for the scenario of orbiting celestial bodies!
With orbiting celestial bodies, there is no giant XY plotter in space. Instead, there is actually something linking the orbiting object to the object its orbiting – gravity.
Astute readers heard it first:
With orbiting celestial bodies, there is no giant XY plotter in space.
Mind blown.
The what did we see at the beginning of **2001, A Space Odyssey**?
I’m mirroring the argument that there is no giant arm connecting the Earth and moon, Little Willy, which has been brought up before now, on mentioning the CSAItruth equipment…
…and subtly pointing out that actually, MOTL makes more sense for "orbit without spin" than MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham goes for a reductio that leads nowhere.
An XY plotter can reach every single point on a plane. Add a rotating head and there is no motion it can’t replicate. Thus configured it approximates a general motion machine.
This implies that the X-Y frame of the plotter does not constrain the head in any way. When it translates in a circular fashion, the head can keep its original orientation, or it can rotate. That’s up to the head.
The same can’t be said of the CSAI Truther’s arm. When the arm rotates, the Moon rotates too. Its orientation is forced to change. A motor can counteract that rotation, but that’s not the same as doing nothing.
Besides, the X-Y plotter connotes the X-Y axes, which are not part of the Moon-Earth system.
{1} While orthogonal transformations can only approximate curves, plotters have become very good at it. Most 3D programs use them.
The point slips over Little Willy’s head. There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
I’m starting to be enlightened by teh Pupman.
If something is spun by a motor, then the objective physical reality is that something is rotating on its own internal axis. But that does not mean that the object we’re trying to model is really spinning.
No, no.
And if something is not spun by a motor, then the objective physical reality is that something is not rotating on its own axis. But that does not mean anything about our own Moon.
No. It just means…something.
So if a primitive civilization held that the Moon was held by a giant invisible arm that was “rotating” the Man on the Moon, that does not mean the Moon is not spinning. Or if the CSA Truther proved that the Moon cannot spin because if it did it would “rotate and spin” so fast we’d see all of its sides, that does not mean the Moon cannot spin.
It’s just…gravity.
Gaslighting Graham is a pure genius.
"No. It just means…something."
What it means, as you have already agreed up-thread, is that we are trying to ascertain what "orbit without spin" is. We’re not worried about what "spin" is. We’re worried about what "orbit" is.
There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
Gaslighting Graham finally confesses that Moon Dragon cranks are worried about what “orbit” is. There’s nothing to worry about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
It’s a complex motion, independent from any pure rotation. It comes with some amount of translation, and some amount of rotation. Estimating these quantities involves complex calculations. Humans took a while to figure them out. So much wasted time, when they could simply have spent years repeating over and over again that the Moon’s orbit was circular and therefore an external rotation!
Physicists should turn to blogs to learn how New Science is done:
P1. The Earth is a motor.
P2. It orbits the Moon.
P3. GRAVITY!
Problem solved.
Little Willy can’t help but keep evading my point.
"It comes with some amount of translation, and some amount of rotation"
If "orbit without spin" involved translation and rotation [by which you could only mean external axis rotation], then it would be more like the MOTL than the MOTR. Meaning you’re saying that the "Non-Spinners" are correct. Again…we’ve been through this.
Please try to actually stick to what has been argued in this sub-thread. Don’t make me repeat my point a third time.
Gaslighting Graham keeps returning to his happy place.
His pet GIF is about physics, not geometry.
Astute readers can verify for themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
For now I will simply observe that when Gaslighting Graham said
he rather meant one unit of internal axis rotation powered by a motor located inside that axis.
And I will also observe that when Gaslighting Graham says that the XY plotter frame is “disconnected” to its head, he reveals that he really has no idea how an XY plotter works. He can imagine a fully autonomous head that flies over the page for all I care. It’s just a thought experiment, and modern physics has gone beyond Aristotelian physics a long time ago.
I’m not saying the "XY plotter frame is “disconnected” to its head". I’m saying the XY plotter "head" is not connected to the body being orbited.
[MIGHTY TIM] I mount a toy horse on the vertical shaft of a motor and turn the motor on.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Using an XY Plotter, you could mount a small fake moon on the end of the pen.
Must be a spiritual connection!
Little Willy keeps on evading the point.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
…except that I’m not gaslighting, and you really are evading the point.
Of course Gaslighting Graham gaslights, if only because I already met his silly point:
I’m referring to formal constraints here, not material ones. Thought experiments replace formal specifications, not gimmicks.
At the physical level, there is our universe, the celestial objects and bodies, the Solar system, the Moon, and hopefully also physical laws that orchestrate the whole gamut. This is where the idea of spin apply.
When we say that the Moon spins, we’re not saying that it spins at the conceptual level. We’re saying that it spins for real. At the conceptual level, we have concepts like rotation, translation, axis, Kepler orbit, etc. It’s important not to confuse the two levels of description.
The whole idea of calling the conceptual level the Objective Physical Reality is just another way for Gaslighting Graham to confuse himself.
“the X-Y frame of the plotter does not constrain the head in any way.”
Little Willy believes this has “met” my point. Clearly, he either does not understand the point, or is just trying to deceive others.
Gaslighting Graham’s dismissiveness increases during his discomfitures. Let’s just stand him aside. He’ll get back when he’ll be ready to stop pouting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass
This concept is crucial to provide a physical description of motion. It clarifies what Mighty Tim called “COM” in an earlier quote on the page. Search for “since you are letting me choose the reference frame” or “in that frame, the horse is most definitely rotating” for more.
In response, Gaslighting Graham conceded the point, but countered that this was not the “correct” frame of reference. One needed another frame of reference to get the “bigger picture,” whatever that means. Search for “bigger picture” on this page to relive his shadowboxing.
Nevertheless, that response misses Tim’s point completely. It is relative to a chosen frame of reference that rotation (and translation, for that matter) can be evaluated. To rotate is to change orientation relative to an axis of rotation. To translate is to keep the same orientation relative to a coordinate system. Etc.
While some solution might be “better” than another, there is no ultimate answer as to which frame of reference we should always prefer. It all depends on pragmatic consideration, among which there is what otters around us do.
Hopefully, this ought to clarify what Mighty Tim, Bob, Nate, and B4 kept telling Gaslighting Graham over the years. Astute readers should not hold their breath.
Another attempt to bait and distract away from the point. I’m not going over reference frames again. I’m right on point 3), argue it out with Bindidon if you disagree.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham should come back later with something to say that would pique the interest of astute readers.
Either address the point I made, which is the topic of this sub-thread, or just begone, Little Willy. Stop endlessly changing the subject and evading.
While astute readers are waiting for Gaslighting Graham to recharge, some light reading:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics/three.pdf
He usually needs only a few hours.
Not going to address the point? Then we’re done on this sub-thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham will keep gaslighting while forgetting that he lost his PSTing privileges?
Astute readers may enjoy:
If only James knew ball-on-stringers!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Two satellites, S1 and S2. They start at the same position relative to their respective planet. Motion direction is counterclockwise. Speed is immaterial, and considered the same for S1 and S2.
S1 makes an external rotation of 90 degrees centered on the planet. S2 makes a translation superposed with an internal rotation of 90 degrees.
Have S1 and S2 made the same motion?
If you really do insist on continuing, let’s address this:
"When we say that the Moon spins, we’re not saying that it spins at the conceptual level. We’re saying that it spins for real"
You’re saying the objective physical reality is that the moon spins. However, reference frames are conceptual. Thus you are disagreeing with those that say "the moon spins wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not spin wrt a non-inertial reference frame"…and you are tacitly agreeing with my point 3) – the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
The answer to my question is that the two motions are the same.
Since there is no response, let’s continue.
Suppose that S1 does the same motion again, but by “undoing” an internal rotation. That is, S1 does an external rotation of 90 degrees, superposed with an internal clockwise rotation.
How could we describe what S1 just did?
Astute readers already know the answer to that one.
They might to go through wall of words and watch insipid video demonstrations to see where the answer has been written here.
Or they can simply use their geometric intuition.
Here’s one solution.
Take the motion S2 did: a translation superposed with an internal rotation. Adding an inverse internal rotation is like removing the first internal rotation {1}. So what does remain?
One single (curvilinear) translation.
{1} Search for “cancelling” on this page to read about the same idea.
Therefore we have two geometrical facts:
Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
Fact 2. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet superposed with an inverse rotation of N degrees is equivalent to a translation.
From these two facts astute readers may infer that a theory in which the Moon moves by making one external rotation is geometrically equivalent to a theory in which the Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation.
Astute readers may then wonder:
How can two geometrically equivalent theories make different predictions as to how the Moon would behave under different physical conditions?
Reading the question a second time should reveal the answer. Geometrically equivalent theories. Physical conditions.
To make different predictions, we need to add physical assumptions that would make the two theories different!
Astute readers have everything in their hands to see why the riddle centered around the pet GIF is so misleading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
If Moon Dragon cranks wish to provide a different answer to the counterfactual “What would happen if the Moon didn’t spin at all,” they must provide a different theory. They can’t pretend to be using the same geometrical facts and the same physics as everybody else and derive different conclusions. Arguing for alternative facts is not easy, but arguing for a different logic is even tougher.
To claim “but it all depends on how you view the GIF” is just a cope. One must be able to explain the reasons that allow Moon Dragon cranks to view the GIF differently. These reasons must be couched in the theory. In principle, they could be on the geometry side or the physics side. In reality, our years of exchanges are enough to exclude any geometry disagreement.
That Moon Dragon theory ought to be made explicit once and for all. Astute readers ought to be able to check by themselves where the difference lies between the two theories.
And that’s the memo.
The CSAItruth equipment replicates motion like the MOTR and the objective physical reality (OPR) is that the model moon is spinning. We know that, because there is a motor physically spinning the moon on its own axis.
The XY plotter equipment replicates motion like the MOTR and the OPR is that the model moon is not spinning. We know that, because the motor to spin the moon is not engaged.
Thus, as Little Willy already agreed upthread:
"And to make what point: that the main area of disagreement is how the concept of orbit is conceived? Even astute readers who recently joined the exchange know that! There’s no Very Deep realization there."
We know what "spin" is. So what we need to ascertain is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL (as per the CSAItruth equipment) or the MOTR (as per the XY plotter equipment).
So now we’re back to the point that started this sub-thread:
There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
So…now Little Willy, once again, needs to respond to the point I made in this sub-thread, and to stop evading it.
And so Gaslighting Graham is running in circles.
In fairness, he’s a bit stuck. Either he comes up with a different theory that would explain why he sees his pet GIF the way he does, or he folds.
What will he do?
Astute readers may also notice that whether one defines an orbit as a rotation on an external axis or a translation superposed with a rotation on an internal axis, the results are the same. Same theory. Equivalent theories can’t make different predictions. Etc.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham sniffed a bit too much of Objective Physical Reality to realize that he has been spinning on equivocations all these years?
Little Willy messes up, again. Nobody is defining “orbit without spin” as a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis.
That blunder aside…I literally just explained (again) one simple reason why it’s physically preferable for “orbit without spin” to be like the MOTL rather than the MOTR. You still have no response!
Also, here’s one from your old pal, Swenson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1550495
Now, strictly speaking we are outside the scope of points 1) – 4). So, you’re lucky to be getting anything at all from me. It’s only because you have tacitly agreed to both points 2) and 3) that I’m allowing this brief discussion beyond those points.
Gaslighting Graham resorts to his usual spaghetti programming instead of trying to recognize how I already addressed his usual crap.
The contraption implements rotation on an external axis. The plotter implements translation superposed with an internal axis. These two devices are equivalent insofar as the contraption can implement a cancelling internal rotation.
These models were simply meant to establish the conceptual relationship I just spelled out. Nothing else in whatever “Objective Physical Reality” matters.
Moon Dragon cranks have finally reached the end of the line, pun intended.
"The contraption implements rotation on an external axis. The plotter implements translation superposed with an internal axis."
More classic Little Willy confusion. The CSAItruth equipment implements "rotation on an external axis" (think MOTL) for "orbit without spin". The XY plotter implements "translation in a circle" (think MOTR) for "orbit without spin". Both of them implement the exact same motion for "spin", of course.
Gaslighting Graham’s equivocation game, in a nutshell:
[ME] Astute readers may also notice that whether one defines an orbit as a rotation on an external axis or a translation superposed with a rotation on an internal axis
[GG, A TRUE HERO] Nobody is defining “orbit without spin” as a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis.
That should put his earlier “I’m just trying to be clear!” into perspective for our astute readers.
Gaslighting Graham switches to equivocation overdrive:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The CSAItruth equipment implements “rotation on an external axis” (think MOTL) for “orbit without spin”. The XY plotter implements “translation in a circle” (think MOTR) for “orbit without spin”.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] However, this is just an extension of the principle that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is equivalent to “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”.
Astute readers will notice that one of these two positions has to give.
Yes, Little Willy. One of the two positions has to give. Hence at 11:16 AM I re-made the argument I have been trying to get you to respond to throughout this entire sub-thread.
You want physical arguments as to why "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL, rather than the MOTR. I’ve given you two arguments to that effect already. One from me, one from Swenson (which is similar to one I have also made before). You refuse to respond to either of them.
No doubt you’re just hoping one of the other "Spinners" will come to your rescue.
Gaslighting Graham chases his tail once again –
Let’s compare the earlier facts with his florid interpretations:
Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
Interpretation 1. [R]otation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is equivalent to translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Looks like a match. Onto the next pair:
Fact 2. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet superposed with an inverse rotation of N degrees is equivalent to a translation.
Interpretation 2. The CSAItruth equipment implements “rotation on an external axis (think MOTL) for “orbit without spin”. The XY plotter implements translation in a circle (think MOTR) for orbit without spin.
Looks like there’s a conflict. Should we reject Fact 2 or Interpretation 2?
Astute readers will also note that Gaslighting Graham already agreed with Fact 2 multiple times, so perhaps what we’re witnessing is just another round of equivocation.
Hmmm.
Little Willy, I agree with both of your "Facts". Actually, 2 just follows logically from 1. There’s nothing remarkable about 2. Personally, I would make it a bit clearer, i.e:
"One external axis rotation of N degrees centered on the planet superposed with an inverse internal axis rotation of N degrees is equivalent to a translation."
but other than that, yes. Your "Facts" 1 and 2 mean that you are in complete agreement with my point 2), from the famous points 1) – 4). Great.
And, what you have called my "interpretation 2" is also correct.
And, there’s no contradiction or inconsistency between it and your "Fact 2".
Gaslighting Graham confirms what I already said, and asserts:
Let’s repeat Fact 2, emphasizing on the relevant bit:
Fact 2. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet superposed with an inverse rotation of N degrees is equivalent to a translation.
Let’s read Interpretation 2 until we meet a problem:
Interpretation 2.1 The CSAItruth equipment implements “rotation on an external axis”
Looks like the “superposed with an inverse rotation of N degrees” is missing for our equivalence to obtain.
Astute readers might tell to themselves: “Oops! He did it again!”
For they know that Gaslighting Graham knows where to find that inverse rotation of N degrees.
He insisted on it soooo much.
That sentence in full:
"The CSAItruth equipment implements “rotation on an external axis (think MOTL) for “orbit without spin”."
Little Willy might appreciate that if it is "orbit without spin" we’re talking about, there will be no inverse internal axis rotation…or even internal axis rotation in the same direction.
Has Little Willy confused himself again?
Here is what Gaslighting Graham was supposed to find:
This is what establishes the equivalence of Fact 2: one external rotation superposed with an opposite internal rotation equals a translation. Just like the first interpretation echoes Fact 1, the second interpretation should echo Fact 2. So the proper Interpretation 2 should read:
(Proper) Interpretation 2. One unit of external axis rotation and one unit of internal axis rotation in the CSA Truther’s contraption is equivalent to a translation in a circle by the XY plotter.
This is what Gaslighting Graham is evading with his crap about “orbit without spin,” which nobody in their right mind would ever use.
> one unit of internal
axisrotation…cancelling rotation, or opposite, or inverse.
The trick the CSAI Truther uses to show that the Moon can’t spin except if it was spinning in the opposite direction (than in actually does).
"One unit of external axis rotation and one unit of [inverse] internal axis rotation in the CSA Truther’s contraption is equivalent to a translation in a circle by the XY plotter."
Sure. So what?
What I said is still correct.
"The CSAItruth equipment implements "rotation on an external axis" (think MOTL) for "orbit without spin". The XY plotter implements "translation in a circle" (think MOTR) for "orbit without spin". Both of them implement the exact same motion for "spin", of course."
"The trick the CSAI Truther uses to show that the Moon can’t spin except if it was spinning in the opposite direction (than in actually does)."
For the one hundred and fiftieth time, the CSAItruth equipment can also spin the model moon in the same direction as the orbit. See the first experiment in the video.
Gaslighting Graham wonders why we are not interested with his word games:
So that we can interpret the geometric facts of the matter. This allows us to prove the correctness of our specification. Once our models (the contraption and the plotter) are verified, we can return to our theory with more confidence.
In our case, we know that the two theories are equivalent.
This equivalence allows us to ask: How can two geometrically equivalent theories make different predictions as to how the Moon would behave under different physical conditions?
This is a question Gaslighting Graham dodges with his word games.
I’d also add that the XY plotter can only do in two motions (translation in a circle plus "spin") – and yes, that’s two motions, because "spin" is a motion – what the CSAItruth equipment can do in only one motion (movement like the MOTL).
So the CSAItruth equipment has something it can do that the XY plotter cannot do, and the XY plotter has something it can do that the CSAItruth equipment cannot do.
Thus, they’re equal.
Gaslighting Graham “would also add” just about anything than to face the fact that his word games are not supported by his models when they are specified properly.
"How can two geometrically equivalent theories make different predictions as to how the Moon would behave under different physical conditions?"
The theory that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL is not equivalent to the theory that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR.
You’re the one playing word games. Relentlessly, and endlessly.
"Spin" is the same for both devices. As you have already agreed, that means that the difference lies in what "orbit" is, for each device. I use "orbit without spin" for clarity.
For the XY plotter, "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR.
For the CSAItruth equipment, "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL.
However, we need to think about how this applies to the movements of celestial bodies, if we are to try and solve the moon issue.
There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
That being said, Gaslighting Graham’s deviousness never disappoints:
If “spin” is a motion, what would be the motion for “translation”?
He already agreed that translation was a transformation…
"If “spin” is a motion, what would be the motion for “translation”?"
"orbit", in the case of the XY plotter. Gosh, you are slow.
More slippage by Gaslighting Graham:
That seems to imply that a translation is an orbit, but only on the plotter… What would be a translation in the contraption?
In any event, the two motions are orbit and spin. Let’s hope astute readers are not thinking that an “orbit with spin” is one single motion!
"That seems to imply that a translation is an orbit, but only on the plotter…"
Correct.
"What would be a translation in the contraption?"
The CSAItruth equipment can’t replicate the appearance of translation in one single motion. So calling the apparent translation "orbit", when "orbit" is one single motion, would be incorrect.
The CSAItruth equipment can replicate the appearance of translation in two motions, "orbit" in one direction, and "spin" at a rate of once per "orbit", in the opposite direction. Thus, we know that "orbit" for the CSAItruth equipment is something other than translation…it’s rotation about an external axis (movement like the MOTL).
Simplifying everything, removing any terminology that Little Willy could possibly confuse himself over, and making it so easy to understand that even a child could get it, we have:
XY plotter: "orbit without spin" (one single motion) is as per the MOTR.
CSAItruth equipment: "orbit without spin" (one single motion) is as per the MOTL.
Gaslighting Graham tries really hard to make his word games relevant:
The two theories are the following:
T1. The Moon moves by making one external rotation
T2. The Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation.
These are the theories that follow from the accepted facts.
And…that amounts to exactly the same thing, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gets upside down and inside out:
What’s that “apparent translation” hogwash? Translation is a geometric transformation. It’s not some kind of perceptual phenomenon!
And who cares if a motion is replicate through a series of transformations? It is perfectly fine to speak of the motion of the Moon even it’s a complex motion!
Astute readers may already suspect why Gaslighting Graham keeps stuttering: calling this motion an “orbit without spin” would solve his little puzzler too easily!
"Astute readers may already suspect why Gaslighting Graham keeps stuttering: calling this motion an “orbit without spin” would solve his little puzzler too easily!"
I could not call movement like the MOTR when replicated by the CSAItruth equipment "orbit without spin", since I’m aware that there is a motor spinning the model moon on its own internal axis, clockwise.
Little Willy gets himself confused again.
Gaslighting Graham is getting delicious:
[ME] From these two facts astute readers may infer that a theory in which the Moon moves by making one external rotation is geometrically equivalent to a theory in which the Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation.
That amounts to exactly the same thing as:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The theory that orbit without spin is like the MOTL is not equivalent to the theory that orbit without spin is like the MOTR.
Equivalent things are now the same as unequivalent things!
If Little Willy can possibly take things the wrong way, he will.
The following is what I meant by the sentence, "And…that amounts to exactly the same thing, Little Willy."
This:
"T1. The Moon moves by making one external rotation
T2. The Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation."
Amounts to exactly the same thing as this:
T1. "Orbit without spin" is motion as per the MOTL.
T2. "Orbit without spin" is motion as per the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham might reach the crux of his conceptual difficulties:
Motion is an observable property. We can say that a vehicle moves in a straight line whether it’s propelled by a motor or by pedals, however many wheels it has, or none if it is a hovercraft.
Besides, it’s not like we have the luxury to peek behind the curtain of reality and see what kind of clockwork movements the Moon contains “for real”!
"Besides, it’s not like we have the luxury to peek behind the curtain of reality and see what kind of clockwork movements the Moon contains “for real”!"
…and yet, that is precisely what is required to resolve the moon issue. Hence, as I’ve said several times, and you’ve not yet rebutted:
There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
Perhaps I spoke too soon. Renumbering Gaslighting Graham’s latest:
T1 and T2 are equivalent.
T3 and T4 are not.
Equivalent things can’t be unequivalent things.
Is that too hard for him to understand that T1 and T2 cannot be the same as T3 and T4 if T1==T2 but T3 != T4?
Graham made me giggle:
I understand the sentiment all too well. Still, how about doing some physics before throwing the towell and turning to mysticism?
After all, this is a physics problem!
This:
T1. The Moon moves by making one external rotation
T2. The Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation.
Amounts to exactly the same thing as this:
T1. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTL.
T2. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR.
In the following way:
Since in the first theory "the moon moves by making one external rotation", we know that this is one single motion. Thus it corresponds to "orbit without spin" (which is also one single motion) being as per the MOTL.
Since in the second theory "the moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation", we know that this is two motions ("internal rotation" meaning "spin"). Since the result of these two motions, one of which is "spin", is movement like the MOTL, "orbit without spin" must be motion like the MOTR with this theory.
"I understand the sentiment all too well. Still, how about doing some physics before throwing the towell and turning to mysticism?"
I’ve repeatedly made one physics-based argument, which you evade incessantly, in support of the idea that "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTL rather than the MOTR. I also linked to one from your buddy Swenson. How about doing some rebutting rather than throwing in the towel [one ‘L’] and turning always to your semantic confusion?
When the gaslighting goes to 11 and reaches logical notions like equivalence, I think we’re past any kind of rational exchange.
If (A == B) and (C != D), then NOT ((A == C) & (B == D)). That goes for any A, B, C or D, irrespective of any interpretation one can give. I don’t make the rules. Neither does Graham. Sorry.
Any semantics deriving from such system are guaranteed to degenerate. Which is just like most everyone here expected: there’s nothing behind the “orbit without spin” smokescreen.
So here’s where we stand. Either he revises what is a clear contradiction, or I consider the Moon Dragon crank puzzle solved.
And since Graham can’t really back down at this point, there’s little more to expect from him.
***
Thanks for everyone who participated, and my infinite gratitude to astute readers. They are the ones who have suffered it the most!
You’ve been free to leave at any point. Do so if you wish. If you can’t see that T1 might not equal T3, and T2 might not equal T4, but T3 can be inferred from T1, and T4 can be inferred from T2, then that’s your problem.
Astute readers will get what I mean, I’m sure.
Then they’ll be wondering why you’ve been evading the physics arguments for so long.
Gaslighting Graham still does not get it.
I don’t need to see how could a contradictory system make sense to him or to any other Moon Dragon crank. His algebra does not work. I can predict that his physics won’t work. And considering that he himself can’t see the Moon spinning around its axis as it orbits the Earth.
That does not mean I’m leaving. That just means I have solved the Moon Dragon crank to my own satisfaction. Just like when I saw Gaslighting Graham incapable of plugging two sides of an energy-balance equation without some “second by second” tapdancing. So much the worse for him.
I’m not going anywhere. That just means I can now focus on other things, like his tricks to stall an exchange. They usually stop short of rooting for a blatant logical contradiction. I must admit that this last one surprised me.
OK, Little Willy. You claim you’ve solved the moon issue to your satisfaction, yet you’ve never even been able to grasp that "Spinners" believe "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTR, and "Non-Spinners" believe "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTL. Even though that is one of the first things that I’ve seen other "Spinners" grasp.
OK, allow me to rephrase, if it will help.
T1. The Moon moves by making one external axis rotation.
T2. The Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal axis rotation.
T3. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTL.
T4. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR.
T3 is not equal to, but can be inferred from, T1. T4 is not equal to, but can be inferred from, T2. That resolves any logic problem. Can we now move on?
"Just like when I saw Gaslighting Graham incapable of plugging two sides of an energy-balance equation without some “second by second” tapdancing. So much the worse for him."
Were that true, sure, that would be so much the worse for me. However, I was never trying to plug "two sides of an energy-balance equation". You were. I wasn’t. That’s why we spent so much time talking past each other. I had absolutely no interest in any sort of energy balance equation. I was simply pointing out the fact that 480 W/m^2 irradiance received over a hemisphere balanced energy with 240 W/m^2 radiant exitance output over an entire sphere. Something Entropic Man later conceded as though it were obvious. Which, I guess, it is.
Considering that Gaslighting Graham’s position is inconsistent, he might not be in the best position to go for more You-and-Him-Fight silliness. He can try! And if there’s something new to put into his bag of tricks, it’s win-win.
Dragon cranks’ tricks – gotta collect them all!
"Considering that Gaslighting Graham’s position is inconsistent"
It’s not. You’ve not been able to point to any inconsistency. All you’ve done is throw your toys out of the pram on this logic issue (which is now resolved, by the way) so that you can continue to evade the physics points I’ve raised in this sub-thread, and declare yourself the victor. I don’t believe that anything that has occurred in this sub-thread has been sincere, on your part.
Ah, what the hell. Why not show some mercy:
A == B means I can replace A with B anywhere A holds and vice versa. If A implies C, then B implies C too. If B implies D, then A implies B too.
If C != D, then there is a situation in which C and D do not share the same truth value. Implication works such that when the antecedent is true, the consequent can’t be false:
https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Combinatorics_and_Discrete_Mathematics/A_Spiral_Workbook_for_Discrete_Mathematics_(Kwong)/02%3A_Logic/2.03%3A_Implications
It should be easy to see that when A and B are true, there’s a problem when C and D do not share the same truth value at all times.
Another name for equivalence is bi-implication. Replacing equivalence with only half of a bi-implication won’t change much of anything.
When geometric truths don’t change, conclusions purporting to preserve geometric truths should not change either.
> then A implies B
then A implies D, of course.
***
I must admit I’m a bit saddened by the epilogue of this story.
For Lord knows what I still expected better from Graham.
Astute readers may wish him the best in his future endeavors.
Let’s wait for his new music videos!
"A == B means I can replace A with B anywhere A holds and vice versa. If A implies C, then B implies C too. If B implies D, then A implies [D] too."
Well, that doesn’t hold for our T1 to T4.
T3 cannot be inferred from T2, because that would be like saying "orbit without spin" involves "spin"!
T4 cannot be inferred from T1, because an "external axis rotation" is not movement as per the MOTR.
That’s the problem. While I can see what you’re saying, you have to acknowledge the fact that T3 and T4 involve the property "orbit without spin", and your T2 involves "spin". And your T1 specifies an "external axis rotation" where my T4 specifies motion like the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham is kidding himself:
Since T1 is equivalent to T2, it should. I’m the one who says that T1 is equivalent to T2, not the one who says that T2 implies T3. So once again he’s trying to transfer his own problems.
And note that my analysis rests on the “T3 is not equivalent to T4” claim. If I take his own MOTL crap, it’s worse: T3 becomes incompatible with T4.
Incompatibility means that both claims can’t be true at the same time. T1 and T2 are true: they are geometric truths. They ought to imply something that is true. Contradiction thus obtains even more immediately.
Gaslighting Graham should revise his interpretation. Astute readers might have come to know him by now. He won’t.
Little Willy doubles down on his own silliness.
I just explained why T3 cannot be inferred from T2, and T4 cannot be inferred from T1. Look at the statements again, and think.
T1. The Moon moves by making one external axis rotation.
T2. The Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal axis rotation.
T3. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTL.
T4. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR.
The MOTL relates to both T1 and T2. So, in T2, you could say “The MOTL moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with spin”. Then, it is even more obvious that T3 cannot be inferred from T2, since T3 is “orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTL.”
T4 cannot be inferred from T1, because T1 specifies “one external axis rotation”, which is not motion as per the MOTR.
I guess logic is just not your thing.
Gaslighting Graham cannot be an orbit, for he sure does a lot of spinning!
A simple solution to the problem is to reject one of the two implications, and to find an interpretation that would work for both T1 and T2. Rejecting the two implications could also work.
After all, the implication may not follow from geometry alone. For instance, how could Gaslighting Graham derive **anything** about spin and orbit from an equivalence between transformations?
Perhaps he forgot to introduce a few axioms. But even if he finally introduces them, it won’t work until he can find something that will preserve the equivalence between T1 and T2!
Astute readers may wish him the best of luck.
T1 and T2 are equivalent descriptions, but unless you reject one in favour of the other, you can never resolve the moon issue. The moon cannot both “spin” and “not spin” at the same time! This has been the whole concept behind my point 1) since the beginning. A ball on a string can be described as rotating on its own internal axis, or not rotating on its own internal axis, as follows:
BoS
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis
However, you ultimately have to reject one description in favour of the other, and a) is chosen over b) because:
1) The objective physical reality is that the ball is not spinning. Its motion is constrained by the string.
2) You should not describe as a general plane motion (which option b) is) that which can be described as a pure rotation (which option a) is) or a pure translation. See the notes from Brown University.
Gaslighting Graham goes into beast mode:
T1 and T2 are theories. They follow from the same geometric truths. It is impossible to have one without having the other. They are equivalent: one can interchange with the other without any consequence.
To say that the Moon translates and rotates on an internal axis is to say the same thing as to say that it rotates on an external axis. A device that does one does the other. Yes, Virginia: the plotter does translate on an external axis when it translates and rotates on an internal axis. These are equivalent transformations!
To decide which one would fit reality better, we need to collect other kind of facts. Observations, data, empirical facts. Facts that would need to abide other principles. Physical laws.
Conceptual analysis is not the way to do physics. It will not tell us if the Moon spins or not. It certainly won’t tell us that it cannot spin, in contradiction to the CSA Truther’s claim.
Here are two incompatible theories:
M1. The Moon spins.
M2. The Moon does not spin.
Gaslighting Graham ought to focus on find fact that would support M2. He had enough armchair pondering for a few lifetimes.
DREMT 1:18 am, physically the moon cannot both inertially “spin” and inertially “not spin” at the same time! DREMT just left out an important word: inertially.
The moon however can inertially “spin” and as observed from Earth surface “not spin” at the same time while observed (like the MOTL) keeping the man in the moon face toward Earth at all times.
Thus DREMT’s whole concept as written is physically inaccurate.
T1 and T2 are not "theories". T1 and T2 are just descriptions of movement of the MOTL from rigid body kinematics. You agree they are equivalent, and thus you tacitly agree with my point 2). All good so far.
You state:
"When we say that the Moon spins, we’re not saying that it spins at the conceptual level. We’re saying that it spins for real…"
Thus, to you, the objective physical reality is that the moon spins. So, you disagree with those that say "the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frames, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt a non-inertial reference frame" (which is "at the conceptual level"), and tacitly agree with my point 3). Even better.
Then, just as you are about to agree on my point 1), as well, you contradict yourself. You argue against me when I’m trying to point out that despite the fact T1 and T2 are equivalent, only one can be "the objective physical reality" since the ball cannot both spin, and not spin!
Finally, you continue to prod me to produce physical arguments in support of the "Non-Spinner" position, whilst simultaneously ignoring and evading the two that have been made in this sub-thread!
Sheesh.
DREMT again 10:19 am writes physically inaccurately “since the ball cannot both spin, and not spin!” when more accurately the ball cannot both inertially spin, and inertially not spin!
Thus, DREMT’s whole concept as written is physically inaccurate.
…and, I almost forgot, point 4)! "Orbit" and "spin" are independent with the CSAItruth equipment. You had your first major meltdown on this one, claiming that they were not independent, and that this was "THE SIMPLEST REFUTATION OF MOON DRAGON CRANK MADNESS". You thought the entire debate was settled by that.
Then, once I talked you round on that one, without conceding that you were wrong, you went on to question what was meant by the word "spin". That was your second, more minor, meltdown.
Then, all this was forgotten, and you had your third meltdown, a major one again – this time it was your "logic" meltdown which happened yesterday. Again, you were convinced that the entire debate was settled by that. Now, I’m in the process of patiently talking you back round from your psychotic break, again.
You’re lucky that I’m around to talk you down from these episodes.
Ball4, for the ball on a string, we have the following descriptions from rigid body kinematics:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Both a) and b) are wrt an inertial reference frame. Yet, both a) and b) cannot be the objective physical reality for the ball. Only one of them can (and it’s the first one)
I know, you won’t understand. That’s OK.
DREMT, for the ball on a string, we have the following descriptions from rigid body kinematics & include the location of the observer:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis as observed from the string.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis as observed inertially.
Physically b) is wrt to an inertial reference frame as shown & a) is not. Both a) and b) can be the objective physical reality for the ball given the location of the observer. Only one of them is inertial (and it’s the second one since the ball has inertial spin in both).
I know, DREMT won’t understand the science. That’s OK because, as already noted, DREMT’s whole concept as written is physically inaccurate.
Gaslighting Graham denies and deflects, his usual two-step when tasked to do some physics. Before that he vociferated:
Doesn’t he realize that from geometric facts alone one does not simply determine that question? Let’s check back the facts again:
Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
Fact 2. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet superposed with an inverse rotation of N degrees is equivalent to a translation.
How can these facts entail that the Moon does not spin, if he is so adamant at getting at the Really Objective Omnipotent Manifold of Brute Actuality or ROOMBA, patent pending?
In any event, more philosophically oriented readers could astutely reflect on how Gaslighting Graham could cancel a rotation that he believes does not exist!
“”T1. The Moon moves by making one external rotation
T2. The Moon moves by making a curvilinear translation superposed with an internal rotation.”
Amounts to exactly the same thing as this:
T1. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTL.
T2. “Orbit without spin” is motion as per the MOTR.”
Here’s DREMTs theme song:
‘When the Moon hits my eye like a big pizza pie, that’s an ORBIT’
As I said, Ball4, you will not be able to understand. That’s OK.
Little Willy quotes me:
"The moon cannot both “spin” and “not spin” at the same time!"
Then exclaims:
"Doesn’t he realize that from geometric facts alone one does not simply determine that question?"
Absolutely, Little Willy. You and I are in furious agreement once again. You need physics to determine that question. I refer you once again to the two physics-based arguments that you have worked so hard to evade. Perhaps you will respond, finally?
Gaslighting Graham armwaves to another of his aesthetic treatises he presents as some kind of physics. While astute readers try to decipher it, let’s emphasize the bit that still flies above his head.
Let’s start with the Moon Dragon cranks’ master thesis {1}:
(TMDNS) The Moon does not spin.
Technically speaking, TMDNS is a conjecture. TMDNS ought to abide by geometry and physics. TMDNS also ought to be able to explicate all the concepts it involves, e.g. motion.
TMDNS ought to abide by some geometry facts. TMDNS ought to invoke enough physical apparatus to explain the phenomena. TMDNS ought to mention these phenomena.
All these would support TMDNS.
So Gaslighting Graham’s mission, should he accept it, would be to support TMDNS. Not word games. Not thought experiments. Not aesthetics discourses. An argument that would be relevant for our ROOMBA universe.
"Perhaps you will respond, finally?"
Apparently, not! We just got another bad case of Little Willy’s verbal diarrhoea.
Perhaps I should declare the matter settled, unless Little Willy responds!?
DREMT is doing caveman science.
Their ideas were limited to what they could see.
Caveman dictionary:
Weapon- a rock.
Tool – a rock.
Projectile- a rock
Moon- sky rock.
Orbit- what Moon does.
Spin- when I see all sides of rock. Moon no spin.
Gaslighting Graham keeps baiting. To help him out, here is something that does not support TMDNS:
Nothing in that remark is clear, yet astute readers already know it can only be false. Why? Because both (a) and (b) are equivalent! The ROOMBA does not mess with logic.
What he could argue is that a force is acting on the ball which has a mass, providing a constant speed to the ball through a string that has a length and that various tension that needs to be decomposed, etc. He might also point out that before the string is at maximal tension, the ball turns at an angle (relative to the horizontal plane, say), a bit like in this problem:
https://youtu.be/_FUukFNUQek?si=YSwaVCeW76eDRFpu
Then he could provide a similar description for the motion of the Moon. Only then will he be able to tell why these two descriptions do not fit anymore, see that they stop being equivalent, and ROOMBA will be happy forever.
***
Alternatively, Gaslighting Graham could meditate on the philosophical problem I alluded to earlier: how can he cancel a rotation that he believes does not exist?
Little Willy quotes me:
"both a) and b) cannot be the objective physical reality for the ball."
Then says:
"Nothing in that remark is clear, yet astute readers already know it can only be false. Why? Because both (a) and (b) are equivalent! The ROOMBA does not mess with logic."
OK…so…Little Willy mocks the idea of objective physical reality by giving it a silly name, and a silly acronym. However, here he is, himself, agreeing to that very concept:
"When we say that the Moon spins, we’re not saying that it spins at the conceptual level. We’re saying that it spins for real…"
So, he’s mocking himself. Then he argues with himself, by saying that the ball is both rotating on its own internal axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis, since a) and b) are equivalent and there’s apparently no need to decide between them. So, now he’s saying that there is no objective physical reality.
He can’t get his story straight. Either the idea of OPR is wrong, and thus the moon can be both spinning and not spinning at the same time. Or, the idea of OPR is right, and (in his opinion) the moon spins for real.
Little Willy needs to make up his mind.
Meanwhile, the physics behind the ball on a string is remarkably simple. The string constrains the motion of the ball, so that the ball physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis.
"Alternatively, Gaslighting Graham could meditate on the philosophical problem I alluded to earlier: how can he cancel a rotation that he believes does not exist?"
With the CSAItruth equipment, the rotation about an external axis does exist. The orientation change in the model moon created by this anti-clockwise rotation about an external axis is cancelled by an equally existent clockwise rotation about an internal axis.
Little Willy successfully evades discussing physics for another comment…
Gaslighting Graham’s quote fest operates more magic than usual:
So the contraption created a rotation it cancelled. In its own reality, no doubt. Not in ROOMBA.
How did the CSA Truther create that rotation? By rotating the Earth along an external axis, just like some Moon Dragon cranks claim the Moon moves {1}. Which tends to prove that there’s a dependency between orbit and spin. But let’s not digress.
What’s the problem in positing that internal axis for the Moon when we hold T1 or the TMDNS conjecture, again? No, I’m not telling what are T1 or the TMDNS conjecture. He never says what is MOTL or MOTR.
{1} Not Bordo. Astute readers might start to appreciate his position.
"So the contraption created a rotation it cancelled. In its own reality, no doubt. Not in ROOMBA."
No, the objective physical reality is that the CSAItruth equipment rotates the model moon about an external axis ("orbit"), anti-clockwise, and rotates the model moon about an internal axis, ("spin") clockwise, when it recreates movement like the MOTR.
Two independent motions, "orbit" and "spin".
You can keep calling it ROOMBA, but you’re still only mocking yourself.
And, you’re never going to address either of the physical arguments mentioned. OK then. We’re done, again. I’ll lock this thread down into another daily response. Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gaslighting Graham dances around ontological commitments as if no astute readers were watching:
So the CSA Truther’s contraption did not create the rotation that it cancelled.
Got it.
No wonder he can’t even fathom that it’s possible to look at a ball on a string without knowing anything about balls and strings or ROOMBA in general, in which case the equivalence between T1 and T2 poses no problem at to anyone who’d endorse TMDNS!
I can do better. I need more abbreviations.
Little Willy forgets how to read, again.
In reality, the ball on a string is either rotating on its own internal axis, or it’s not. It can’t be both.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
“Lets start with the Moon Dragon cranks master thesis {1}:
(TMDNS) The Moon does not spin.
Technically speaking, TMDNS is a conjecture.”
More than that, it is a certainty in their mind.
And it is abundantly clear that certaintty comes from looking up at the Moon, and seeing always the same side.
Then relying upon their experience of spinning things showing all sides.
Thus the Moon cannot be spinning!
It is quite simple really. Until you start to understand reference frames, and that you are viewing the Moon from a rotating reference frame.
Then most of the intelligent ones will understand and change their mind.
Some, like DREMT, will post-facto come up with all sorts of flimsy excuses, that are ultimately just semantic devices-like changing the definition of ORBIT.
While Gaslighting Graham keeps dangling, let’s revisit one of the two facts on which he agreed:
Fact 2. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet superposed with an inverse rotation of N degrees is equivalent to a translation.
The external rotation *superposes* two different motions: a change of direction and a displacement in the Sky. The inverse rotation, internal to the Moon’s axis, keeps the displacement from the external rotation but resets the direction change. With *one* external rotation, the CSA truther imprints *two* *interdependent* movements. This feature is in many ways a bug, one that prompts the silly quest for some kind of “orbit without spin.” There is orbit, there is spin, and that’s it.
Dissociating orientation change and displacement dissolves the problem: rewriting T1 and T2 in terms of orbit and spin while abiding to Fact 1 and 2 becomes child’s play. A Moon that orbits and spins translates and rotates. This brings simplicity and sparks joy. Ask ROOMBA {1}.
Gaslighting Graham’s aesthetic concerns may persist. Scientists can’t please everybody. They moved on and work with general motion. Come what may, Moon Dragon cranks owe *to themselves* an account of the superposition of internal rotation and translation in their physics. That requires at least two forces: one that propels the a celestial body forward and another that turns it on itself. After six years, they got **nothing**.
THE END
{1} Gaslighting Graham’s confused views that level of description and other concepts will be addressed later on. Some housekeeping will eventually be in order.
"With *one* external rotation, the CSA truther imprints *two* *interdependent* movements"
Completely and utterly wrong. The objective physical reality for the CSAItruth equipment is that there is one motor for "orbit", and another for "spin". The "external rotation" is one single motion, "orbit", and that "orbit" is composed of one single transformation, "rotation about an external axis", and it is driven by one single motor. Everything about it is singular.
"Spinners" just cannot get their heads around it…and they never will. Oh well.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Thus words, like ORBIT, are redefined specifically “for the CSAItruth equipment”.
And doing so undermines the applicability of such words to planetary motion, which lack such equipment, with its rigid physical constraints that enforce a link between orbital motion and rotation.
Thus the entire argument collapses in a pile of contradictions.
Oh well!
And so Gaslighting Graham is finally reduced to gaslighting:
The arm of the clock rotates.
When it rotates, it displaces the Moon and it changes its orientation.
One motor, two movements.
There’s nothing behind which Gaslighting Graham can hide.
"When it rotates, it displaces the Moon and it changes its orientation.
One motor, two movements."
Google "angular displacement". Maybe that will help alleviate your confusion. Maybe not.
It seems Little Willy is now in denial about the existence of the single transformation, "rotation about an external axis", and also about the objective physical reality (OPR) that neither the CSAItruth equipment, nor the XY plotter equipment, can "spin" their model moons unless the "moon spin" motor is engaged.
The CSAItruth equipment replicates motion like the MOTR and the OPR is that the model moon is spinning. We know that, because there is a motor physically spinning the moon on its own internal axis.
The XY plotter equipment replicates motion like the MOTR and the OPR is that the model moon is not spinning. We know that, because the motor to spin the moon is not engaged.
Thus, as Little Willy already agreed upthread:
"And to make what point: that the main area of disagreement is how the concept of orbit is conceived? Even astute readers who recently joined the exchange know that! There’s no Very Deep realization there."
We know what "spin" is. So what we need to ascertain is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL (as per the CSAItruth equipment) or the MOTR (as per the XY plotter equipment).
So now we’re back to the point that started this sub-thread:
There is no giant XY plotter in space, or giant hand to move the object around the other object. Thinking of “orbit without spin” as being translation (like the MOTR) disconnects the orbiting object from the object it is orbiting, completely.
But, there is a connection between the orbiting object and the object it is orbiting – gravity. Thus, the rigid arm, or string with the ball on a string, is more appropriate.
So…now Little Willy, once again, needs to respond to the point I made in this sub-thread, and to stop evading it.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
“The arm of the clock rotates.
When it rotates, it displaces the Moon and it changes its orientation.”
Yep, it moves the Moon’s position in its Orbit. And it causes it to Rotate.
Because this specific equipment has a rigid physical constraint that enforces a link between orbital motion and rotation, and produces only circular orbits.
Unlike the real Moon, planets, or even the XY plotter.
The idea that planets and moons have any constraints that enforce a link between ORBIT and ROTATION is not supported.
So, Little Willy evades the point of a sub-thread for over a hundred comments. The most evasive commenter I have ever come across.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time to conflate model and reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556459
What he calls his “main point” is simply wrong. It’s really not that hard to see that the ball on the string changes its orientation wrt its own center. And that’s that.
Yes, the fact is, as has long been known around here, DREMT many years ago just didn’t understand Tesla correctly so DREMT got faked out to this day: “The rotation (of the moon on its own internal axis) is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.” in orbit of Tesla’s center O.
DREMT always misses that Tesla here was discussing point masses which by Tesla’s own definition were “two masses, condensed into points” for which Tesla’s r=0 and thus cannot possess spin on their own internal axes. Our moon is not a point mass so its r is not = 0 thus can have inertial spin on its own axis which DREMT has incorrectly missed to this day.
Now, rather than deal with the point of this sub-thread, they are both linking and quoting from a different thread altogether! Unbelievable.
Ball4’s misrepresentation of Tesla is shameless, as always.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
No misrepresentation, the quote from Tesla is verbatim. DREMT has incorrectly used, & misunderstood, Tesla’s work to this day.
Ball4’s “lie mode” continues.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
It’s the sun stoopid
https://youtu.be/Hyi2wXUDpv0
It is certainly intended for a stoopid audience…
Even Elon Musk is backing off the climate alarm
https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/10/30/elon-musk-on-climate-change-we-dont-need-to-be-alarmist-about-it-massively-disrupt-peoples-lifestyles/
Elon Musk thinks solar panels on Earth’s surface, would work.
And I think, he is unaware that solar panels on Mars surface would work better than on the Earth’s surface.
Also think he has excessive amount of faith in the improvement of battery technology.
If one had perfect battery power, I still don’t think solar panels work on the Earth surface.
And if you imagine global climatic is going to get worse somehow,
you also don’t want to use solar panels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Nf56srwcA&t=200s
Elon knows earth population is going to crash, and thinks that
bigger problem than global warming and over population.
Everyone knows population is going to peak, and they are lukewarmers.
But everyone is also, crazy and will go with the flow of the corporate propaganda- and they all have real problems which bother them a lot than global warming, as any public opinion poll, indicates.
Putin says the West is to blame for mob storming Russian airport; U.S. calls the accusation absurd
Holly Ellyatt
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/31/ukraine-war-live-updates-latest-news-on-russia-and-the-war-in-ukraine.html
–The U.S. rejected accusations by Russian President Vladimir Putin that the West and Ukraine had orchestrated an anti-Israel riot in an airport in the Russian republic of Dagestan over the weekend, calling the allegations absurd.
In a televised meeting, Putin said the West and Ukraine had organized the deadly chaos, saying it is the current ruling elites of the U.S. and their satellites who are the main beneficiaries of world instability.
John Kirby, spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, described the claims as classic Russian rhetoric and said the West had nothing to do with this. This is just hate, bigotry and intimidation, pure and simple.–
“Ukraine also rejected having any role in the incident which saw an angry mob storm the airport in Makhachkala, reportedly looking for passengers arriving on a flight from Tel Aviv. Antisemitic slogans were chanted by some of the protesters and a plane was surrounded, with passengers having their documents taken.”
Where is Makhachkala?
Hmm, quite distance for the purported Ukraine Nazis to travel to.
It seems Russia needs to invade.
Venus had Earth-like plate tectonics billions of years ago, study suggests
by Staff Writers
Providence RI (SPX) Oct 30, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Venus_had_Earth_like_plate_tectonics_billions_of_years_ago_study_suggests_999.html
“The new paper posits that this wasn’t always the case. To account for the abundance of nitrogen and carbon dioxide present in Venus’ atmosphere, the researchers conclude that Venus must have had plate tectonics sometime after the planet formed, about 4.5 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. ”
…
–“One of the big picture takeaways is that we very likely had two planets at the same time in the same solar system operating in a plate tectonic regime – the same mode of tectonics that allowed for the life that we see on Earth today,” said Matt Weller, the study’s lead author who completed the work while he was a postdoctoral researcher at Brown and is now at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston.–
The two planets being Venus and Mars??
Some people don’t think Earth has plate tectonics- I think it does, but there isn’t much known about it.
And I was sort of expecting more would known about it, at some point {since time I was first was aware of the theory- a few decades ago}.
That China is drilling a deep hole {somewhere} is sort of encouraging the idea that maybe something will be discovered, though I can’t really recall anything coming from Russia/soviet deep hole drilled- and since the two are similar, it dampens the hope, a bit.
Why don’t we imagine Venus had a moon at some point?
Mars has two moon, but one of them isn’t suppose to last very long.
I am willing imagine, Venus and Mercury had plate tectonic and willing to imagine they had moons at some point in last few billions of years.
But with Earth there seems to be evidence of plate tectonics, even though we might not had plate tectonic from the beginning {about 4.5 billion years ago when might have hit by a Mars size object and our moon was formed. {and how many moons did Earth have before this- it seems having our one moon, lessen the possibility of other smaller moons lasting very long.}
Oh:
What is the cause of plate tectonics?
“Although this has yet to be proven with certainty, most geologists and geophysicists agree that plate movement is caused by the convection (that is, heat transfer resulting from the movement of a heated fluid) of magma in Earths interior. The heat source is thought to be the decay of radioactive elements. How this convection propels the plates is poorly understood. Some geologists argue that upwelling magma at spreading centres pushes the plates, whereas others argue that the weight of a portion of a subducting plate (one that is forced beneath another) may pull the rest of the plate along. ”
https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-the-cause-of-plate-tectonics
gb, have you donated a significant amount to help support the blog?
You seem to think it’s your personal blog. Are you just impolite, or are your motives more sinister?
Lighten up, Pupman.
It’s good you have donated a significant amount to support this blog.
Am I impolite or sinister?
Hmm.
It seems to me, being polite and sinister was the villain in old movies, but, you know, fads change.
I am ok, with the labeling of space fanatic.
I think becoming a spacefaring civilization, would be very important.
But exploring space to determine if this is possible, and discovering
it’s not possible, is almost as important.
I don’t want the embarrassment of space aliens showing up at some point in the future, and if ask why, not having good reasons.
And in terms of defunding govt agencies, I don’t think NASA should be
defunded, yet.
So, it is something sinister.
I was right.
MICHAEL WALSH: The Scales Have Fallen. Now What?
https://instapundit.com/
…
“To assume that our ideological opponents want something is to play the game on their turf. Its a mistake we make constantly. We imagine that words mean the same thing when they use them as when we use them. We have accepted their protestations that they only want a new, post-revolutionary Brotherhood of Man when they speak glowingly of the future, when instead theyre happy to stop with the destruction of the past two thousand years of history, and call it a job well done. We mistakenly assume that they want the same world that we do, only different, when in fact nihilism is their goal. To put it in contemporary terms, they are Jokers, the kind of men who only want to watch the world burn.”
Climate Change: A Curious Crisis
Posted on October 31, 2023 by curryja
by Iain Aitken
https://judithcurry.com/2023/10/31/climate-change-a-curious-crisis/
“So what is the doomsters story?”
I was wondering about that lately.
I don’t think there a story, it’s insane hysteria.
The 10th one is:
“(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6C of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5C critical threshold by 4.5C) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.”
So, let’s say, up to 6C of warming = Murder.
Hysteria: Murder!
Where is the murder?
Hysteria: Murder! Murder! Murder!
So what does a world which is 6 C warmer look like?
Well it would have to be an arctic ocean which was ice free in terms of polar sea ice. At least during the summer, and likely also in the winter.
It can’t be 6 C warmer without summer not having any polar sea ice.
Hysteria: Murder! Murder! Murder! Murder!
Also it suggest there would a green Sahara and less deserts in general in the world.
It’s possible Sahara doesn’t turn into tropical forest.
But 6 C suggest a large increase in global water vapor- I don’t anyone argue anything different. And there is little doubt, that every time in the past when Earth has been much warmer, the Sahara desert was a lot more green.
In terms California, it would not freeze at night as it’s currently doing and we would have more yearly rainfall or we would have a lot more hydropower, and rivers might flow all year round.
Of course the other thing is we aren’t going have rise in global temperature by 6 C.
Because we are in an Ice Age with ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C.
–WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING? California Having the Darnedest Time With Electricity.
If Germany and California had gone nuclear instead of renewable, theyd now be 100% carbon free, and reliable.
Posted at 7:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds —
https://instapundit.com/
{and a high speed train- which Feds gave billions for -thanks for
nothing, Obama}.
Article linked:
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/10/30/ca-having-the-darndest-time-with-electricity-n588840
{Satire}
”
‘I Wouldn’t Have Gone Along With The Nazis In 1939,’ Says College Student At ‘Kill The Jews’ Rally
https://babylonbee.com/news/i-wouldnt-have-gone-along-with-the-nazis-in-1939-says-college-student-at-kill-the-jews-rally
–CAMBRIDGE, MA A local university student expressed her own tremendous virtue by proudly announcing she would never have gone along with the rise of the Nazi party in Germany as she walked across campus to attend a “Kill the Jews” rally taking place on the Quad.
“Oh yeah, I would have nipped all that Hitler stuff in the bud,” said Harvard junior Dianna Stephens. “I’m telling you, if I was in Germany back then, I would have never participated in the horrific things the Nazis were doing. Now, which way to the rally where we’re cheering for the entire nation of Israel to be pushed into the sea?” —
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Actually gb quotes an interesting question :
“What is the cause of plate tectonics?”
Nobody knows.
Rather like asking “Why is the atmosphere chaotic, and its future states unpredictable?”
Once again, nobody knows.
Well, if we figure out why we had the bump in average global air temperature in last couple months, it might help at getting a clue.
The idea that huge amount water from underwater volcanic eruption was ejected into upper atmosphere seems like it could be related.
How long is going to continue?
And it seems like something like it has happened in the past and will happen in the future.
Re: “Once again, nobody knows.”
Maybe I should point out, what everyone knows.
We in an Ice Age.
Climate and global climate is surprisingly stable.
This surprising stable is mostly related to the greenhouse effect.
On land night and day temperatures vary a lot.
This mostly due to living on land and that we are in an Ice Age.
Oh, also:
“What spreads the sea floors and moves the continents? What melts iron in the outer core and enables the Earths magnetic field? Heat. Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earths interior into space. Where does it come from?
Radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earths crust and mantle is a principal source, and in 2005 scientists in the KamLAND collaboration, based in Japan, first showed that there was a way to measure the contribution directly. ”
…
“One thing thats at least 97-percent certain is that radioactive decay supplies only about half the Earths heat. Other sources primordial heat left over from the planets formation, and possibly others as well must account for the rest.”
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2011/07/17/kamland-geoneutrinos/
UH-OH: RFK Jr. Has Taken Something That Belongs to Trump
“Politics isn’t all about the money, of course. Just because donors are leaving Trump for Kennedy in greater numbers than they’re abandoning Biden, doesn’t mean that Trump voters will do the same thing. But it isn’t exactly the kind of positive indicator you’d like to see this close to the start of an election year. ”
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/11/01/uh-oh-rfk-jr-has-taken-something-that-belongs-to-trump-n4923534
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
—
UH-OH: RFK Jr. Has Taken Something That Belongs to Trump. If Kennedy wants my vote, hes going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: go back to being a Dem and wait until Im dead.
Posted at 4:21 pm by Stephen Green
It gets funnier.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Oct: 99.4
Predicted value: 88.3 predicted range: 62.1 to 115.3
So, was correct in guess it’s unlikely fall below 88.3
And didn’t think it would be over 120, and then later said not over
110. And was around 100.
Since lower than expected, I doubt Nov will be much lower than 100.
So my guess is 110 to 90 for Nov.
It needs less than 90.6 to past line. Or above Nov is:
Predicted value 90.6 and predicted range is 64.7 to 115.3
If going use something like that, I guess/predict 95 and range of 80 to 110.
Or going sideways.
–In winter, many regions in the Northern Hemisphere experience positive trends, while these become negative trends in summer. In other words, the jet stream becomes wavier in winter but less so in summer, Fragkoulidis concluded. As of yet, there is no explanation for this phenomenon that partly contradicts the typical hypothesis, which asserts that the jet stream gets wavier in all seasons.
The other aspect that the Mainz-based researcher identified was that changes to the jet stream are not the same everywhere, but differ from region to region. What happens over North America is not necessarily the same as what happens over China or Europe.
We cant assess trends on the basis of simple mottos such as The jet stream is becoming wavier or The jet stream is becoming less wavy. It is far more complicated than that, he summed up.
Dr. Georgios Fragkoulidis did not only look at the waviness of the jet stream but also at the phase speed of the waves to establish how rapidly the waves moved from west to east. When they propagate slowly, this can result in stationary weather systems associated with heavy rainfall or prolonged periods of high temperatures and even drought.
Although we may have the impression that it should be otherwise, there has been no significant change to the phase speed of waves in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly over Europe, in the last 40 years, stated Fragkoulidis. This conclusion also contradicts some conjectures that wave movements are slowing down.–
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/11/01/is-the-jet-stream-changing-probably-the-wrong-question/
nice sideways move
https://i.postimg.cc/SQ9j5j5S/sunspot19.png
CNN Peddles Alarm About Western Antarctica Melting
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/01/cnn-peddles-alarm-about-western-antarctica-melting/
“The article, Rapid melting in West Antarctica is unavoidable, with potentially disastrous consequences for sea level rise, study finds, says that West Antarcticas ice shelves are melting rapidly, and probably cant be stopped. CNN claims this will lead to potentially devastating implications for sea level rise around the world, citing a recent study in Nature Climate Change. The studys authors claim that even if the world were to meet emissions and warming targets, like limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial global average temperature, the WAIS will still experience substantial ocean warming and ice shelf melting[.]
The studys authors considered most WAIS melting to be due to basal melting, due to warm ocean currents that heat the ice from below. It is notable that they do not consider subsurface geothermal heating from volcanic activity below the ice as a potential contributor, especially since several recent studies suggest that the WAIS, particularly around the Thwaites glacier, sits on top of a large number of subsurface volcanoes which are believed to be contributing to melting below the ice and localized increased water temperatures.
There is also a question as to whether or not Antarctica has seen much if any warming at all over the past 70 years, as discussed in the Climate Realism post South Pole Warming Claims Contradicted by Actual Temperature Measurements. According to NASA data, there was even some cooling between the early 2000s and 2019.”
CNN tends to say everything is caused by CO2 emission.
Does human CO2 emission cause volcanic activity?
What astronomers learned from a near-Earth asteroid they never saw coming
No one spotted space rock 2023 NT1 until two days after it missed us.
https://www.popsci.com/science/asteroid-nt1-earth-planetary-defense/
Linked from : https://instapundit.com/
–HOWS THAT SPACE PROGRAM COMING ALONG? What astronomers learned from a near-Earth asteroid they never saw coming: No one spotted space rock 2023 NT1 until two days after it missed us.
Posted at 2:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds —
I think main solution is Vera C. Rubin Observatory
But it’s late, first light is “Expected in January 2025”
Large amount funded by private rather a lot funding by govt.
Though having private funding might have made it, faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory