Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2023 was +0.93 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is slightly above the September, 2023 anomaly of +0.90 deg. C, and establishes a new monthly high temperature anomaly 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).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 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 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.62 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 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
I was expecting a drop – instead we break the record again.
Only need an average of +0.17 over the next two months to equal the warmest year.
Decadal anomalies:
1980s -0.28
1990s -0.14
2000s -0.03
2010s +0.12
2020s +0.27
.
.
.
July-October anomalies:
2023 0.79
2020 0.35
2017 0.34
1998 0.32
2019 0.32
2022 0.30
2016 0.29
2021 0.26
2010 0.16
2015 0.13
.
.
.
2008 -0.21
1981 -0.28
1989 -0.28
1979 -0.30
1993 -0.32
1984 -0.42
1986 -0.42
1982 -0.51
1992 -0.52
1985 -0.54
West of the Galapagos Island is HOT again.
Its a little hard to believe that Australia is up 4.5o since June.
How is a rise from +0.06 to +0.62 equal to a rise of 4.5?
I’m surprised by this. Had expected this to be a record October, but with the anomaly below that of last month.
This beats the previous October record (2017) by 0.46C, and marks the 4th month in a row to set a record for that month.
The top 10 warmest Octobers in the UAH data set are now:
1 2023 0.93
2 2017 0.47
3 2020 0.38
4 2021 0.37
5 2022 0.32
6 2019 0.30
7 2015 0.28
8 2016 0.28
9 1998 0.24
10 2003 0.12
The top eight have all been since 2015.
The so called pause hangs on, now starting in October 2015, but there are only four starting months where any negative trend can be seen. Meanwhile the trend since January 2018 is +0.34C / decade. Not meaningful, but still a longer period of time than Monckton’s original 5 year pause.
As far as my simplistic statistical prediction. Having started the year as saying there was effectively zero chance of 2023 being the warmest, it is now claiming an 86% chance of it being the warmest, with a forecast for the year of 0.41 +/- 0.04.
I expect the odds should be much higher as my method doesn’t take into account the change over the year.
I think this is a record anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere, and both the NH and Tropics smashed the record for October.
This should destroy the argument that the only reason for the global records is the high anomalies in the Antarctic.
Hey Bellman,
California has solved the problemno more gas-powered small engines. I think the Truckers and Farmers will be next on their list. It will be amusing to watch California for the next few years.
Don’t think anyone said the Antarctic changes were the only reason. You now have a solar maximum fast approaching, El Nino and multiple effects from the Hunga-Tonga eruption.
Indeed RLH’s assertion there has been no warming since 2016 is looking increasingly shaky.
At least he will have a new bench mark to use in the future to declare no warming from.
I made no such statement.
Why haven’t you hit us with your graphs recently? You know – the ones based on your crazy filter which “showed” we’d be getting colder by now?
I put my ‘claims’ (actually basic filters such as Roy does) out as soon as the data is updated. I only missed one month because I was holidaying in France.
So where are this months graphs?
I’m not sure about the claim of no warming since 2016, but it was only 2 years ago that you said the 13m average would drop to -0.3 C before it rises.
And it’s not just you. There were countless predictions on this blog and others claiming that the top was in and that it was only going to cool from here on out. Some of these predictions, astonishingly, were as recent as July 2023 literally one month before a new monthly record was recorded.
Are you going to claim that the recent rises are to do with CO2?
Coolistas are doing a lot of goal post moving these days.
So do you claim that CO2 caused the recent rises?
bdgwx says:
”Im not sure about the claim of no warming since 2016, but it was only 2 years ago that you said the 13m average would drop to -0.3 C before it rises.
And its not just you. There were countless predictions on this blog and others claiming that the top was in and that it was only going to cool from here on out. Some of these predictions, astonishingly, were as recent as July 2023 literally one month before a new monthly record was recorded.”
Big deal. We have heard countless predictions from both sides of this issue for nearly 50 years. And so far basically nothing has happened that we would write home about.
RLH, CO2 is a contributing factor to the global average temperature at all time scales. But that does not mean that it is a primary factor in the changes at all time scales. It is the primary factor in the long term trend only. It is not a primary factor in the short term timing or magnitude of the trough to peak change of the most recent spike.
bdgwx says:
But that does not mean that it is a primary factor in the changes at all time scales. It is the primary factor in the long term trend only. It is not a primary factor in the short term timing or magnitude of the trough to peak change of the most recent spike.
—————-
how can you say that without fully attributing the mechanisms of the short term changes that dwarfs decades of alleged co2 effects that likewise have not been even partially attributed?
RLH,
“Are you going to claim that the recent rises are to do with CO2?”
Why are you deflecting from the point you are replying to – that skeptics on this blog had predicted only cooling recently and since 2016?
Is it so hard to face that these predictions fell foul of the last few months? Do you really need to point somewhere else to avoid answering?
Some predictions I am aware of:
RLH: “The average temperatures of the past 10 years (to Dec 2021) will be warmer than the next 10 years.”
RLH only has to wait 8 years.
Bill Hunter: Bets that it will be warmer for “the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.”
Bill has 26 months left.
Scott R (September 2015): “I’d be happy to publically post my forecast of -0.2 on UAH within 5 years right here on this blog.”
Scott has 14 months left.
Thanks barry. I’ve added those predictions to my list. I’ve got quite a few from the WUWT site as well. Most of the predictions have already gone down in flames.
Well I generally don’t bet.
But the only pattern I saw was the 3 to 4 decadal Pacific Decadal Oscillation that provided such a pattern through out the last 150 years. That ocean current pattern appears to be slightly showing itself but in a weaker state than usual. North Pacific waters have been over the past several years have been living up to its name in being quite tame. A name earned when Europeans first spied the ocean off the Central American coast. And of course the climate models can’t replicate this climate pattern as nobody knows its causes. . . .which is a huge problem regarding claims that natural warming isn’t a significant or the only part of what we have seen in recent decades. Knowing they exist provides some basis of expectation it will show itself again in the not too distant future.
Well for the record the prediction was the slope of the temperature trend not an average. And I declined to put money on it. But its clear I didn’t figure on a HTE/ENSO massive shift in trend this year which definitely puts me in a pickle.
Actually my prediction isn’t on the ropes yet. The warming slope for the 2006-2015 decade was .15c/decade
The current slope for almost the first 8 years is 0.0c/decade (Monckton pause?)
I have some room but this event is unprecedented with the mean global temperature rising .97C in 9 months. The previous record was 1997 to Jan 1998 where it rose .73C in 9 months. This was 33% higher for a 9 month change in temperature.
I don’t need a record recovery but the margin is getting scary close.
You are trying to change the terms of the bet. Why not just stick to what was originally agreed upon?
There is no change in terms. Go to the link from last January that Barry provided above. I said what the terms were during the discussion of the bet that it was on a lower temperature trend than what had occurred from 2005 to 2015.
Fact is the trend was .15 for that decade which is about what the overall trend has been. But the overall UAH trend is below theory by a good deal hitting right on the lowest estimate of 1.5degrees per century. Theory says 3.0 degrees, which is as far off as zero warming. But cooling? With a recent solar grand maximum and a 1,500 year ocean adjustment time? Nadir of the LIA was only 323 years ago.
barry said: Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?
Bill Hunter said: Ill take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.
The bet is in regards to the temperature (C).
The trend (C/decade) is completely different thing. At no point was the terms of the bet in regards to the trend.
Bdgwx I told you to read the whole thread. The discussion is a bit imprecise but the Barry’s conclusion to not take the bet in the last thread entry states what he declined to bet on. . . .which still wasn’t exactly what I was saying but was close enough there was no further need to correct him.
Last entry of the thread:
———-
barry says:
Bill,
I couldnt quite make out what you thought you were betting on. On a warmer year than 2016 occurring during the current decade to 2025?
2 years left to beat a record set 6 years ago in 2016, which broke the record set 18 years prior?
Dont fancy the odds.
————-
bottom line is I think warming is waning not necessarily stopping.
I have stated that multiple times over the years in this forum.
So why would I bet on cooling? I have said I am on board with Dr. Akasofu’s take on a LIA recovery that we should all expect to be there to some extent and potentially having a warming influence for another 1000 years or more if not overridden by some unpredictable event or some unpredictable cycle seen in the variation of the ice core data.
I have been perfectly consistent with that view since I started posting in here.
So I offered a slower cooling rate while complying with Barry’s request for something not so far into the future. Barry declined saying the odds were not to his liking.
You were the one who originally took the bet and then backed out after Barry calculated what it would take for you to win.
Incorrect bdgwx. I never intended to bet money, simply a gentleman’s bet. That is clear in the thread as I had no confidence in getting paid if I won, plus I am not a gambler also stated in the thread. But I never backed off the prediction.
You were wrong on what my prediction was and so was Barry and of course Nate had to ignorantly chime in as he usually does.
Once Barry understood that I wasn’t betting on cooling occurring he decided he didn’t like the odds.
That was the at the end of the thread.
So exactly where do you get the idea I wasn’t willing to make a prediction? Seems you are all over the place like a soup sandwich trying to hold me to one?
And lets be clear on my position which strawman builder’s everywhere try to twist words to make it sound like my thoughts on the matter changes weekly.
I initially ascribed to Dr. Akasofu’s take on the matter back some 15 years ago when he first started posting stuff the matter that eventually ended up in a paper sometime around 2009.
He detailed a continuing LIA recovery. I was also observing the increase in solar activity at the end of the 20th century that some call a solar grand maximum following the LIA minimum continuing the prospects of warming for another couple centuries possibly as sea ice and glacial ice continued to provide positive warming feedbacks.
So no! I don’t expect cooling to occur though recognize that ocean oscillations, ENSO phase dominance, volcanic activity, and some historical events I forget name of that causes sudden deep surface cooling are all a possibility but I have no reason to think any of these kinds of events are predictable.
My only contribution to that the bet that fizzled was to quote Barry and Bill,
Barry “Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?
Bill “Ill take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.”
And note that:
“The meaning was quite clear when you made the bet, Bill.”
It only makes a difference to you Nate. Barry declined the bet once the terms were negotiated. Offering a bet isn’t the same as taking or making a bet.
If I wasn’t explicit enough in the first sentence explaining it maybe you need to take some English classes to be able comprehend the subsequent sentences. Seems there is an awful lot around here you get wrong.
If the bet wasn’t finalized then we can hardly hold you accountable.
Will you consider entering into a bet here and now? The bet would be the 10 year average UAH TLT from 2021-2030 is warmer than 2011-2020. I’ll take the YES position and you take the NO position. Should UAH discontinue their dataset I propose falling back on STAR, ERA, and BEST in that order. Payout is $100 to the charity of the winner’s chosing. Are you agreeable to those terms?
bdgwx says:
”If the bet wasnt finalized then we can hardly hold you accountable.
Will you consider entering into a bet here and now? The bet would be the 10 year average UAH TLT from 2021-2030 is warmer than 2011-2020.”
The problem with that bet bdgwx is I clearly stated above that I think warming will likely continue for maybe another hundred years based upon the temperature variations seen in ice core data and the end of the LIA. I recognize that temperature variation varies in amplitude from maybe 1 to 4C with 4c variations only periodically occurring and that this is high latitude temperatures that are being proxied and that the period of these variations are multi-centennial.
So why would I take that bet? What I am looking for is a waning of warming rates. Last January I went over that with Barry and he didn’t like the terms despite his climate disruptor showing no signs of waning. . . .maybe he was fearful of governments having success in cutting emissions in the rest of the world.
what happened, Bill, was that you quoted the bet, misunderstood it, and when you tried to describe what you were betting on, were unclear. You said ‘trend’ and ‘highest year’ in different replies. Both were short-term bets, nothing to do with AGW, but with weather variation, so I opted out, still wondering what bet you were actually making.
I bet on AGW, not weather. You declined to make a long-term bet owing to your age.
Barry I responded to your request to RLH:
”Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
January 2023 to 2031 is weather too (only 8 to 9 years) as it isn’t at least 2 decades.
What you decided not to bet on because you weren’t getting a bet on the complete cessation of warming.
So it wasn’t weather but instead you thought it didn’t give you enough margin. In fact you pointed out that you didn’t like that 2016 had been the warmest year for 18 years indicating you had no confidence of faster warming.
I figured you might since warming has already been proceeding at a far slower pace that predicted back after that 1998 event and I was going to lay it on the line that it would continue to warm slower and slower. But I have to admit at this moment your side of the bet looks a lot more attractive showing that one never knows what kind of natural event might intervene and change something. Typically 10 years is more than sufficient to get another El Nino and the question is do you think the unrealized warming between the 1.4/decade and 3.0/decade is lurking there ready to pop out at any moment?
The bet was for two decades – averages of two consecutive ten year periods, one warmer than the other.
That was abundantly clear.
Whatever bet you were offering wasn’t clear. Either you were betting on a short-term trend line, which is subject to the vagaries of interannual variation (ie, weather), or you were betting that some year in the next couple would/would not be warmer than 2016 (ie, weather).
Whichever it was, you weren’t making a bet on global climate.
Barry you didn’t want a climate bet saying a bet until 2031 was too far out when it was only 9 years or so and you wanted a shorter term one.
Complete fabrication, Bill.
As in, you totally made that up.
You rejected the bet to 2031, not me.
Bill Hunter: “I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. Thats beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.”
It seems you’re prepared to make a bet the trend in global warming is lessening/will lessen.
Unfortunately, that would take even longer to determine with statistical significance. Worse, you think you can do it by comparing the trends of two consecutive decades.
You need far less data to determine a trend (in global temperature) than you do to determine a change in the rate of that trend.
i agree.
the corollary to that thought that its nigh impossible to know how much its warming. just the differences in opinions between the various services tells us that.
barry says:
Complete fabrication, Bill.
As in, you totally made that up.
You rejected the bet to 2031, not me.
———————–
you are confused barry.
this was the post after which i came in. you were responding to rlh.
barry says:
January 11, 2023 at 4:16 AM
”Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427867
so you first rejected that bet. you didn’t offer it to me but i told you why i wouldn’t take it if you did.
Nonsense Bill. Are you unable to understand plain English?
“I’ve got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021.”
That’s an already established bet. “I’ve got you down” means that I have marked the bet. And you can see me accepting that bet when it was first made here.
I was also perfectly willing to accept the same bet from you, but with the decade ending in 2025, compared with the previous decadal average ending in 2015. You can see that transaction here.
But then you said there had been a misunderstanding, and regarding the original bet to 2031 you said, “I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. That’s beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.”
You rejected the bet to 2031, not me.
And I am perfectly happy to take you on for either the bet to 2025, or the bet to 2031, based on the original premise of the second decadal average being warmer than the first.
Will you take it up or reject it again? I’m not interested in betting on weather, only global climate change.
barry says:
Nonsense Bill. Are you unable to understand plain English?
Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021.
———————
You are the one full of nonsense Barry. I hadn’t even entered the thread when you posted that. You were calling RLH out on his prediction. I never made that prediction. I just saw an opportunity of taking a baseline ending in an El Nino. You wanted to bet money and didn’t. You didn’t say anything about money re: RLH’s prediction but you asked RLH ”Do you have a nearer term prediction?” So I responded with one. After discussing the specifics the thread ended with you saying: ”Don’t Fancy the odds” which I took as you not wanting to make a non-monetary bet indicating to me with 7 years in with a cooling trend you saw some distance to go be a warmer decade with 7 years cooling in the books and a need to override that in 3 years.
barry says:
Nonsense Bill. Are you unable to understand plain English?
Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021.
———————
You are the one full of nonsense Barry.
I hadn’t even entered the thread when you posted that. You were calling RLH out on his prediction. I never made that prediction.
I offered 2005-2015 versus 2015-2025. You were all for it and wanted to bet money. I didn’t. We talked some and you noticed that it had been cooling 2015-2022 so 7 years of cooling was already baked in. The thread ended with you saying: ”Don’t Fancy the odds” . . .suggesting you wanted my side.
You’re really losing the thread of the conversation, Bill.
I quote your post from just above:
“Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427867
so you first rejected that bet.
You are quoting me here, and then claiming I rejected that bet.
I didn’t. “I’ve got you down,” means I accepted the bet. From RLH. I even linked to my conversation with him about that.
So you’re really mixed up if you think I believe that quote was to you. I was speaking to RLH. If you had clicked on the link, you would have seen the conversation I had with him about it.
So NO, I did not reject that bet, either from him or from you.
You are just wrong about that.
YOU rejected the bet to 2031. I’ve quoted you on it. above.
“I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. Thats beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.”
Are we clear yet?
Have a read of what you wrote just now, Bill.
“After discussing the specifics the thread ended with you saying: “Don’t Fancy the odds” which I took as you not wanting to make a non-monetary bet indicating to me with 7 years in with a cooling trend you saw some distance to go be a warmer decade with 7 years cooling in the books and a need to override that in 3 years.”
This is as incomprehensible as your original change to the bet.
Whatever you were trying to bet on, it was to do with short-term effects – essentially weather. And no, I do not bet on weather, as I told you.
I am still open to you taking a bet on the decadal averages. But I take it from you ignoring the offer that you don’t want to bet on that.
If we are betting on climate, I’ll bet money. That’s how confident I am that two successive decadal averages will see the second one warmer than the prior. You can pick any 20 year period you like, with the end year no earlier than 2023, and I’ll lay any money on it.
From 1960 onwards, every bidecadal period has the second decade warmer than the first.
Surely if CO2 has no impact, and the solar contribution has waned over the same period, we should be seeing a decade in the near future being colder than the previous. How weird that this is not the case!
But because I accept that greenhouse warming is real, and because we are not mitigating it significantly, I expect every decade henceforth to be warmer than the last, barring some major volcanic super-eruption or a massive meteor strike that throws up an enormous volume of dust that persists for a few years.
IOW, I expect to see the same phenomenon with global temps we have seen for the last 50 years continue into the future as long as we keep emitting.
I just can’t get a skeptic who disagrees to put their money where their mouth is. Despite all the predictions of cooling we’ve had, no one here really believes it.
Barry you are truly a POS.
You didn’t have me down for anything you had RLH.
the thread ended with you saying: ”Bill, I couldnt quite make out what you thought you were betting on. On a warmer year than 2016 occurring during the current decade to 2025?
2 years left to beat a record set 6 years ago in 2016, which broke the record set 18 years prior?
Dont fancy the odds.”
It as clear as black and white you liked my side of the bet.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427479
“You didn’t have me down for anything you had RLH.”
Yes, that’s what I said. The bet was with RLH. I linked to it in my post above. I also made that clear again just two posts ago. Thus:
“I’ve got you down,” means I accepted the bet. From RLH. I even linked to my conversation with him about that.
Do you have dyslexia? You are seriously confused.
You and I never made a bet. I’ve said that all down the thread – that you rejected the bet. Why you think I’ve said you did make a bet, God only knows.
I’ve made an offer to move forward and make a wager. I take it from your ignoring it that you’re not interested in betting on global climate change. Ok. Neither are any of the AGW ‘skeptics’. Those predicting global cooling don’t actually have any faith in that forecast.
” … there has been no warming since 2016… ”
Of course you did, Blindsley H00d.
That was either in 2021 or in 2022.
You were even brazen enough to demonstrate that ‘fact’ by using in WoodForTrees exactly those linear trends you persistently denigrate anywhere else, like e.g.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2016/to:2022/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2022/trend
Search for all your posts since Janunary 2021, Blindsley H00d.
I won’t do that ugly job for you.
So do you claim that CO2 caused the recent rises?
of course they do. Arguments from ignorance is OK for the academic community because they don’t believe they have any ignorance.
1. Blindsley H00d
” So do you claim that CO2 caused the recent rises? ”
Where the heck did I mention CO2, Blindsley H00d?
Has CO2 recently become your latest hobby horse that you ride like Don Quixote de la Mancha against the windmills of Global Warming?
It seems that your recent holiday didn’t help you in avoiding to post your endless insinuations.
*
2. Hunter boy
” … of course they do. Arguments from ignorance is OK for the academic community because they dont believe they have any ignorance. ”
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
It’s a shame that this man can’t retrospectively see how incredibly right he was when he could have looked at posts like yours, which are 100% based on own ignorance, gut feeling and the constant urging to discredit, denigrate and… lie.
*
3. But what’s most amazing and amusing is that two people here share in discrediting almost everything I write, but lack a common view of elementary science like the rotation of the Moon around its polar axis.
Blindsley H00d admits the fact, but the Hunter boy 100% denies it!
Ha ha ha haaa! That’s really full funny, isn’t it?
Bindidon says:
”2. Hunter boy
” of course they do. Arguments from ignorance is OK for the academic community because they dont believe they have any ignorance. ”
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
Its a shame that this man cant retrospectively see how incredibly right he was when he could have looked at posts like yours, which are 100% based on own ignorance, gut feeling and the constant urging to discredit, denigrate and lie.
———————
As usual all you are doing is blowing smoke. Dr Syun Akasofu made the observation that one cannot understand anthropogenic warming without understanding natural warming. Arguing for anthropogenic warming without that understanding is precisely arguments from ignorance as I said. Its not denigration its just a fact that you have so much trouble wrapping your mind around.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bindidon says:
3. But whats most amazing and amusing is that two people here share in discrediting almost everything I write, but lack a common view of elementary science like the rotation of the Moon around its polar axis.
———————-
Well answer the question I asked and we can discuss that.
As I pointed out here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1552071
Spinners and Non-spinners agree a rock sitting on the surface of earth is rotating around the central axis of the earth. But lift that rock off the surface of the planet (as is believed to be the origin of the moon) and spinners believe that rotation magically (since they have no explanation for it) is transferred to a rotation around the center of the rock plus an orbit comprised of nothing but linear momentum.
You could fix the magical part with an explanation if you have the guts to try to provide one. But I kind of think you will instead just continue blowing smoke.
Blindsley H00d admits the fact, but the Hunter boy 100% denies it!
Ha ha ha haaa! Thats really full funny, isnt it?
I see that nobody wants to acknowledge their failed predictions. They continue to try to change the subject, move the goal posts, etc.
So ‘it will cool in the next decade’ becomes:
‘if it should to happen to keep warming, it won’t be because of CO2’
isnt it 5 months now?
Anyone got the trend for the whole series?
It’s stated in the description.
Yes. My bad.
“Any other predictions for October?”
I was expecting +0.80C +/- 0.05. +0.93C is bunkers.
The Sun is close to its 11 year maximum.
An El Nino is starting.
The stratosphere still has an extra 10% water vapour from the underwater volcano but the Sun blocking particulates have now dissipated.
Perhaps we will have to wait for the 2030s for some cooling.
(The Grand Solar Minimum).
Sounds like moving goalposts to me. But let’s wait until the 2030s and see whether we will then observe cooling, or if it’s only going to be more warming as the science predicts.
I say the future is always uncertain.
Walter R. Hogle says:
I say the future is always uncertain.
_________________________________________
Not really.
-Warming will go on
-and denying will goe on.
Thats certain.
Natural warming goes on for thousands of years so what is so unprecedented about that?
Among other things, the speed of it.
The speed of it compared to what Willard? Be specific.
0.14C per decade
Doesnt sound very alarming to me.
Why should anyone care about what you find alarming or not, Walter?
Geological times tend to work at a very different scale.
Do you think that is alarming?
The 11-year solar cycle has NO effect on climate. In fact I found a very slight NEGATIVE correlation between sunspot counts and global temperatures.
Which data source or peer-reviewed paper are you quoting re that 10%?
I get a slight correlation between TSI and UAH TLT. My ML model hones in on a 0.06 * anomaly(TSI) effect. The range of the TSI anomalies is from about -1 to +1 W/m2 so that contributes about -0.06 to +0.06 C to UAH TLT. The long term is zero, but there is a small non-zero contribution to the variation in UAH TLT. I’m using NRLTSI2 and TSIS1 datasets from the link below.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data
But what is r?
Very low and negative actually. R = -0.04. The inverse correlation is due to the fact that UAH TLT increased while TSI decreased.
However, when we remove the contributions from CO2, ENSO, and volcanic effects from UAH the correlation with the residual jumps up to R = 0.23.
Well TSI may not be the correct variable. Water is a strange substance and evaporation is affected by more than just heat. We have the UN Environmental Program claiming savings of a 1/2 degree warming by reversing the ozone depletion, again without any blueprint of how that occurs.
UV has been established boosting evaporation, which makes sense because of its high frequency warming capability. A great deal of the modern warming occurred from 1980 to 2000 when ozone depletion underwent its greatest decline resulting in a record size ozone hole in 2000. During the past couple of months that ozone hole appeared to have reached a new record size. Is anybody investigating this?
All the heat from the forest fires had to have some effect.
Sam Shicks
” All the heat from the forest fires had to have some effect. ”
Are you sure?
Look for example back to end of 2019 – begin of 2020, as South East Australia was heavily affected by huge fires.
These fires were so intense and persistent that the smoke and haze they produced traveled across the southeastern Pacific down to Chile.
But more importantly, smoke and haze were carried very high, up into the low stratosphere, all over the southern latitude bands.
Look at e.g.
Persistent Stratospheric Warming Due to 20192020 Australian Wildfire Smoke
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL092609
*
Such stratospheric warming induced by huge amounts of smoke and dust usually cool the lower troposphere, like do volcanic eruptions.
This can actually have a much higher effect than the heat dissipated around the fires.
Maybe Roy Spencer reminds all that; write a mail to him!
Another month and another record. Odds are now favorable that the Monckton pause will come to an end by December if not next month. November only needs to come in at 0.44 to end the pause.
The 13m centered average is now 0.38 and just shy of the 0.39 peaks in 2016 and 2020. If November comes in at 0.58 or higher then 13m record will be broken as well.
And finally it is looking likely that I’m going to have to eat my words. Earlier this year I said an annual mean record was unlikely. This has now flipped an it is looking more likely than not that a new annual record will be achieved in 2023. November and December need to average just 0.20 C for 2023 to end at 0.40 C breaking the 0.39 C record from 2016.
“…it is looking likely that I’m going to have to eat my words.”
Looks like Lord M has given up on his ‘pause’, or its latest iteration at any rate. He hasn’t posted about it at WUWT for a few months. Think he saw the writing on the wall.
I bet he would have been salivating at the thought of a New New Pause beginning in September, if only October had been a fraction cooler
Thankfully it will go quiet on that front for a while
The new pause likely began before September already. That is the thing with pauses. The beginning months of the new pause usually overlap a bit with the ending months of the previous pause. You just have to be patient and wait for the Monckton method to verify it. We have explained this to Monckton and his advocates on multiple occasions. I suspect the real reason why Monckton went AWOL is because the new pause falsifies the hypothesis that the existence of pauses necessarily mean no more warming will occur, because it undermines his prediction from 2013 that the planet would cool by 0.5 C, and because it provides further evidence that the long term trend predicted by the IPCC in 1990 (which Monckton misrepresents) is still intact.
I bet your wrong, and the global temperature levels will return to the 2015 baseline. I wouldn’t even rule out the 2002 baseline. The abrupt spike in global temperatures is unprecedented. The sources of this heat are not fully understood, and it’s challenging to accept overly simplified explanations. For a period of about 17 years, there was a relative slowdown in global warming following a prior 17-year period of faster warming. This complexity in the data makes it difficult to definitively attribute causes and effects. It’s unwise to make absolute claims or dismiss other hypotheses about the climate’s behavior over the past half-century.
Walter, When do you expect this happen?
Following up with a prediction of any sort after emphasizing the complexity of the climate is contradictory and unwise.
You already made a prediction; two of them actually. 1) You said the global temperature levels will return to the 2015 baseline. 2) You predicted that I would be wrong about the starting point of the new pause being before September. I just want to know when you expect your predictions to be verified.
Walter R. Hogle says:
”Following up with a prediction of any sort after emphasizing the complexity of the climate is contradictory and unwise.”
Yes indeed! Fact is the popular CO2 based climate models do a terrible job especially in the second half of the industrial era.
you can’t defend them and it seems the main argument for them is comprised of making fun of even more inaccurate predictions.
My statement is grounded in the observation of the current conditions at the North Pole. Currently, there are no extraordinary occurrences taking place in that region. Although there was a spike in temperatures in August, it seems to have partly subsided and remains considerably lower than the significant El Nio event that occurred in 2015. These sporadic temperature spikes are not uncommon, and historical data reveals that there have been numerous instances in the past with anomalies greater than the one observed in October. In fact, October 2003 experienced slightly warmer temperatures compared to October 2023 up there.
https://imgur.com/brYV5o5
> I bet your wrong
How much, and with what odds?
Walter, I’m not talking about the average temperature from 60N-90N. I’m talking about the global average temperature as depicted in the graphic Dr. Spencer created for this blog post.
Willard,
I say 85% chance he’s wrong. I’d be down to put some money on that.
You can put your money where your mouth is at Kalshi. The 2024 global temperature market is open.
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temp#gtemp-24
Since when is the Global Climate driven by the North Pole whose surface is a small part of the Hemisphere around it?
Global Climate is driven by the Tropics.
My point regarding the spike is the absence of Arctic amplification, which is what we would expect to observe if this were related to CO2.
Thanks, Walter.
bdgwx, I will make a prediction. The pause starting in ~2015/16 will reappear in ~2-3 years, maybe less. The pause starting in 1997/98 will reappear in a decade or so.
Thank you, Edim. I’ve saved your prediction. Be sure to return here at the end of 2025 and 2026.
Edim, Same. I’ve bookmarked your prediction too now. Come back in 3 years so that we can assess it. In the meantime would you mind telling us how this will happen with the Earth energy imbalance at record highs?
Walter, Arctic amplification is a hypothesis of all warming regardless of cause. Nevermind that UAH shows twice as much warming in that region vs the tropics.
Upon doing further research, I was wrong and the temperatures at the North Pole aren’t very helpful. However, it is still a fact that changes in the long term trend prominently manifest themselves in the Arctic. That happened with the three large El Ninos we’ve witnessed.
Barry or anyone else interested in bets,
I collect Climateball bets in that post:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets
If you know of anyone else, please let me know in the comments to that post.
Thanks!
Willard, are you looking for bets or any prediction?
Mostly bets, but if you need to put publish a list of predictions somewhere handy, I could create a post on contrarian predictions. Tony does it, we should do it too.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl8278
The 36m and 12m Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) from CERES holds steady at +1.5 W/m2 and +2.0 W/m2 respectively. Since EEI is proportional to the radiative forcing (RF) minus the radiative response (RR) we would normally expect EEI to drop as the planet warms to increase the RR even if RF does not increase. Yet here we are with records in both EEI and temperature. This is a very good indication that not only is the high 13m centered average of 0.38 C not a fluke, but it is likely to increase further from here breaking the previous record and continuing higher in the long run with the overall warming trend possibly even accelerating.
bdgwx, the “RR”, “RF”, and “EEI” are all cult beliefs. CO2 does NOT result in such nonsense.
It’s like claiming this warming is caused by space aliens and unicorns. It’s all mythology, possibly drug-induced.
This warming is clearly due to the El Niño combined with the remnants of the HTE.
grammie clone thinks he can ignore science, as usual.
Yes, the El Nio may be the main cause of the above average temperatures, but the underlying trend is upwards. Don’t forget that El Nio’s tend to peak in December of January. FYI, that’s where the name “El Nio” came from.
It’s spelled “El Niño”, child.
Learn how to comment if you’re going to tr0ll. Otherwise, people will realize how uneducated you are….
Having no reply of substance, grammie clone complains about the fact that my cut and past from his comment didn’t work.
If you want substance, stop being a child and grow up.
Tr0lling ain’t science.
(THAT is some substance for you.)
I’ll wait for you to make the same comment next time Gordon and ren do the same thing.
grammie clone finally posts something I can agree with, writing:
He should know, since he’s one of the most prolific tr0lls around here. Lots of unproven assertions and other noise that lack substance.
Quoting me is always a good way to learn, child.
Here’s some more substance for you: False accusations ain’t science either.
grammie clone, up thread, you wrote:
That’s just another example of your many assertions without proof or support. Pointing out that fact is not a “false accusation”.
Wrong child. I’ve explained why the EEI is nonsense several times. I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you. You have to be an adult.
First grow up so you can face reality. Then we can discuss science.
EEI has no doubt been out of balance 99.999999% of the time through both recorded and unrecorded history.
Why?
Well we know that the oceans eventually absorb something like 90% of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface and the temperature of the oceans absorb large portions of this energy below the mixing zone of the ocean. The mean time of full mixing in the mixing zone can take years. . . best guesses being 7 to 10 years as the mean time between major storms stirring up the ocean to the depth of maximum swell sizes.
thus since oceans comprises well over 2/3rds of the earths surface and the response temperature is potentially off by 2 degrees we really have no idea whatsoever where EEI currently sits.
You’re shooting bullseyes here, Wild Bill.
grammie clone wrote another condescending comment, ending with:
I thought I was pretty smart when I graduated from engineering school on the Deans List with membership in two honor societies. Then I went to graduate school at university where everybody else had great creds and then things really got tough as I got my MS in three quarters while winning an engineering design contest. Then I went to work and tool additional courses. I didn’t make it thru to the PhD level for several reasons, including my loss of motivation.
Sorry, clown, I think YOU are the one who needs to GROW UP.
Well Swanson, that certainly explains why you can’t think for yourself.
And maybe that’s why you’ve never matured past the junior high school level.
But, try to follow me and try to understand my comments. Ask responsible questions if necessary.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
So sez the dude who consistently argues that correlation = causation!
The only correlation we have, with millions of years of data, is that CO2 follows temperature in both long and short time scales.
“CO2 follows temperature in both long and short time scales.”
Except on those occasions when temperature follows CO2.
Entropic man says:
CO2 follows temperature in both long and short time scales.
Except on those occasions when temperature follows CO2.
—————————-
yep like when temperature follows your birthday.
and of course co2 following temperature is well established science of a dissolved gas in a liquid being directly proportional to its partial pressure.
bdgwx says:
”The 36m and 12m Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) from CERES holds steady at +1.5 W/m2 and +2.0 W/m2 respectively. Since EEI is proportional to the radiative forcing (RF) minus the radiative response (RR)”
Yes thats all possible but where is the scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming? All we have is a narrative about the lapse rate ever restricting warming as CO2 increases and no scientific blueprint about how that actually forces the surface.
I realize the claim is the blueprint is in the blackbox models but model output is all over the place. Providing the public a blueprint would mean we only need one model.
I have read that the volcano put tonnes of salt into the stratosphere with the water and this has cut the Ozone levels world wide by 5 percent allowing more UV energy to reach the surface.
Any comments.
Ozone levels are indeed low .
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Phil,
That’s a wonderful link, that I didn’t have. Thanks!
Thank you Phil.
Couldn’t remember where I saw it.
You have read … where?
A peer-reviewed paper, or a denier blog site?
Because the only scientific reference I can find to salt in the stratosphere refers to cooling.
Why would it matter if its a peer reviewed paper or a denier blog site?
Its supposed to be about finding the truth. Ad hominem is all about avoiding the truth.
You have to do your own thinking. Peer review isn’t a gold standard. ‘Denier’ isn’t a lead standard. You should be reading both until you know that the particular article to be patent nonsense.
Because a peer-reviewed paper in a legitimate journal ensures a reasonably good chance that it is correct. Denier blogs are not credible except to the extent they may quote legitimate scientific literature.
Ken – where do denier blogs get their “information”?
Because when a publication is peer reviewed in a reputable journal that means it has been sent through a first pass review to find mistakes by people who understand the material enough to recognize the most obvious occurrences. In this way you have some level of confidence that what you are reading does not have egregious mistakes. Contrast this with contrarian blog sites that will post anything and everything as long as it contradicts the consilience of evidence even when the mistakes are so obvious and egregious that amateurs can often spot them. And then when the mistakes are pointed the blog sites often leave the erroneous information up and in some cases even double down on the misinformation by engaging in conspiracy talk.
uh, seems to me with zero promulgated standards, scope, procedures, or practices surrounding peer review nor any certifications or independence of peer reviewers its all a krapshoot and attempting to pin it on contrarian sites without any substantial evidence fits what peer review can be to a tee.
It’s certainly not perfect. But it has managed to keep out most of the spam from the reputable publishers.
how do you define a reputable publisher? Seems most are either for-profit publishing companies and/or one that represents a special interest as a not-for-profit.
Robert, Ant, and bdgwx live in a dream world. They actually believe that the “legitimate journals” and “peer-review” are about science and reality.
They should try to get something published that debunks the GHE nonsense. Maybe some basic physics, for example?
The ozone hole is primarily in Antarctica, where there has been no sunshine for the past 8 months, hence no additional UV contributing, during the very time when we have had the most warming.
In addition, the NH and the Tropics have had most of the extra warming.
It is however interesting to note that the two last regional obeservations for Arctric and Australia are on a decline while the Tropics are still pointing upwards.
Once again Dr. Roy confirms that climate change is real, it’s here now, and it’s caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
For those of you who follow my YouTube videos, you might be interested in my latest video. “Hurricane Coming? Watch Out For Rapid Intensification!”
https://youtu.be/goxaHN2aQTQ
Mark, are you still advertising your worthless videos?
Remember, you stated a hot vacuum tube was “proof” of the GHE!
You don’t have a clue about the relevant science.
Why do some people have to utter complete falsehoods and then attribute them to people who never said them?
If this spike is caused by fossil fuels, what mechanism caused it to rise so quickly? Presumably you have a video for that…
I’m not that surprised it’s still high, it’s been remarkably warm across the globe, but I did expect a drop. The real question is what exactly caused the jump – is it El Nino, or is it HT?
Presumably the HT eruption put a heap of carbonate into the stratosphere as well as water vapour?
But Mr Spencer DOES agree with the cause of the warming trend.
Most responsible adults agree with the warming trend. We’re definitely in a warming trend. Have been since the 1970s.
Next comes a cooling trend. And Alarmists will start panicking that an ice age is imminent….
Please use a dictionary to discover the meaning of “cause”.
Are you STILL tr0lling to promote your “cause”, Ant?
Human GHG emissions only made the spike higher than it would have been otherwise. It is the rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino that is the primary cause of the spike.
i thought that el nino hadnt had its effect globaly yet. i think its the reduction in shipping clouds “aka areosole masking “
UAH responds ENSO. The ENSO phase has changed considerably. The fact that UAH TLT lags ENSO by 4-5 months is suggesting that the current spike may have room to go even higher.
Not much thought put into that bdgwx.
Bottom line is the GMT has risen 1.3C while ENSO has only risen 1.3C.
In 1998 and 2016 the GMT responses were roughly only 33% of the ENSO rise.
Obviously something else is going on and until we understand that and what its longevity is we can’t predict what the future will bring as we wait for ENSO to top out and the 3 to 4 months that it takes for full response. If that unknown sustains itself or increases we can expect more warming but if it doesn’t about 2/3rds of the change we have seen so far is due to something rapid likely not connected to traditional ENSO.
Human GHE emissions can’t do that, bdgwx.
arosol masking has been reduced do to shipping fuel clean up
There is very little certainty in climate analysis. Random events are always a factor. Nonetheless, there is a very high degree of certainty that the current spike event over the last several months is not caused by a gradual increase in CO2 over the last 100 years or even due to the more recent increase of the last 50 years.
If there is some kind of “tipping point” at work, then it needs to be identified in the data. Just claiming it is due to the effects of CO2 finally catching up is rather silly and has no basis in science.
While increasing CO2 may not have been the primary cause of the spike per se it is a significant contributing factor to the fact that the spike is higher than all of the other spikes. This is what happens when you superimpose short term variability onto a long term trend forced by a persistent agent.
Just for the record, that is another silly and meaningless comment. All you did was make a huge assumption about something subject to significant debate.
There is some effect. So what? Temperature measurement is subject to uncertainty and predictions from various simulations have an enormous range of results.
There used to be a political party with the nickname, the Know Nothing Party.
You might consider forming it again, Tim.
Knowing nothing and governments actually goes hand in hand.
They love to serially one at a time reject means of climate change as amounting to too little effect.
Lets see we have:
1. A diminishing recovery from the LIA
2. A solar grand maximum that rolled in setting records.
3. Semi-decadal solar variation arising from chaotic solar cycles
3. Ozone depletion
4. ocean oscillations that affects climate chaotically over variable lengths of time.
5. Perhaps even a variable greenhouse effect still awaiting a full explanation of how it works currently a large number of theories expressed in black box models spewing out a wide range of results but which may arise from any of the above multiplying the affect of those.
True to his real interest, Nate is bringing politics into a climate discussion.
I can remember back in January when we had that really low number below the 30-year average. Most of the more knowledgeable people knew that a single month does not make a trend, but others tried to make something of it. Now that we have a very unusual run of several months the other way, some want to assign trends and causes that have no scientific significance.
The fact remains that the relative strength of CO2 versus water vapor is not well known. Calibration of the effect of increasing CO2 is still pretty much of a guess. The wide range of results of climate model predictions proves that.
This current spike is almost certainly not a random event. Something other than a gradual increase in CO2 is causing it. What this really proves is that human understanding of climate is not complete. There are many significant factors that all interact with each other.
If criticism of people leaping to conclusions makes me seem like a “Know Nothing”. then so be it. I will consider the source.
Yeah, I was in a snarky mood. Sorry Tim.
My opinion on climate science is that the cup is half full.
That we know that the basic predictions of AGW from decades ago have been realized. Many lines of evidence concur.
But there are still some unknowns and uncertainties, e.g. about cloud feedback strengths, and about how the Earth will respond long term, e.g. when will the ice sheets melt, are there tipping points, etc.
Climate science is science because there are still some important questions to be answered.
Seems to me the discussion on warming has migrated due to observations from 3.0C/doubling down to 1.7 to 1.9C/doubling. Has this bottomed yet? Remains to be seen. One simply has to be on drugs to claim predictions are being met.
Mark Shapiro, climate has always changed and will do so with or without mankind. Dr Roy Spencer has said that mankind is not responsible for all of changes. So not what you were trying to imply.
Dr Roy Spencer has also devoted time and effort to understand the effects of urban heat islands that exaggerate the temperature record.
Why you believe that fossil fuels are to blame seem to be unscientific at the least.
You have misinterpreted what I said. The current episode of climate change is driven largely by the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. How do I know that – because I understand chemistry and physics. When fossil fuels are burned they emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That’s just basic chemistry. When more CO2 and other greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, the average global temperature rises. That’s just physics – a little more complicated than the chemistry part, because quantum mechanics is involved.
Yes, there are other mechanisms that can cause or contribute to episodes of climate change, but those happen over much longer time periods than the current episode of climate change. And, of course, there are some weather phenomena that cause short-term changes in the global average surface temperature. As does the emission of particulates from volcanic activity, and as did the emission of particulates from burning coal and high-sulfur fuel oil. But over the long haul – it’s the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are driving the current episode of climate change.
Mark, the last time you tired this you used a hot vacuum tube to “prove” the GHE.
Are you sticking with a hot vacuum tube, or do you have some actual science to support your beliefs?
You are trying to grossly simplify a very complex problem. Simple minds tend to view things in simple terms. Researchers such as Dr Spencer are trying to explore the complexities. I firmly believe that these complexities are the key to understanding climate.
Attempting to sell a dumbed-down version of climate, claiming that “heat trapping gases” are burning up the planet, is an obviously effective public relations scheme to influence the masses. I do not see that as something that any scientist should be proud of.
wow looks like the running 13-month moving average might finally reach a new post-1998 peak
might be good news for winter excess deaths heading into the NH winter
but we’ll see how dramatically temperatures fall back, peaks have typically turned into valleys not plateaus
most likely a cloud story since we know from the CERES data that shortwave changes dominate
hopefully the newer generations of satellites will give us a fuller radiative picture soon
of course none of this will prevent cargo cults from spending tens of trillions of dollars on superstitious rituals meant to cool the planet but at least we can enjoy all the running around in circles screaming in terror for at least another month
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/opinion/acapulco-saw-the-future-of-hurricanes-more-sudden-and-furious.html.
Check out the video links in the article for a sense of the destruction.
Monkton Paws!
Monkton Paws!
MONKTON PAWS!
M O N K T O N P A W S!
The pause updates came like clockwork on WUWT up until a couple of months ago. Now he is no where to be found. And let’s talk about his prediction of 0.5 C of cooling from the July 2013 value of -0.09 C. We are no where close to -0.59 C. In fact as of October 2023 we are 1.52 C above his prediction. The prediction was so unfathomably bad that in only 10 years he was off by nearly 15x the amount the IPCC was off by in 33 years and in the wrong direction! And ironically since making that prediction the overall trend went from +0.11 C/decade prior to 2013/07 to +0.22 C/decade since. It literally doubled!
This spike will make a good start of the next pause
I know. That is why many of us are puzzled at Monckton’s sudden absence. He has a great opportunity to push a brand new pause and possibly hoodwink his audience for another decade. Rinse and repeat.
Monckton has make it clear he knows there is an overall warming trend has stated it the last few posts he made about pauses thus your statement is misleading.
If past strong El Ninos are anything to go by, he’ll wait until the end of next year, since that is likely to be even warmer. It could end up as an extraordinary anomaly in the UAH plot, given that first strong El Nino years (1997, 2015) don’t really show up in that plot.
sunsettommy, I’m not convinced that he thought the warming would continue. I say that because his audience seems to think that the existence of the pauses necessarily means that warming has stopped permanently. He has not demonstrated a desire to clarify the fact that multi-year length pauses are predicted by climate models and are expected to be common. He also predicted that the Earth would cool by 0.5 C back in 2013. The warming rate since that prediction is +0.23 C/decade vs +0.11 C/decade prior. That’s right…the warming rate literally doubled after he made that prediction.
Is anyone else finding that comments are taking a lot longer to post?
It’s because you didn’t donate
And what exactly should I be donating to?
He doesn’t know, How does he not know ???
I have noticed. I hope its to check for tr.olls.
The sunspots touched the prediction line the adjusted re-shifted one
https://helioforecast.space/static/sync/icme_solar_cycle/cycle25_prediction_focus.png
Between that and the temperature Zharkova’s prediction of a GSM and subsequent cooling isn’t looking good.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
Gee – and does that make the prediction correct?
It’d be interesting to know why there is the sudden spike.
Attributing it to slow increase of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t a satisfactory explanation.
It isnt a satisfactory explanation.
And seasonally CO2 levels have dropping for last 4 months while China dumping ever more CO2 pollution.
Though it means a lot CO2 lately, is being absorbed. Maybe because CO2 is plant food, it causes some global warming.
Solar activity has also been crashing recently, and I think it’s going crash a lot more:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar wind
speed: 446.7 km/sec
density: 6.23 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 105
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
48-hr change: -0.6%
“Maybe because CO2 is plant food, it causes some global warming.”
Please explain the logical link, and why it applies only this year.
Yes, you would have to determine when it started.
Was “it” just last few months, was it “just this year”?
And it mostly has to be global thing- and obviously including the
ocean.
I don’t think I get the news even on important matters, locally, nationally, and certainly not globally.
Corporate news, sucks.
Goggle, world planting tree
Tree Planting By Country: Whos in the Lead?
–As of 2022, China has the most trees planted in 2021 at more than 2.5 billion trees. We expect that number to skyrocket as China sets up a massive tree-planting campaign to achieve 36,000 square kilometres of forest cover.
This is part of Chinas goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2060. In perspective, that area is larger than Belgiums total area.
India, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Mexico, and other countries also ramped up their reforestation initiatives and are planting hundreds of millions to billions of trees annually.
Heres a table showing the top 20 countries that planted the most trees in the last couple of years. Australia ranks 46th, with roughly 11.9 million trees planted in the last few years–
I didn’t know anything about this {though I still don’t know anything- it’s some website I know nothing about:
https://treesdownunder.com.au/tree-planting-statistics/
But rather focusing moon race with China {dumb, dumb- just do it}
we could have tree race with China. Apparently everyone, has fallen behind on this important world shattering thing.
Awhile ago I heard about planting 1 trillion tree.
Google it:
Republicans want to plant a trillion trees. Scientists are skeptical.
New research casts doubt on the climate strategy pushed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other GOP leaders
By Maxine Joselow
August 2, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) speaks to reporters outside the White House after a meeting with President Biden in May. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Listen
9 min
Share
Comment1188
Save
When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy toured a natural gas drilling site in Ohio in June, the California Republican vowed to boost U.S. production of oil and natural gas, major contributors to climate change.
Sign up for the Climate Coach newsletter and get advice for life on our changing planet, in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.
…
I thought Trump mentioned it,
much earlier.
I liked idea, but do it in Africa.
aresole masking has been reduced do to shipping fuel clean up over past 5 years
Solar wind
speed: 478.8 km/sec
density: 4.95 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Nov 23
“A large farside sunspot is emerging at the circled location”
Also small one in southern hemisphere
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.48×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
Things could get exciting, but not enough yet to change my guess
about Nov yet {though hard to imagine the spotless day coming anytime soon- but maybe].
Solar wind
speed: 314.3 km/sec
density: 1.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
48-hr change: +0.4%
Things fade, and seems less exciting. Had 7 numbered spot, despite
big one coming from farside, still got 7.
But still hard imagine a spotless day showing up anytime soon,
but maybe.
The south looks strong, and north, not so much.
The north spot could fade before it reaches the farside.
And 3474 {north} will take couple of days to reach farside.
Solar wind
speed: 314.3 km/sec
density: 1.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
48-hr change: +0.4%
Things fade, and seems less exciting. Had 7 numbered spot, despite
big one coming from farside, still got 7.
But still hard imagine a spotless day showing up anytime soon,
but maybe.
The south looks strong, and north, not so much.
The north spot could fade before it reaches the farside.
And 3474 {south} will take couple of days to reach farside.
Solar wind
speed: 317.5 km/sec
density: 2.21 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 95
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.37×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
48-hr change: +0.3%
I was going to mention the coronal hole {somewhat large] looks
like the devil, but that was yesterday, he kind of falling apart
now. Bad hair day.
Solar wind
speed: 510.1 km/sec
density: 10.75 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 81
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.42×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
Six numbered spots. 3474 is leaving to farside. And don’t see spots coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 488.3 km/sec
density: 6.27 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 67
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.42×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.9% Low
48-hr change: -1.7%
Well, Oulu Neutron Counts at range for going to Mars, if
stayed at this level. But it doesn’t make much sense- and whole
point it this exercise, is get some clue about it.
It doesn’t look good for a spotless day, but I don’t anything coming
from farside, and we just 4 numbered spots.
It seems a good chance Nov sunspot number will be low, but neutron count seems to point at a very active farside {or something}.
Solar wind
speed: 471.6 km/sec
density: 5.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 74
“New sunspot AR3483 is growing rapidly and merits watching as a possible source of solar flares.”
Yup. When no spots coming from farside, you grow one near middle of nearside, also 3479 instead of fading as got near farside, grew bunch
little spots. Both might take off- but 3479 is leaving soon.
And, still nothing appears to coming from farside.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 145 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.40×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.5% Low
48-hr change: -1.0%
Solar wind
speed: 484.2 km/sec
density: 5.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 93
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 139 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.52×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.3% Low
Quite a bit of spots on half of Nearside going to farside, I don’t see spot coming from farside, if gap continues to grow then might see a spotless day
Well, if this spike is caused by AGHGs, then what, we’ll be at least 5C warmer a year from now.
The short term spike is not caused by GHGs. It is primarily the result of a very rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino. GHGs are the primary contributor to the long term trend in temperature; not the short term variation.
“…primarily the result of a very rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino.”
That supposition does not fit with the fact that previous very strong El Nino events, 1982-83,1997-98, and 2015-16, had more central tropical Pacific subsurface warm water than 2023.
I’m not focused on the magnitude of the current El Nino. I’m talking about the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The year-over-year change as of 2023/09 is +2.7. The only change higher than that occurred during the 1998 runup where the change peaked at +2.9. The runup in temperature from trough to peak in 1998 was about +1.0 C at about the same as occurred here in 2023.
What might be notable in 2023 is that the temperature runup is responding earlier than average. Does it mean this cycle will peak early as well? Does it mean we should expect further increases in UAH TLT? Does it mean the traditional 4-5 month lag is breaking down now?
Regardless the primary component in the spike is the ENSO transition. I am not saying it is the only component though.
Respectfully, I’ve looked at the NOAA CPC data for every El Nino since 1950, and cannot agree.
UAH only goes back to 1978/12. Other than the ENSO transition from 1997 to 1998 I could not find any other transition that rivals 2023 over the period of record of UAH. I’ll double check my work when I get time and see if I missed something.
Also the Global effect of El Nino is coming too early.
I don’t know about that. UAH TLT responds to the ENSO state regardless of whether it crossed the El Nino threshold or not. Going from -1.0 only a year ago to beyond 0 we expected a large spike regardless of the magnitude of El Nino or even if El Nino formed at all. The fact that UAH TLT is typically lagged by 4-5 months is really more of indication that the spike could go higher still.
Yes it can as the atmosphere is low mass as compared to the ocean waters where the sudden outflow of energy enters the air which is why we see a rapid temperature increase in the UAH temperature chart.
Sorry bdgwx, but GHGs are NOT the “primary contributor to the long term trend in temperature”.
And, as Ark informed you, the “rapid” transition from LN to EN was not the “primary contributor”.
Yes I know – just a tease.
The earth is certainly in a warming trend. If UAH data shows it, might as well state that it is confirmed.
Does this mean a catastrophe is underway? Are we going to have more hurricanes, more severe weather with tornadoes, rising sea levels flooding our cities along the shore, more droughts, more inland floods?
I think a lot of that is hysteria. The Arctic ice extent minimum closed at 4,230,000 km^2 last September. That makes 11 years in a row that the ice extent min has closed higher than the 2012 satellite era record low of 3,387,000 km^2. If the earth is indeed warming, it certainly is not affecting the Arctic much for the time being.
Maybe the Arctic ice is in an expansion phase, and the global temperature won’t drop until the ice is sufficiently big.
More hurricanes are causing increasing cost- because people build expensive property in these coastal and other areas. And everyone is
paying that higher costs.
We could lower such costs by having cheap ocean settlements.
Or simple outlaw people living in these dangerous/expensive regions.
I would like to add that the average growth rate of the Arctic ice in October is 2,765,000 km^2. But for Oct 2023, the Arctic ice extent grew 3,714,000 km^2 according to the Snow and Ice Center. If the satellite era global temperature anomaly hit a record high for Oct 2023, it sure didn’t slow down the Arctic ice growth. There must be some other factor involved with sea ice expansion and contraction than just the global temperature.
Perhaps while the atmosphere has warmed recently, the Arctic Ocean has cooled. And this has allowed the Arctic ice to grow faster than normal.
Does that make sense to any of the earth scientists here?
it’s so easy to confuse local weather effects with global climate that people often make use of the confusion to spin their favourite view.
The Arctic temperatures were above normal as well.
Local factors include sea surface and sub-surface temperatures, winds, and if you’re looking at sea ice extent rather than area, whether prevailing winds and current have compacted or spread out the sea ice.
Connecting all that to global temperature is impossible.
Rob Mitchell
1. You are right: the absolute minimum of sea ice extent in the Arctic reached in 2012 has not yet been fallen below:
2012 9: 3.57 (Mkm^2)
2020 9: 3.92
2019 9: 4.32
2023 9: 4.37
2016 9: 4.51
2015 9: 4.62
2018 9: 4.71
2017 9: 4.80
2022 9: 4.87
2021 9: 4.92
2013 9: 5.21
2014 9: 5.22
But… why do you never mention the sea ice rebuild phase, which has its maximum in March:
2012 3: 15.20 (Mkm^2)
2013 3: 15.03
2020 3: 14.78
2014 3: 14.76
2021 3: 14.64
2022 3: 14.59
2019 3: 14.55
2023 3: 14.44
2016 3: 14.40
2015 3: 14.37
2018 3: 14.30
2017 3: 14.27
*
2. And… what about the Antarctic sea ice extent? Is it suddenly no longer of interest just because it drops since years?
Here is, like for the Arctic, the ascending sort for the least monthly values (in Antarctic during February)
2023 2: 1.91 (Mkm^2)
2022 2: 2.16
2017 2: 2.29
2018 2: 2.33
2019 2: 2.65
2016 2: 2.79
2021 2: 2.83
2020 2: 2.87
2012 2: 3.55
2015 2: 3.80
2014 2: 3.84
2013 2: 3.84
and the descending sort for the highest ones (also September)
2014 9: 19.76 (Mkm^2)
2013 9: 19.39
2012 9: 19.21
2020 9: 18.77
2021 9: 18.45
2015 9: 18.44
2019 9: 18.33
2016 9: 18.15
2018 9: 17.96
2017 9: 17.91
2022 9: 17.69
2023 9: 16.80
*
3. Does that not definitely tell us that we should leave this single month comparison, and move to yearly averages instead:
Arctic
2016: 10.16 (Mkm^2)
2020: 10.18
2019: 10.21
2018: 10.35
2017: 10.40
2012: 10.42
2021: 10.57
2015: 10.59
2022: 10.65
2014: 10.81
2013: 10.92
Antarctic
2022: 10.57 (Mkm^2)
2017: 10.70
2019: 10.83
2018: 10.95
2016: 11.18
2021: 11.46
2020: 11.51
2012: 11.98
2015: 12.37
2013: 12.47
2014: 12.73
*
And for the whole Globe
2019: 21.04 (Mkm^2)
2017: 21.10
2022: 21.22
2018: 21.30
2016: 21.34
2020: 21.69
2021: 22.03
2012: 22.40
2015: 22.96
2013: 23.39
2014: 23.54
*
No, I’m not telling you that the Globe is warming faster than some people think. This is a job I prefer to leave to others.
What I want to show you is that your deliberate choice of the Arctic month of September since 2012 as a kind of benchmark against which to measure how sea ice evolves over the years is the worst choice possible.
Source
Monthly absolute values for Arctic resp. Antarctic
https://tinyurl.com/MASIE-monthly
https://tinyurl.com/MANTSIE-monthly
Bindidon,
“And what about the Antarctic sea ice extent? Is it suddenly no longer of interest just because it drops since years?” While it is true that climate skeptics have forgone talking about the low Antarctica sea ice extent in favor of the situation in the Arctic, just looking at long term data you can see that Antarctica’s sea ice extent increased, reaching a record high in 2014.
Also the choice of using the month of September as a bench mark is due to seasonal significance. September represents the end of the Arctic summer and the culmination of the annual melt season. As such, temperatures, while they vary every September, tend to hover around the freezing temperature point. Most of the other months like March are well below freezing.
walter…please don’t confuse Binny with fact. He and his fellow alarmists think melting Arctic ice is an annual event whereas it occurs during one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year is not only sub-zero C it is as far below zero as -60C.
As long as the Planet maintains its current orbital path and axial tilt, nothing will change that.
He has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen.
Hi Bindidon,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question about the spike in global temperature and the state of the Arctic sea ice. The reason why I chose the September minima of Arctic ice is because for decades there was a lot of hysteria about the Arctic becoming ice free during the summer. For that to happen, the sea ice extent will have to drop below 3,387,000 km^2 at some point. I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.
I notice that you are really good at putting together a whole bunch of numbers together and make the numbers mean something. Statistics must be a specialty of yours. But as an operational weather forecaster, I don’t put a whole lot of meaning into the numbers. The Antarctic sea ice extent is a primary example why. It was only a relatively few years back in 2014 when the Antarctic ice reached a satellite era high. Then shortly after that, the ice declined to a record low in 2023. Some people think the almighty CO2 molecule is the reason for that. I don’t think that at all.
When the sea ice reaches a maxima like it did in 2014, the outer edge of the ice is thin. The powerful storms they get down there breaks up the thin ice edge. Equatorward winds pulls the broken ice into warmer waters where it melts. Poleward winds compacts the ice towards the continent. Once the ice is compacted and solid with multi-year ice, it starts to grow again.
There is an ebb and flow of the sea ice at both poles and is highly irregular – kind of like weather.
rob…”I notice that you are really good at putting together a whole bunch of numbers together and make the numbers mean something. Statistics must be a specialty of yours”.
***
You must be confusing Binny with another poster. He certainly produces a lot of numbers but closer scrutiny reveals they are all meaningless, most of them from questionable sources.
For example, even though NOAA openly admitted on their site a few years ago, that they have slashed the number of reporting surface stations globally from 6000 to less than 1500, Binny insists they use more than a 100,000 stations to derive their global average. So, any numbers offered by Binny are seriously exaggerated and based on imaginary data.
Rather than accept what NOAA amitted, Binny calls me a liar for telling the truth.
Walter R. Hogle
1. ” Also the choice of using the month of September as a bench mark is due to seasonal significance. September represents the end of the Arctic summer and the culmination of the annual melt season. ”
You apparently did not (want to) notice the reason for my answer to Rob Mitchell.
I merely intended to show him that choosing 2012, September as a benchmark for Arctic sea ice variations, let alone for a global view on them, is the worst choice possible.
You made out of my comment exactly the contrary, trying to view it like an alarmist post to which you urge in replying with trivial ‘skep~tic’ details.
*
2. ” … just looking at long term data you can see that Antarctica’s sea ice extent increased, reaching a record high in 2014. ”
That’s now really good.
On the one hand, when shown how the Arctic behaves in the long term, Pse~udo-skep~tics never tire of answering that “melting of Arctic sea ice has slowed recently”:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
But… on the other hand, they never tire of showing how Antarctica behaves in the long term when shown the recent decline in sea ice extent in Antarctica:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16WB0LUn6XujkDG9FgKYU1IhPZMyfznUH/view
That’s like reversing the logic of the argument so that it always agrees with one’s narrative, isn’t it?
*
3. ” As such, temperatures, while they vary every September, tend to hover around the freezing temperature point. Most of the other months like March are well below freezing. ”
Why are you suddenly diverting, moving away from discussed sea ice matters to temperatures?
March is in the Arctic the month with the highest sea ice level. Best example is 2012 itself:
2012 9: 3.57 (Mkm^2)
2012 3: 15.20
*
Monthly absolute values and period averages, superposed over the years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h4-D5VPavodVT0TqxLoT-Sr7ntIXF2qw/view
– Daily anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, superposed over the years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
{ Unlike for the monthly values, the minimums for daily values are in October, and the maximums in April/May. }
*
In the sum, Mr Hogle: no idea anymore of what you are trying to show us here. Sounds like dominated by your gut feeling rather than by impartially looking at observations.
Rob Mitchell
Thank you for your convenient reply. Much appreciated, and way, way more interesting than Mr Hogle’s post.
I have a few comments on your thoughts too, but I got a little tired after my answer to him and will therefore answer to you in more detail tomorrow.
*
To this below, however I can reply right now.
” I notice that you are really good at putting together a whole bunch of numbers together and make the numbers mean something.
Statistics must be a specialty of yours. ”
No they aren’t at all.
But it is evident that after decades of work in engineering, a discipline inevitably increasingly dominated by software engineering (*), the former engineer often will tend to use his professional knowledge in some hobby corner, in my case… climate data, he he.
But unlike weather station data which request design, implementation and V&V of a ‘whole bunch’ of software, what I showed here is no more than downloading data accessible by anybody and putting it, like does Roy Spencer in his head posts, into number columns and graphs with the help of a spreadsheet calculator.
_____________________________________
(*) Think for example of the unimaginable difference between the brandnew, completely software-dominated domestic gas burner we use at home since a few months, and that which was installed in the early 1990s.
” He has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen. ”
Oh! How interesting!
Instead of trying to contradict what I wrote, Mr Hogle resorts to discrediting and denigrating.
*
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
Like the poster Robertson, Mr Hogle also seems to lack both technical skill and scientific education necessary to accurately contradict those he disagree with. Otherwise he clearly would have done that.
*
Does Mr Hogle also think, like claims Robertson all the time, that
– NOAA uses only 1500 stations worldwide (despite Roy Spencer using about 12 times more of them in his most recent research);
– the Moon cannot spin about its polar axis;
– time does not exist;
– GPS does not need any relativistic correction;
– etc etc?
*
Mr. Hogle’s response – if he gives one at all – might well tell us about his level of agreement with Robertson’s nonsense and therefore about his own “level of intellectual acumen”, right?
Bindidon says:
He has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen.
Oh! How interesting!
Instead of trying to contradict what I wrote, Mr Hogle resorts to discrediting and denigrating.
*
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit.
Like the poster Robertson, Mr Hogle also seems to lack both technical skill and scientific education necessary to accurately contradict those he disagree with. Otherwise he clearly would have done that.
————————-
bindidon after not providing any proof of his claims to contradict immediately sets off as usual in an effort to polemically discredit his critic.
My main point is that it is crucial to recognize the inherent complexity of the climate system and the dynamic nature of Earth’s environmental processes. The situation of sea ice at both poles, with the Arctic and Antarctic exhibiting different trends over time, serves as a testament to this complexity. It’s unwise to rely on oversimplified explanations that fail to account for the intricate interplay of factors influencing our planet’s climate. I’m not a coolista.
My motivation in making that comment is to inject a bit of humor and provoke lively discussions.
Hi Rob Mitchell
” The reason why I chose the September minima of Arctic ice is because for decades there was a lot of hysteria about the Arctic becoming ice free during the summer. ”
I fully understand, and never supported a bit of this ridiculous idea. You are right: till the entire Arctic becomes ice-free it might take some really longer time.
*
” But as an operational weather forecaster, I dont put a whole lot of meaning into the numbers. ”
Hard to imagine, as your job today implies, as I often have read, the use of really big computers because the observed cells became over time smaller and smaller, thus quadratically increasing their interconnections.
Your world, Rob, can’t live without real-time processing of huge amounts of numbers anymore.
How else could we explain the incredibly accurate short-time forecasts for sun, clouds, wind, precip provided by e.g. ‘my’ weather web site ‘wetteronline.de’?
*
” The Antarctic sea ice extent is a primary example why. ”
Again, I understand you, but please read my reply to Mr. Hogle, in which I point out conflicting skeptical discourses for the Arctic and Antarctic.
There is also something more here.
This time it is about the fundamental difference between the two poles, which makes comparisons difficult.
While the North Pole is a small area of pack ice surrounded by a piece of ocean and a large amount of land, the South Pole conversely is a huge piece of land surrounded by a huge ocean with cold, strong circumpolar currents and a piece of land in comparison.
Thus we shouldn’t wonder about how great the difference between extent and area (aka 100% pack ice) is in the Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V3ES4AgH6e2cJUuYVdDpknvtb7RAeePt/view
when compared to the Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kZTBwTO3nQrYgxuU46GrJ5xRX1MY4J4Y/view
*
” … kind of like weather. ”
Yes, over the long term you are obviously right. We two know how warm it was in the Arctic in the 1930s.
I have long wondered whether climate alarmism is about the fear of the next glaciation period.
Now, as everyone knows global warming and global glaciation is related the Milankovitch cycles.
But card carrying global warming cargo cultists, have made various
promises about how higher CO2 levels caused by human activity will delay the next glaciation period by thousands if not tens of thousands of years.
Now, I am not too concerned about the next glaciation period- I think there could various advantage related to it, especially if we have ocean settlements- which seems likely to me within a couple decades.
But New York Times was terrorizing the public with coming doom of the “next ice age” several decades ago. And it seems a lot people fear the glaciation period which is coming.
In our current global average surface temperature of 15 C, the coldness kills far more people than any warmth. But this mostly economic issue, as we are able of keeping a home warm enough, but due poverty and/or disability, some people can’t afford to keep their homes warm enough.
[[But whether from the cold or too warm, it’s usually a matter of neglect which causes the suffering and death.]]
Another aspect is saving fossil fuels for later use {when might need it more} and use instead fossil fuels in distant lands and keeping emergency reserve locally.
I think an “all the above” approach to our energy needs is the best way to deal with the global demand for energy. This idea of immediately shutting off one source of energy when the alternatives aren’t ready to replace it is harmful to the well-being of humanity.
I think “all the above” is putting highest in priority of exploring the Moon and then, quickly exploring Mars.
And that roughly, doesn’t cost anything. And adding delay does cost a lot.
So, to date it has been a high cost, because it hasn’t been a national priority and has taken far too much time.
Also wasting a lot time is the experimental mining of oceanic methane hydrate deposits. I have no clue whether oceanic methane hydrates are mineable or not.
And I think we should have a lot fracking and as a result of all this drilling everywhere, also do geothermal electrical generation.
I also think we do a lot drilling on Mars.
That might cost a fair amount. Maybe most of drilling will have to done later by human settlement. But more drilling, generally, than what NASA seems to be planning to do.
El Nio and stratospheric HTHH volcanic effects should persist for at least two months. Maybe more for HTHH.
Cleaner air over oceans from recent shipping requirements to replace heavy bunker fuels with less polluting low-S fuels will warm the surface for the foreseeable future.
CO2, not so much.
Nio and stratospheric HTHH volcanic effects should persist for at least two months. Maybe more for HTHH.
Cleaner air over oceans from recent shipping requirements to replace heavy bunker fuels with less polluting low-S fuels will warm the surface for the foreseeable future.
CO2, not so much.
The tropical storm Pilar which is south of lower Mexico, is predicted
to become hurricane and travel due west {towards the distant Hawaii- below it}.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
And it’s Nov. When will the hurricane season, end?
There also disturbance on Atlantic side with 20% chance.
But nothing which will prevent a Starship launch {yet}.
Or rocket launches from KSC.
That is an ugly misleading statement
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade”
Of xourse it is, it cannot change everyone’s month. But instead of that pointless statement, you can plot the trend. Would be interesting to see how it has been accelerating.
Besides that, baseline should be from the beginning of the measurement, not moving it from decade to another. This is not a moving average, doc 😂
There you go. Useful tool, Woodforthetrees.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/plot/uah6/from:2014/to:2024/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2004/to:2014/every/trend/plot/uah6-land/from:1994/to:2004/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1984/to:1994/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/every/trend
20 y trends more robust, IMO.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/every/plot/uah6/from:2004/to:2024/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2017/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:1998/every/trend
The 20 year trend does suggest acceleration. Pity that ENSO adds so much short term variation.
Ummm…
The discussion was about T trends:
“The 20 year trend does suggest acceleration.”
Your response was:
“Pretty darned good demonstration of the futility of our efforts to reduce carbon.”
Clearly you were saying increasing T demonstrates CO2 has not been effectively reduced…..clearly linking the two!
Now a week later, you try to shamelessly revise history..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558478
Pretty darned good demonstration of the futility of our efforts to reduce carbon. . .a 7% decrease since 1990 and 20% decrease since 2005.
https://tinyurl.com/3hnpxkzb
One country’s policies are not the world’s.
Look up the word futility Nate.
So you admit that T rise accelerating is “good demonstration of” that CO2 rise is causative?
boy you don’t know much about whats going on.
the US has reduced emissions as i described above. But the rest of the world has increased emissions more than we reduced them. thus the lack of acceleration is evidence of a poor correlation to co2 as the cause. which of course has always been the case. for instance the models failed to reproduce the warming of the first half of the 20th century.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558267
Well I am not seeing much of it.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/to:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1285502/annual-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2002/trend/plot/uah6/from:2002/trend
Bill, you keep making a clear link between CO2 and global T.
Oh well!
One cannot derive a statistical probability of causation from a single and very imperfect correlation. But I do think thats how activists think and I have a lot of experience with that. So I could do a study on that but why bother when its so obvious right on the surface.
“Besides that, baseline should be from the beginning of the measurement, not moving it from decade to another.”
While I agree that the baseline is best kept consistent, it doesn’t matter whether you use the first or last year, or 30-year average smack bang in the middle, if the interest is in the long-term trend, the difference in the results is so little as to make no difference.
IOW, now matter which baseline you choose, the difference in long-term trends measure no more than a few thousandths of a degree per decade.
Worrying about which baseline demonstrates only that you miss the point.
Did the trend in CO2 change recently to drive such large increases in temperature? Nope. Clearly something other than CO2 drives temperature.
CO2 has driven the long term warming trend in the UAH data from about anomaly -0.3C in 1979 to 0.3C at present.
Some additional factor has increased the September and October temperatures by another 0.6C.
Sorry Ent, but CO2 did NOT “drive the long term warming trend in the UAH”.
Once again you’ve been tricked by all the nonsense out there.
ET Says: CO2 has driven the long term warming trend in the UAH data from about anomaly -0.3C in 1979 to 0.3C at present.
What possible evidence do you have to supprt such a nonsensical claim? Simply eyeball the 2 data sets, there is no relationship what so ever between CO2 and Temperature…none.
Your argument by appeal from personal incredulity is not convincing.
There’s a strong correlation, a demonstrated causal link in the laboratory and observations which show that the same thing is happening in the atmosphere. All of it is published in the literature, replicated, coherent, consistent and consilient.
If you insist on closing your eyes, covering your ears and making la la noises when the evidence is presented I can’t help you.
Entropic man says:
Theres a strong correlation, a demonstrated causal link in the laboratory and observations which show that the same thing is happening in the atmosphere. All of it is published in the literature, replicated, coherent, consistent and consilient.
———————-
lol!
em is obviously getting senile. if he has any links to this it must be from the blogosphere.
Is this your Mike Flynn bit, Gill?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Second flight of Starship closing in on potential November launch
written by Chris Bergin November 2, 2023
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/11/starship-update-110223/
“The flight of Booster 9 and Ship 25 is now in the final stage of preparations, focused on regulatory approval that will allow SpaceX to set a launch date. That target is currently tracking mid-November as the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) works on the final element of the FAAs launch license via an updated Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act.”
SpaceX’s Starship Is Ready! How Has It Improved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigk98T4qkQ
Will Starship launch soon, what are chance of success and what
will amount a success of the second launch attempt?
I would say what would an incredible success of 2nd attempt is quickly getting to the 3rd test launch of Starship. And really fast would be within month of time. Though 3rd being done in early part of 2024 would count as a success.
And delivering payload to orbit with 3rd or 4th test launch and/or when it’s also when, it’s not called a test launch.
Anyhow, SpaceX trying to launch 100 rockets this year, and will attempting to do 144 in 2024. And part of 144 will lifting part of Gateway lunar station in latter part of year- with the Falcon Heavy.
Welcome to the mwp 2.0
The question is why the following measurements do not show an increase in temperature?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Because the stratosphere is cooling
You would expect this As the concentration of GHGs in the stratosphere increases, the outward radiation from the stratosphere increases and the stratospheric temperature drops.
that doesn’t fit your theory Entropic. Doesn’t the CO2 up there send only half of what it receives to space and the the other half back to the surface? Now you say it will send what? 60% to space and only 40% back to the surface?
You are describing the behaviour of CO2 in the troposphere. Most of the excitation of CO2 molecules is due to upward longwave radiation from below, which is then redirected in all directions. The net effect is to add kinetic energy to molecules in the troposphere, warming the atmosphere
In the stratosphere most of the excitation of CO2 is due to the kinetic energy of molecular collisions. The resulting radiation is then lost to space or the troposphere. The net effect is to remove kinetic energy from the molecules, cooling the stratosphere.
seems to me that ozone levels primarily determine how much energy is absorbed in the stratosphere since almost all the ozone is there and ozone absorbs on average about 30 watts of UV.
Except for the lapse rate, the atmosphere is warmer where it is absorbing energy and coolest where it is losing heat.
You see temperature gradient between heat sources and heat sinks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
The surface is a heat source, warming the atmosphere. The tropopause is a heat sink as GHGs radiate much of the outward longwave radiation. Temperature drops as you gain altitude between the surface and the tropopause around 10km.
Once above the tropopause the stratosphere warms as you move towards the ozone layer at 50km. This heat source is due to the a n s o r b t I o n of UV.
Above the ozone layer the temperature drops as you rise towards the next heat sink at the base of the troposphere where heat is lost to space by thermal radiation.The
Finally the temperature starts to rise again as the remnants of the atmosphere are warmer by the solar wind.
Entropic man says:
”Above the ozone layer the temperature drops as you rise towards the next heat sink at the base of the troposphere where heat is lost to space by thermal radiation.”
The troposphere is not above the ozone layer EM.
Sorry, my mistake. That should have been:-
Above the ozone layer the temperature drops as you rise towards the next heat sink at the base of the THERMOSPHERE where heat is lost to space by thermal radiation.
em the mesosphere is the layer above the ozone layer in the stratosphere. the thermosphere is the top layer and contains no ghgs.
way too much theory, Ent. Talking about heat and heating in the stratosphere is not the same as talking about it at sea level. Heat is dependent on the number of atoms per unit volume and by the time you are well into the stratosphere, that number has been reduced to a tiny amount in comparison.
binny…” there has been no warming since 2016
***
This quotes RLH out of context. At the time, he was making the point that the trend had flattened out.
The trend always flattens out after a new record.
There have been five previous UAH records since 1979 and the trend flattened out after each of them.
None of them indicated the end of the long term trend.
No doubt the trend will flatten after the 2023/2024 peak and Lord Monkton will claim an end to global warming.
So the world is always getting warmer, forever. Has CO2 been responsible for the latest rise?
Yes and no.
CO2 has raised the base temperature but other factors have produced the peak.
For example, in 1998 the CO2 induced long term average anomaly temperature was about -0.2C and other factors raised the observed peak by 0.8C to 0.6C.
Now extra CO2 has raised the underlying temperature to 0.3C and other factors have raised the observed temperature by 0.6C to 0.9C.
indeed but before accounting for the effects of the adjustocene.
I used UAH data.
Do you regard that as part of the adjustocene?
how are you defining ”longterm average anomaly”
Entropic man says:
”There have been five previous UAH records since 1979 and the trend flattened out after each of them.
None of them indicated the end of the long term trend.
No doubt the trend will flatten after the 2023/2024 peak and Lord Monkton will claim an end to global warming.”
Yep nobody can yet predict the climate. We are just running a huge experiment on the people of the world in the name of trying to learn what will happen next.
Unfortunately the elites can afford to pay and the people it harms can’t.
The elites are the ones opposing attempts to minimise global warming. Of course, they are the ones who can move to estates at higher altitudes or higher latitudes.
The poor are stuck with whatever the changing climate throws at them. . They can’t migrate because the countries they need to migrate to won’t let them in.
net migration is currently towards warmer climes. it is still a cold world despite the warming. for example it was but a few years ago Viking buildings emerged from glacial ice that covered it 300-600 years ago. people in general still need more heating than air conditioning. in the US people send more than 3 times as much on heating as opposed to air conditioning $1020 vs $326.
https://www.self.inc/info/cost-of-heating-air-conditioning/
you need to broaden your reading list EM
What changing climate, Ent? Can you offer proof of any current climate changing?
I had in mind the Guatemalan farmers who migrated North when increasing heat and drought killed their coffee plantations.
They headed for the only country with the resources to accept refugees and the US refused to let them in.
ent…we get droughts regularly in parts of the province of British Columbia but those parts had desert-like climates long before climate change was an issue.
Vancouver is in a rain forest climate zone while part of the province 150 miles northeast is in a desert climate zone. The difference in climate is due to the lack of rainfall because there are mountains in the way that suck up precipitation from incoming rain clouds.
The droughts are natural, brought on by natural variables. Here’s an example…look under climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spences_Bridge
Nearby Lytton has a slightly different, albeit arid climate, and is often the hottest part of Canada. Again…see climate…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia
Slightly different climate within 50 km of each other.
Meantime, 150 miles southwest you have Vancouver…with an very different climate than the other two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver
That’s a better and more realistic form of climate change. And none of the three have changed over the past 200 years despite increases in CO2.
Entropic man says:
I had in mind the Guatemalan farmers who migrated North when increasing heat and drought killed their coffee plantations.
They headed for the only country with the resources to accept refugees and the US refused to let them in.
————————
where do you get this nonsense from EM? Coffee production in Guatemala has been normal despite increasing production from neighboring Honduras.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/hungry-desperate-climate-change-fuels-migration-crisis-guatemala-rcna2135
that article doesn’t say one word about coffee.
also it has always rained like crazy in central america. nothing unusual about that. my gawd the whole country is nearly all tropical rainforest. nbc is just one of those orgs greatly benefitting from democrat policies of trading US industrial jobs for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and tons of money for the elite class making the workers here jobless and poor and the rich richer. this corruption has us on the fast track to third world status.
Hmmm:
https://www.statista.com/chart/28351/global-net-per-capita-migration-by-country/
It appears that your author has included vacation and business travel in his data.
Author:
”By “migrant”, it is meant: Any person who, leaving his or her usual place of residence, crosses an international border, regardless of the nature and cause of the movement or the duration of the stay.”
ent…the trend flattened for 18 years following the 1998 extreme and for 6 years following the 2016 extreme.
Why? If CO2 is contributing to warming and CO2 increases each year, why is there a flat trend at all?
Bill Hunter asked
“how are you defining longterm average anomaly”
In the same way that Dr Spencer defines his decadal warming rate of 014C/decade, by linear regression.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/trend
The green line shows the long term warming trend due to (insert preferred explaination).
This indicates that, all else being equal, the present anomaly temperature would be expected to be about 0.25C.
Instead October was at 0.93C. This, and other deviations such as the 1998 peak, are due to other factors such as ENSO and albedo.
Gordon Robertson
“the trend flattened for 18 years following the 1998 extreme and for 6 years following the 2016 extreme.
Why? If CO2 is contributing to warming and CO2 increases each year, why is there a flat trend at all?”
I might ask you a similar question. If all temperature changes are due to the recovery from the LIA, why are there flat trends at all?
lol!
there are a whole lot of reasons why temperature changes.
Entropic man says:
”the trend flattened for 18 years following the 1998 extreme and for 6 years following the 2016 extreme.
Why? If CO2 is contributing to warming and CO2 increases each year, why is there a flat trend at all?”
I might ask you a similar question. If all temperature changes are due to the recovery from the LIA, why are there flat trends at all?
Who said all temperature changes are due to the recovery from the LIA EM?
We know the LIA occurred. We also know that proxy records show natural variations on a frequent basis of amplitudes that included the LIA.
What hasn’t been demonstrated is a means for CO2 in the atmosphere to affect temperatures. . .and that’s not to say there isn’t a possibility of that.
What Gordon is saying is since flat periods still occur there are means of natural temperature variation to explain all variation seen.
Bindidon,
“Bindidonsays:
October 29, 2023 at 12:38 PM
Maybe some geniuses endlessly blathering their egomaniacal guesses about absorp~tion / emission of radiation try to learn a bit, for example by carefully reading:
https://tinyurl.com/5795hyru ”
Let’s see what it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
” Roughly three-quarters of the Sun’s mass consists of hydrogen (~73%); the rest is mostly helium (~25%), with much smaller quantities of heavier elements, including oxygen, carbon, neon, and iron.”
How do you explain, Bindidon, the existence of the continuous Spectrum of Solar Radiation ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are asking the wrong clownius , he thinks you can power
light-bulb by radiation from ice cube
Aaaah! The constantly stalking, scientifically at least 100% uneducated dachshund is back, and once again has time to deal with discrediting and denigration.
Allez, mon petit teckel! Retourne bien vite dans ta niche, et ronge bravement ton os.
Bindidon soundly rejects the idea that a cold atmosphere will heat a warmer surface used widely to influence the less educated. He calls it the Dachshund Theory.
Sorry, Vournas
Your reply doesn’t have anything to do with my comment.
CV’s comment is about the science you brought up, Bindi. But, you don’t understand the link you found.
Yeah, Bindiclown soundly rejects the laws of fizzix discovered in the last 200 years since the two hundred years old book he read was written by people who thought the Sun was a giant burning lump of coal so emmiting spectra is no issue to him,
and That’s besides his learning you can add and subtract radiation back and forth willy nilly without considering the wave length or anything.
“you can add and subtract radiation”
Still not sure how anything can abs.orb low low energy IR photons, Eben?
Nate just assumes that photons exist. Objects with no mass that is based upon a theory rather than an observation. As Einstein said:
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Albert Einstein, 1951
Uggh…go ahead and ignore the extensive experimental evidence, if it pleases you.
And no I’m not going to find it for you, go look it up.
of course you want me to look for it because there is none, zilch, zip.
As I said, go ahead and ignore the evidence, and pretend it does not exist, if that works for you.
Well we all know you will never find any.
“Well we all know”
Got any evidence? Of course you don’t.
the evidence is obvious. You are looking for somebody else to look.
Bill, physics is built on experiments testing theory. If the photon model had notably failed experimental tests, it would not continue to be used.
If the photon model had not been useful to advancing physics and technology, it would not continue to be used.
Your objections do not appear to be based on any awareness of experiments where the photon model failed.
Einstein’s complaints about the word ”photon” was that the suffix implies a particle. that leads people to extrapolate on the photon model into believing stuff beyond what is actually known about the photon model. what we know can be more correctly expressed as light quanta something we know something about but far from all.
so all i complain about regarding the ”model” is when you start claiming that backradiation must be absorbed because you have extrapolated from the cartoon depiction of a model and believe that the movement of photons can be divided into two separate flows as opposed to a single net flow.
the common argument for that extrapolation is a question. namely, how else would photons know when to flow. an argument from ignorance is one that is in the form of a question. and people smugly ask the question as they are convinced of the two seperate flows because of a cartoon depiction of the model.
and before you go off. keep in mind one that there are no perfect absorbers of photons, no perfect emitters, no substance is perfectly transparent and that photons are reflected at various intensities.
its like trenberth using black body quantities when those actually experienced with high emissivity surfaces, particularily in combination with high levels of reflectively generally involves special materials. so a combination of special materials and electronics of ingenious design can both do a lot of neat stuff and help lead to unjustified extrapolations regarding the cartoon version of the photon model that may well be just not so.
So you are not aware of any experiments that falsified the photon model.
Got it.
Gee Nate I am not aware of any experiments that falsified the existence of God either. Go figure!
Are you unaware of the difference between religion and science?
Your or my God theory can never be falsified. Thus it is religion.
The photon theory is falsifiable. An experiment could prove it wrong. None have so far, however. Thus it is science.
Nate says:
”Are you unaware of the difference between religion and science?”
Of course not but it seems you are unaware. We are talking about science, you know experiments, to prove something and you asked if I was aware of any experiments that falsifies the CO2 theory.
If you can use a science experiment to falsify the CO2 theory then you should also be required to use a science experiment to falsify the God Exists theory.
Fact is if you want to prove a theory you need to conduct an experiment and show that the experiment can create a GHE everytime its replicated. If you don’t have one your theory is religion.
I agree the belief that God exists is a religion also.
I think maybe you should brush up on the scientific method Nate. . . seems as though you are really getting rusty with it.
“you asked if I was aware of any experiments that falsifies the CO2 theory.”
No. The photon theory!
Is your memory really that poor?
“If you can use a science experiment to falsify the CO2 theory then you should also be required to use a science experiment to falsify the God Exists theory.”
Brilliant.
Apparently you STILL can’t figure out the difference between science and religion.
Nate says:
”Brilliant.
Apparently you STILL cant figure out the difference between science and religion.”
Nate just fell off the turnip truck.
apparently he isn’t aware of science providing reasonable arguments for 4 billion year old earth. or the Scopes Monkey trial closing arguments.
he also seems to believe that science is for proving non-existence of something as opposed to the well established purpose of the scientific method to bring forth evidence of the existence of something.
See what Feynman says when he talks about theory being tested by experiment.
That would be an excellent idea for you to pursue Nate since you know so little about it.
Bill gets silly. That’s how we know the discussion is over.
yep once again a thread ends after nate proclaiming he knows the science exists without being able to locate a shred of it.
No it ended when you lost the science thread and found God.
no it ended as a science discussion the moment you first posted where you suggested that i have zero scientific proof that your god doesn’t exist to which i responded that you also don’t have any scientific evidence that my God doesn’t exist. which by the way both are true.
My God is photons?
You stopped making any sense awhile back.
nope! your god is what you believe about light quanta and while you can question me you don’t match up at all with Einstein and his opinion for which there is zero science that has light quanta operating as you claim. if i am wrong bring forth the evidence of that. if not then just put your tail between your legs and walk away.
“your god is what you believe about light quanta”
Here you are unable to argue with science, so you shamelessly tell me what I believe.
Einstein made the photon discovery in 1905, and it greatly advanced quantum theory. Bohr advanced the theory by explaining the spectra of atoms as emission of photons from quantized orbits.
Later, in 1916, Einstein explained the fundamentals of stimulated photon emission and abs.or.ption, that led ultimately, much later, to the invention of the LASER.
In the 1920s he helped to understand the strange statistical properties of photons and atoms, and he predicted the Bose-Einstein condensate, which was finally discovered decades later. This again helped advance quantum thoery.
Compton in 1922, did experiments that showed photons carried momentum and energy, just like a particle, and their collisions with electrons satisfied conservation of energy and momentum of the ejected photons and electrons. Most physicists began to accept that photons existed after this.
Many others advanced the theory and experiments further.
In 1931, Raman, showed that photons carry quantized angular momentum, that can be transferred to/from atoms in their scattering off atoms and molecules.
Decades later in 1950s, Einstein was sadly no longer at the forefront of quantum theory and didnt like some of the developments. By then he was quite old, and seeking a grand unified theory which he, sadly, never found.
Others carried the torch on quantum theory, particle physics, and General Relativity, cosmology, etc.
Einstein was absolutely brilliant, but only for limited period of time. That is often how it works, unfortunately.
Einstein did not OWN the photon, and does not get the final word on its interpretation.
Today, individual photons can be detected. They exist. Feynman in his Lectures explains why some experiments can detect light as a particle and other experiments detect light as a wave.
There are plenty of sources out there that discuss these discoveries and experiments. Go read about them.
Nate says:
your god is what you believe about light quanta
Here you are unable to argue with science, so you shamelessly tell me what I believe.
Einstein made the photon discovery in 1905, and it greatly advanced quantum theory. Bohr advanced the theory by explaining the spectra of atoms as emission of photons from quantized orbits.
———————————
You blew it right out the gate Nate. Einstein did not discover photons. He expanded on Plancks quanta particularly the high frequency end of it and analogized the photo-electric effect to the joule expansion of a gas.
He disliked the coining of the term photon because the ‘ton’ suffix suggested it was a particle when it really is much more like a wave with frequencies that can be absorbed or reflected and has some peculiar behaviors. the joule expansion of a gas is a far better analogy that the summing of particles that the CO2 mavens cling to around here.
As we both discuss all the evidence for photons, it becomes clear that
“of course you want me to look for it because there is none, zilch, zip.”
your loud denial of any evidence was total BS!
Physicists, who have read and understood Einstein’s 1905 paper, can understand that he was specifically motivated by blackbody radiation in a cavity behaving like a gas of particles.
We are also aware that his 1916 paper further elucidated the particle-like behavior to derive stimulated emission (Laser mechanism)
Then we know that his 1920s work went further in showing that photons could have the statistical properties of particles, while atoms could have the statistical properties of waves, then deBroglie and others confirmed this, and this led to the full Quantum Mechanics of Shrodinger.
There is no science rationale to deny the evidence of Compton’s experiment, and many others, showing that photons behave like particles.
But you try anyway, just to be contrary.
Yes Nate some of the peculiar behavior is like particles. But still they act more like waves.
And of course your defense that there is some evidence they are particles is absent any defense with zero evidence offered concluding they are particles.
binny claims the reply from Christos has nothing to do with his reply. Seems to me, Binny’s reply has nothing to do with the original comment by Christos. But that’s nothing new for Binny.
–THE NEW SPACE RACE: Chinas Space Pioneer raise funding for its Falcon 9-class rocket.
The funds will also be used for production of the smaller Tianlong-2, which had a successful inaugural flight in April this year. That launch made the company the first Chinese commercial firm to reach orbit with a liquid propellant rocket.
Construction of a launch site for the Tianlong-3 at Chinas Jiuquan spaceport in the Gobi Desert is also noted.
Space Pioneer is targeting a first Tianlong-3 launch in the first half of 2024. It aims to launch 30 times per year within three years of the debut launch.
By then, SpaceXs Starship should have Falcon 9 completely outclassed assuming the Biden administration gets out of the way.
Posted at 11:44 am by Stephen Green–
https://instapundit.com/
It seems Biden Administration is getting out of way. It seems it’s in SpaceX court to see if it works, and should find out within couple weeks.
Even though nobody likes SLS, the Biden Administration should push it to go faster.
More from Green:
–THE NEW SPACE RACE: A commercial spaceplane capable of orbital flight is ready for NASA testing.
NASA will soon start testing what is dubbed as the worlds first commercial spaceplane capable of orbital flight, which will eventually be used to resupply the International Space Station. The agency is set to take delivery of Sierra Spaces first Dream Chaser, which should provide an alternative to SpaceX spacecraft for trips to the ISS.
In the coming weeks, the spaceplane (which is currently at Sierra Spaces facility in Colorado) will make its way to a NASA test site in Ohio. The agency will put the vehicle, which has been named Tenacity, through its paces for between one and three months. According to Ars Technica, NASA will conduct vibration, acoustic and temperature tests to ensure Tenacity can survive the rigors of a rocket launch. NASA engineers, along with government and contractor teams, are running tests to make sure its safe for Tenacity to approach the ISS.
All going well, Tenacity is scheduled to make its first trip to space in April on the second flight of United Launch Alliances Vulcan rocket. The rocket has yet to make its own first test flight, which is currently expected to happen in December. However, given how things tend to go with spaceflight, delays are always a possibility on both fronts.
Reliance on Vulcan which itself relies on Blue Origins oft-delayed BE-4 engines is a real problem: After Vulcan slips, Space Force ends up awarding more missions to SpaceX. It is imperative to rapidly deliver critical space capabilities to the Joint Warfighter as soon as they are ready to be launchedwe cannot leave capability sitting on the ground.
Posted at 8:38 am by Stephen Green–
I keep forgetting about Dream Chaser, it’s pretty exciting, I hope it works. Also:
KRUISERS MORNING BRIEFING: Flailing Democrats Hit Comical New Low Over Speaker Mike Johnson. As has been mentioned here in the Briefing, the worst things that the Democrats have been able to come up with when whining about Johnson is that he likes Donald Trump, and he loves Jesus, neither of whom is popular with the Left.
Posted at 9:09 am by Stephen Green
Jesus is pretty popular, though Trump would say he is more popular.
JRA55 October 2023 Global temperature anomaly:
+0.79C
The question is whether the increasing UVB radiation due to the decrease in ozone production in the stratosphere can be absorbed by water vapor in the troposphere above the equator?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2019.png
ren…I think the real question is how much UV a trace gas at 4 ppmv can absorb.
ent…”Now extra CO2 has raised the underlying temperature to 0.3C and other factors have raised the observed temperature by 0.6C to 0.9C”.
***
Not a shred of proof. Not a mention of recovery from the Little Ice Age, which is far more likely.
Tremendous amount of ice accumulated during the LIA and it takes a long time for that ice to melt, especially given the fact the planet produced massive amounts each winter season. The gradual warming since 1850 of about 1C is far better represented by that re-warming than by a trace gas that has been proved to offer an insignificant amount of heating to the atmosphere and the planet.
NASA’s Lucy Spacecraft Discovers 2nd Asteroid During Dinkinesh Flyby
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASAs_Lucy_Spacecraft_Discovers_2nd_Asteroid_During_Dinkinesh_Flyby_999.html
The picture looks like small rock is stuck on the bigger rock, but the small rock is closely orbiting- it’s binary asteroid.
A US judge has just dismissed a vote in the US, won by a Democrat, in which ballot boxes were stuffed by people collecting ballots and marking them Democrat.
I wonder where we have heard that before?
https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/ballot-stuffing-concerns-forces-ct-judge-to-overturn-democratic-mayoral-election-results-john-gomes-bridgeport-new-england-trump-joe-ganim-john-gomes-connecticut
Where were these judges during the last presidential election when the same kind of ballot stuffing of abasentee votes took place?
“There is no proof that widespread election fraud impacted the result of the 2020 presidential election.”
The whole American political system is crooked. Even those entering the system with honour have to become corrupt to become elected.
It’s what you get in a system where any special interest group can buy a politician and the only way to remain in office is to buy elections.
So much wrong with the US electoral system.
Voting on a weekday instead of the weekend.
The Electoral College.
The party in power runs the elections in many states.
The conflict of interest in the latter is absolutely mind-boggling. How have they not managed to get an independent electoral commission together for federal and state elections? It’s completely bizarre.
“How have they not managed to get an independent electoral commission together for federal and state elections? ”
Too many vested interests in the current system.
When elections are won by the candidate with the largest advertising budget it is very easy to control them through their campaign funding. Since they control the electoral system it easy to rig so that, once purchased, your purchased politician can stay in office.
The real question the US needs to answer is
“Quis custodet ipso custodes?”
barry says:
”So much wrong with the US electoral system.
The Electoral College.
———————
Its a democratic federal republic. If voting proceeded like the UN then it would be just a federal republic. Federalism is another means of distributing power. What isn’t assumed by the federal government is the power the states have. If you don’t like your state then move. Movement is unimpeded. All you desire is more power over others.
Individual votes in some states have more power than individual votes in other states, belting, “one person one vote,” and sets up a system which skews the attention of candidates to certain states.
Preferential voting solves the problem of the electoral college.
I also forgot to mention the fund-raising aspect of the US election system, which is bad for all sorts of reasons. Elections can be won by raising capital rather than interest. The process is dumbed down and sold out to monied interests.
the only office it affects is President, who is elected by the states with vote totals of each state. not much difference here than parliamentary systems where parliament selects the prime minister. individual parliament constituencies can like the states have high pluralities that leads to dilution of individual votes.
I’m very much aware that the College elects the president. 538 people out of an electorate of millions choose the president. And the EC isn’t proportionally representative.
Another ill of the EC is that it makes it near impossible for third party candidates to get up, tying the US to a two-party system.
Are you arguing that if other countries dilute individual votes, that makes it a good thing in the US?
barry says:
Im very much aware that the College elects the president. 538 people out of an electorate of millions choose the president. And the EC isnt proportionally representative.
——————–
The states each get a proportional number of representatives from 1 to 52 currently based upon population.
Each state has 2 state votes.
What causes large differences between popular vote and electoral vote is certain large states providing a huge plurality for one candidate. In the 2020 election if California’s high presidential popular plurality alone was far more than the nationwide plurality.
When you form a union between 13 autonomous states, the small states would not join if New York was going to decide everything, everytime.
You can whine all you want about that, but it isn’t at all likely to change.
I looked it up. A voter in Wisconsin has three times the clout of a voter in New York.
So you argue that a state has more right to electoral even-handedness than an individual. That in American Presidential elections the will of the people is subordinate to the ambition of the states.
And has happened many times, the president can be elected by a minority of the population.
Perversely, the one office that is national, that stands for all Americans, is the one office that is not decided by the majority of voters.
You haven’t turned me around yet, Bill.
“it isn’t at all likely to change.”
Of course it isn’t.
Not true. Every Wisconsin voter is represented by 8 house delegates. New York by 26 house delegates. . . .apportioned by population.
electoral votes are 10 for Wisconsin and 28 for New York. Thus the difference in vote power is less than 5% because of the 2 Senate-based electoral votes that are not apportioned by population.
Bottom line is a Democratic Federal Republic provides some power to localities. If a New Yorker feels slighted he can freely move to Wisconsin and increase his voting power.
If you can’t win your state then why should you be able to use the federal government to overlord over the place and people you live with? Its like going to the UN to ask the Ambassador of Barundi to force the US to do something you want.
IMO we could use a few more amendments to limit the power of the federal government. . .but recognize the limitations they currently operate under are a lot stricter than any other place I am aware of and I am glad about that.
That’s right, I typed Wisconsin when I meant Wyoming.
Wyoming has 3 electors and a population of 590,000 = 196,000 voters for every elector.
New York State has 29 electors and 19.8 million population = 683,000 voters for every elector
A vote in Wyoming carries more than 3 times more weight than a vote in NY.
I way to ameliorate this and other problems with EC without abolishing the electoral college would be to assign electors in proportion to the actual vote distribution, rather than winner take all. But not many states would be up to diminishing their political power in that way, though some have signalled they would be willing.
“If a New Yorker feels slighted he can freely move to Wisconsin and increase his voting power.”
That’s a piss-poor defense of the system.
For a dive into the statistics of states, the EC and individual votes, this is a pretty good piece.
https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280
A point it makes is that the way the presidential vote is run actually penalises states with high turnout – looking at EC representation with actual turnout numbers.
High turnout doesn’t equate to a super majority win.
What equates to a super majority win is special interests within the state into which the people have bought into in the interest of their state.
thats why almost all of the major countries have representatives electing the Chief Executive rather than the populace so that interests are balanced across the geography as well as the population and regions are not represented sufficiently.
Maybe its the communist leaning that causes democrats to not look to their own means but to the means of others.
We protect minorities with constitutional amendments. Farm states with minority populations apparently also need protection from you guys.
“We protect minorities with constitutional amendments. Farm states with minority populations apparently also need protection from you guys.”
I don’t know who “you guys” are, but thanks for lumping me in with whoever that is.
You give a leg-up to minorities in voting that you would not dream of doing regarding jobs.
You are prioritising state interests over individual interests. For the one job that represents everyone equally in the US, you argue for unequal votes.
Imagine if the Democrats argued that black voters need to have a greater weight in their individual votes to put them on par with white voters.
“Protect minorities” my arse. What, farmers matter more than black people?
All you are spewing is nonsense Barry. The federal electoral system reserves rights for the states. Its OK if states are different. States elect their governors and representatives and senators all democratically with equal power of votes.
When it comes to federal representation all they do is seek power over the states. If you are a New York resident why should you be able to tell somebody living in Kansas how they should live.
IMO, its a completely different issue than democracy which I am a big advocate for at the local level. Competition should exist between the states with the federal government working out disputes between individual states. From that standpoint perhaps each state should have the same number of votes. You probably like the UN and thats largely how it works, each nation getting one vote. So don’t try to feed me your typical BS and keep your nose out of my business.
“If you are a New York resident why should you be able to tell somebody living in Kansas how they should live.”
If you are Kansas resident, why should you be given more clout with your vote so you can tell New Yorkers how to live?
No one in NY is telling people in Kansas how to live. All this is about is choosing a president. Apparently states rights matter more than individual rights, and for the only elected position in America that represents the whole nation, one person one vote doesn’t count. It’s crazy. Why give any state any kind of preferential treatment? That’s what is given to Wyoming, where each individual has 3 times the clout in their vote than the average in the rest of the country.
An immediate solution to the way the US votes is to use preferential, or ranked voting. This makes it likelier that other parties’ candidates could be voted in, and prevents the situation of a candidate winning who more than 50% of the population would not choose. That is the problem with the first past the post, winner takes all method. It means that many votes do not count for anything. Ranked choice gives more power to the people when choosing who will represent them.
Probably not intentionally, but you guys are aligning yourselves with Trump, and his narrative that elections cannot be trusted. Really no democratic institutions can be trusted.
If that is believed by most people than that is the end of democracy in the US.
The US is already in decline, politically, economically and militarily. Most declining empires rot from within before they are defeated from without.
Yes, but I see no need accelerate the end of democracy.
For some reason I am reminded of a 1940 science fiction story about one Nehemiah Scudder who was elected POTUS in 2012 and became dictator in 2016.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
The solution is obvious. More transparency of election controls. If the public can see who is voting that fear will diminish rather than increase. Why are the liberals aligned against that?
The secret ballot is there for a reason. If you know how someone votes, then you can intimidate them.
I live in Northern Ireland.I’ve seen every way in which interested parties can rig an election, from gerrymandering and selective location of polling stations to zombie voters and those who vote early and often, to threats and intimidation. Every possible way to boost ones side’s vote or discourage the other side.
As a result we now have one of the most independent and tightly managed electoral systems in the world.
One which the US might emulate.
Secret ballot is absolutely essential.
The whole election concern in the US is purely driven by Trump in 2020. He told a lot of lies that his staff now admit were lies.
But the narrative has stuck because so many Americans bought his flim-flammery. Trump did more damage to the US in leaving than he did in office.
“can rig an election, from gerrymandering and selective location of polling stations to zombie voters and those who vote early and often, to threats and intimidation.”
I see.
But nothing like that has happening in the US. For many decades, we have had largely fair elections. And that led people to trust them, until 2016.
” But nothing like that has happening in the US. ”
Really?
On various television stations including Sky, ITV and the BBC I saw maps of convoluted districts where one district had 90% Democrats and the other three had 40% Democrats. The result was that a city with a Democrat majority elected one Democrat and three Republicans.
I saw, in the same county, queues of voters outside too few polling stations in the Democrat housing developments, but no queues outside the abundant polling stations in the Republican suburbs, some of which had drive-thru voting.I saw crowds of Republicans obstructing polling stations and demanding that they should stand behind polling workers to “oversee” the count, despite not having accreditation.
Some areas required a driving licence as proof of identity before voting. Guess who have fewer driving licences.
Most of the examples were Republican, but both sides do it. Gerry Mander, who invented the voting district trick, was a Democrat.
There is a big difference between identifying who votes and a secret ballot. Two different concepts entirely. I am surprised these guys don’t even know that.
Is it untrue to say that generally Republicans argue for policies that tend to prevent people voting, and Democrats argue for policies that enable more people to vote?
barry says:
Is it untrue to say that generally Republicans argue for policies that tend to prevent people voting, and Democrats argue for policies that enable more people to vote?
————————–
Near as I can tell republicans argue for policies that only allow people to vote once and are qualified to vote.
I agree democrats don’t care if they are legal or how many times they vote.
“On various television stations including Sky, ITV and the BBC I saw maps of convoluted districts where one district had 90% Democrats and the other three had 40% Democrats.”
Gerrymandering is a problem.
Separate issue from whether the election results are valid and trustworthy.
“Near as I can tell republicans argue for policies that only allow people to vote once and are qualified to vote.”
Near as you can tell?
They actively try to make it harder for people to register, vote remotely, vote before election day, and even just wait in line (famously banning the giving of water on 10-hour lines). They ban votes for convicted people, even after release, or make it difficult to impossible for them to be reinstated on the electoral roll. They require a limited kind of ID, so that in some areas people who don’t have a drivers’ license can’t vote. They’ve closed ballot drop-boxes after 5pm, disenfranchising those who work 9 to 5.
Bringing me back to one of my first points, what in the name of all that is holy made the US pick a weekday for an election day? Why hasn’t this been changed to make it easier for people to vote?
I really don’t know the answer, but I’m going to bet it has something to do with religion. Which would, of course, be completely at odds with the spirit of the constitution.
There is a lot wrong with the US electoral system, and the things that prevent change is an over-developed sense of tradition and vested interests in keeping the status quo.
I mean, the party in power running the election?? What tin-horned democracy is that?
“I mean, the party in power running the election??”
Huh?? Where do you get that idea?
“Each state has a chief election official, who has an oversight or advisory role over state and federal elections. However, elections are usually administered at the county level, though in some states cities or townships run elections. No two states administer elections in the same way, and there can be variations within a single state. Elections can be run by a single individual or department, a board or commission of elections, or a combination of two or more entities.
Election administration in America is highly decentralized. There are more than 10,000 election jurisdictions in the U.S. The size of these jurisdictions varies, with the smallest towns having only a few hundred registered voters and the largest jurisdiction in the country with over 5 million. Local election officials also rely on trained poll workers (often bipartisan) who assist voters during early voting and on Election Day. Through its clearinghouse function, the EAC provides guidance and best practices to assist election officials, but the EAC does not have regulatory oversite of elections.”
https://www.eac.gov/who-is-in-charge-of-elections-in-my-state
Here you go, Nate.
https://boltsmag.org/whats-on-the-ballot/local-election-administration/
Depending on the state, county, the electoral process is overseen by a politician, partisan entity, or political appointees.
Take the first one, Alabama. The elections are run by the secretary of state, as happens in many of the united states.
This is an official of a political party. A partisan overseer.
Governors can appoint election boards.
These are all appointments made by politicians. Electoral boards can be designated by political parties, and where both parties (because independents don’t count) designate, there is usually in imbalance towards the part in power. Some county clerks that run election are voted in by the people – they have party affiliation.
The only national electoral watchdog is one that looks at campaign finance.
It sometimes seems as if the US has never heard of an independent electoral commission, and could not conceive of such an obvious solution at the state and/or national level. It’s like, “Whatever you’re talking about, this is how WE do it.”
“Each state has a chief election official, who has an oversight or advisory role over state and federal elections. ”
But thy don’t ‘run’ the elections. That is done locally.
And by tradition, the secretary of state is supposed to provide apolitical oversight.
But of course, Trump famously tried to undermine that, and failed in eg Georgia and other states.
Yes the system has flaws, because it depends on people, on the whole, acting with integrity.
OTOH, because it is highly decentralized, it would be near impossible to facilitate a large scale election fraud.
And of course, if parties have an issue with election administration, it ends up in court. We saw this in many states in 2020.
“And by tradition, the secretary of state is supposed to provide apolitical oversight.”
But why not remove any possibility or semblance of bias by establishing an independent, apolitical election body that has neutrality as one of its core tenets? Then you don’t have to rely on tradition.
As an observer from a country that has had an independent electoral commission with such tenets for many decades, it’s crazy that the elections are overseen and/or run by a partisan group or overseer, regardless of tradition.
It puts the US in the position of having a MAGA sec of state or governor oversee elections. It creates a condition where a political party or candidate can challenge the results based on suspicion of impropriety rather than simply a close result begging for a recount.
‘Tradition’ is often the reply, as if the notion of an independent body is made of invisible teflon. I’ve made this point for years, and have been anticipating someone making some argument against it. I think you implied that an independent body might be more likely to commit wide-scale fraud than the current patchwork? That would be the first time anyone has ever even hedged at a criticism of the notion. But it still leaves me perplexed that political appointees seem like a better idea to run elections (for many states the election boards are staffed by political appointees or designees, or elected officials) than an independent commission – that also does the electoral borders, so no party can gerrymander.
Barry we have the courts.
But even courts can be biased just like any commission. The problem with libs is they expect the government to do everything for them.
I live in a country where partisan politics are limited to the parties.
Judicial appointments are made with respect to competency and experience in Australia. In the US the process varies among the states, but often it is done with elections, and the candidate campaigns and even gives her views on topics in order to win votes.
This is antithetical to the law. To telegraph your judicial leanings at all, rather than (as in the case of the Australian bar at the state level), perform duties without fear or favour or bias. At the state level, the Bar appoints Australian judges, not politicians.
It helps that our Supreme Court is not designed solely to fixate on constitutional matters, and, more importantly, that cases that come before the supreme court rarely touch on politically partisan issues (whereas the US Supreme Court seems designed to decide partisan issues, making the appointment of no-fixed term justices a partisan minefield).
Rolled into the US political system, and the elections part and parcel, is announcing one’s leaning. For those who process the law, this is extraordinary – justice is meant to be blind.
For those who vote, having to register with a political party seems like madness. Why must you announce your affiliation? Why not vote on the merits of the policy offers of the day? (I know the answer – to prevent faithless voters tipping the balance in primaries).
Primaries – another built-in issue.
I’ve expanded further than I wished to go. This was an area of study for me a long time ago. The Trump phenomenon brought a lot of that early learning back, where some of the issues that once were a theoretical danger have become an actuality or nearly so (such as the ‘alternate’ slate of electors).
I doubt that there is any cure for the degree of partisan polarisation in the US, save time and better luck in the politicians that step up, but I’ve never seen it worse in my lifetime. The friction has opened up some the holes in the system.
An independent electoral commission sounds good in theory.
Institutions, like democracy, and government, only work by tradition.
For example, in some countries like Russia, that tradition has not existed, and so they don’t expect elections to be fair, nor expect govt, police, courts to be anything but corrupt. So, they tolerate it.
The traditions here include that people trust elections to be fair. The tradition is that the loser concedes the election. Another is that justice is trusted to be apolitical. For instance, by tradition, the justice department is supposed to operate independently of the President.
Those are threatened now by Trump and allies. Once that trust in democracy and impartial justice is gone, that is probably the end of it.
“An independent electoral commission sounds good in theory.”
It is a very successful institution in several developed (stable) nations. I don’t know of any case where an independent electoral commission in a developed nation (or otherwise) has ever committed fraud.
These commissions have their own budgets and processes, and are not dictated to or staffed in any way by government. A core tenet is a commitment to neutrality, and that quality is vetted when recruiting and mandated in training.
In Australia, we never fear that the elections are rigged. The AEC is trusted – precisely because it is separate from government. The redistribution of electoral boundaries was handed to the Australian Electoral Commission, where in the past gerrymandering used to occur when the governments of the states would tip the scales.
As someone who has lived with the AEC all my voting life, and who remembers the practise of gerrymandering prior to the formalisation of the AEC in 1984 (the Bjelke-Peterson govt in Queensland being a notable example), it just seems crazy that partisan legislatures and leaders could have any hand at all in running elections and drawing electoral maps.
Sounds good, Barry.
Here, wrongly or rightly, states rights are emphasized.
It is both good and bad. It allows states to experiment with new ideas, eg California led the way in reducing automobile pollution and renewable energy. Massachusetts led the way in gay marriage, and holding tobacco companies accountable.
Bad is states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida censoring school books on evolution or black history.
Nate says:
”Institutions, like democracy, and government, only work by tradition.
For example, in some countries like Russia, that tradition has not existed, and so they dont expect elections to be fair, nor expect govt, police, courts to be anything but corrupt. So, they tolerate it.
The traditions here include that people trust elections to be fair. The tradition is that the loser concedes the election. Another is that justice is trusted to be apolitical. For instance, by tradition, the justice department is supposed to operate independently of the President.
Those are threatened now by Trump and allies. Once that trust in democracy and impartial justice is gone, that is probably the end of it.”
Well said Nate! But you left out the traditions about how ballots are handed out and how verification of who is registering and voting in the past. Those are important traditions as well that Trump was not the first to violate by a long shot.
“Here, wrongly or rightly, states rights are emphasized.”
Yes, I’m strongly aware. And this is a parallel with individual rights. Classical liberalism is a powerful notion in the US. But while your reply might imply that this is a foil to the idea of independent electoral commissions, it is actually an argument for them (ie – limits on government).
Well, I’ve pressed the point beyond the limit. Cheers.
“Those are important traditions as well that Trump was not the first to violate by a long shot.”
Election fraud is rare in the US. Trump did more damage to the trust in American Democracy than any other person in US history. That damage is going to last a long while and he is solely responsible for it.
so you actually believe that Trump snaps his fingers and thousands show up at the capital to protest the election?
Seems to me folks were worried about election integrity long before the election with all the traditions the democrats were breaking leading up to the election. If you don’t know anything about measures to ensure election security I suppose you might actually believe the finger snapping explanation. Sad!
“that Trump snaps his fingers”.
Pulleez!
More like using his various loudspeakers to rant over a period of 2 months, during which he pushed various conspiracy theories and never conceded as all previous losing candidates had done (in at least a century), and insisted that his VP should illegally toss out the results.
another nate lie.
hilliary never conceded that trump was a legitimate president and its more the case that trump repeated the observations of his supporters. everybody noted the count progression near the end in some close states where numbers approached 100% for Biden in the most delayed count in history.
“so you actually believe that Trump snaps his fingers and thousands show up at the capital to protest the election?”
Have you forgotten what happened? Trump spent months before the election saying if he lost it would be because it was rigged. He made similar complaints for the 2016 election, denying Clinton’s popular majority.
When he lost the election he claimed on the night he’d won it, and created narratives to upholster his claims, and borrowed heavily from right-wing website conspiracy theories, who set about trying to prove Trump’s complaints were based on something.
He spoke about saving the US from corrupt elections to his followers, never conceded he lost, and then invited them to come to Washington on January 6, saying, “will be wild.”
Then on January 6 he told the crowd to march on Capitol Hill. And they did.
So yes – he is entirely responsible, from promulgating the big lie to calling on his followers to come to Washington, march to the capitol building and “fight like hell.”
Your comment that he “snapped his fingers” is so bone-headedly forgetful about what happened, so casually revisionist, that I guess you must be in the cult of Donald Trump.
“Seems to me folks were worried about election integrity long before the election”
Trump ratcheted a perennial minor issue into a massive conspiracy, and did so from the pulpit of the presidency.
“with all the traditions the democrats were breaking leading up to the election.”
Republican legislatures, governors and secretaries of state also changed the rules to deal with the COVID situation. Your revisionism is unsurprisingly partisan. Mostly the changes were done through legislation. Different states give different powers to election officials, some changes occurred under those powers. In 2 or 3 cases, those decisions were reversed in court, and none of them had any bearing on the outcome.
“If you dont know anything about measures to ensure election security”
It was a fascinating subject to explore in the lead-up and the aftermath of the election. I suspect I know a bit more about it than you for 2020.
In fact, many recounts, several in the same electorates in battleground states, confirmed the results, as did 60+ court cases, as have Trump’s inner circle under scrutiny in court recently. They confirmed they knew it was a lie. Fox News was fined for lying about it. Fox anchors are now on the record saying they didn’t believe it at the time.
It was a great big lie. Trump initiated it, stoked it, his followers looked for evidence and “found” it everywhere, and right-wing mouthpieces gave his views credence. Remember bamboo paper from China? Rigged voting machines? Other countries supposedly taking electronic votes and corrupting them?
All this and more turned out to be false. But the right wing bought it all.
Why? Because of Trump.
Barry close elections are contested all the time. there is no such thing as a tradition of not contesting elections or losers calling the winner illegitimate.
i don’t know how many shenanigans there were or if they would affect the election outcome. but the fact remains that breaking traditions was a major concern of yours and an unprecedented number of those were broken in ballot availability without any solicitation to get a ballot.
you recognize that then you start making up traditions of not contesting elections while steadfastly ignoring real traditions that were broken. . .by whoever.
my only concern is that we don’t gravitate down into a 3rd world ballot box stuffing country.
I think you are revising history Bill. I’ll leave it at that.
Yeah I agree Nate since the facts of occurred in the last election represented a significant loss of control to the extent no elected official wanted to be responsible for it and thus nothing was done. Sort of business as usual for governments which have little overseeing them.
“another nate lie.
hilliary never conceded that”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-concedes-to-trump-we-owe-him-an-open-mind-231118
Oh well!
“Barry close elections are contested all the time.”
I’m well aware. They are also mandatory in many states at a certain threshold of close result.
“there is no such thing as a tradition of not contesting elections”
That’s not what I’m talking about.
“or losers calling the winner illegitimate.”
There is an unbroken tradition of presidents conceding the election when they lose. There is an unbroken tradition of presidential candidates conceding loss after court cases have settled the matter.
There is the odd candidate outside the presidential elections who refused to concede they lost. But this is not seen as traditional, meritable, or characterful. It’s just being a shitty loser.
“the fact remains that breaking traditions was a major concern of yours”
I have no idea what you are referring to here. What did I say?
“and an unprecedented number of those were broken in ballot availability without any solicitation to get a ballot.”
You speak as if the rules never change for voting in states. That’s just ridiculous. The rules are often changed. Introducing voting machines in elections well before 2020 is just one of the more obvious changes.
Greater accessibility was given to voting during COVID. Almost all of these occurred within the law. Two or three items were challenged in court and rejected.
It wasn’t a conspiracy to bias the vote, it was dealing with social restrictions and old people afraid to stand in lines in 2020, during the peak of the COVID experience.
Democrats tend to mail their votes more than Republicans (thought there is some variation state to state). So what did Trump do months before the 2020 presidential election? He railed against mail-in voting, called it suspicious, and of course the right echoed his views.
Recount after recount confirmed the result. He should have conceded. But he is not built like that. He is a small person who just can’t ever ever admit to losing. His ego Trumps the good of the nation. He even said the election clauses in the Constitution could be “terminated” in his efforts to argue he won.
I don’t know how people fail to see what kind of animal Trump is. He is a complete narcissist.
Nate says:
hilliary never conceded that
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-concedes-to-trump-we-owe-him-an-open-mind-231118
Oh well!
——————
It doesn’t count when you take it back shortly thereafter. A concession has to be continued. Checking the box doesn’t count.
What have you been googling now, Bill, to make you twist things up?
Clinton never rescinded her concession. Stop distorting reality.
A guy who is stoopid enough to believe that this was a real ballot stuffing case, and not an implausible-looking fake story is really one of the stoopidest of the stoopid.
It is abundantly clear that this alleged ballot stuffing is a staged story.
The unspeakably ridiculous idea of using a black woman alone proves it; because every Trumpist then believes that it was done on behalf of the Democrats, since Trumpists firmly believe that nearly all black women would vote for Democrats only.
indeed its stoopid to jump to conclusions. like determining something by the color of ones skin or their gender. one should simply wait for the evidence. seems some people are so unsure of themselves they need to leap at every opportunity to show how smart they are. . .of course that just results in the opposite effect.
AGW denial is a lost cause. Might as well discuss politics…
The promotion criteria for Chinese local governors is characterized by the GDP growth of the local economy relative to its competitors. A level of GDP growth that is behind (or ahead of) the competing regions’ is considered to be a loss (or gain) for a typical local governor. The local governor uses public investment financed through government debt as an instrument to steer the local economy.
Excessive GDP competition among local governments has led to serious debt problems.
Local government debt is way higher than official stats show, a burden that is ultimately be shouldered by Chinese households. As China’s economic miracle turns to fiscal crisis, the depletion of local governments’ credit capacity has not only crowded out the rising demand for social security expenditure but also undermined the financial health and confidence of Chinese households.
There is nothing to deny, AGW as a theory has never been proved.
So much for all the predictions of cooling over the last 6 years.
But I’m sure it will happen soon. Again.
More coolin is right around the corner
Keepin the dream alive…
Are you willing to bet your bottom dollar, Eben?
barry…we have recently set records for October for coldness here in the Vancouver, Canada region.
This months high global anomaly is obviously being influenced by a slight warming elsewhere.
That is a brilliant observation, Gordon. You’ve finally worked out that your back yard is not a proxy for the global average.
However, your logic is silly. Why must it be a slight warming elsewhere if cold records are being set in Vancouver?
Especially when the last two months have smashed the previous record for any monthly anomaly by 0.2C?
Reflexive denial makes your comments dumb.
0.2C has ‘smashed’ the record??? You alarmists are seriously desperate. Turn the thermostat up 0.2C and see what a difference it makes. Turn it up 1C and see if you notice.
Yeah Gordon they know that. What they worry about is 500 years from now as if that will continue indefinitely. And sadly those that should know better don’t know better.
The average T increase where most people live, land in the Northern Hemisphere, has increased by ~ 3.5 degrees F.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/nhem/land/36/9/1850-2023
That is noticeable.
Didn’t Roy just figure out about 57% of it was UHI?
No.
No?
Roy said: ”the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects.”
Nice job with the cherry pick and leaving out the crucial context.
“And the effect is much larger in urban locations. Out of 4 categories of urbanization based upon population density (0.1 to 10, 10-100, 100-1,000, and >1,000 persons per sq. km), the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects.”
So it is for urban areas, not including rural areas.
And furthermore, it is the US only!
The NH land has much more non-urban area.
So indeed NO.
and the population is by far the most dense in the northern hemisphere. keep up the good work. we will get there eventually.
Have you looked at the chart at the top of this page? The last two months stick out like no other in the record. As Roy quipped last month, “We’re gonna need a bigger graph.”
So you’re comparing the temperature of a room to global average temperature. Your flash of brilliance didn’t last long, sadly.
SOI is climbing
https://i.postimg.cc/xdFyx00z/Clipboard011.jpg
ENSO forecast is nosediving
https://i.postimg.cc/1zpMtxPn/nino34-Mon11.png
Where do you think the temperature is going
ENSO will nose dive in spring as always after an El Nino.
And?
Anser the fokkin question
The El Nino is right in the beginning of doing its global warming.
The forecast shows it running its normal course until next spring, and its global warming effect will last through much of 2024.
No nose-diving apparent.
Scrapping the carbon tax would reduce inflation by 15%.
https://tnc.news/2023/11/02/scrapping-carbon-tax-inflation/
It’d be best to end the dreams of green marxist dystopia before the economy is further ravaged by bad economic decisions on the back of a false climate narrative.
“The inflation rate currently sits at 3.8%, but Macklem claimed that could go down by 0.6% to 3.2% for the next year, without the federal governments carbon pricing scheme further driving up the cost of goods and services.”
Also. . .”Statistics Canada reported that 15% of households are cutting back on their grocery costs to afford paying their energy bills.”
Malnutrition is on the increase. The liberals love that.
We don’t have a carbon tax in Australia, but energy prices often soar. Perhaps it’s not as simplistic as the carbon tax alarmists make out?
Well I am a Californian. Gas prices here are $2 a gallon more than Florida where I was last month. $5+ rrather than 3+.
The article stating that was for Canada.
There is no carbon tax in Australia and gas prices have soared over the past 16 months.
Perhaps its not as simplistic as the carbon tax alarmists make out?
A little tidbit our Freedom Fighters won’t mention:
And?
And what, Mike Flynn – can’t you count?
And? Freedom Fighters? Have you gone quite mad?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earths atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesnt have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earths average surface temperature.
When it is acknowledged Earths atmosphere is very thin it will become obvious, Earth doesnt have any significant greenhouse warming effect.
***
Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect is only some
+0,4 oC.
Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect was very mistakenly estimated as being
+33 oC
which is very much wrong !
The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing, the additional CO2 cannot be considered as warming Earths surface by +1,5 oC, because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s sea level air pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch
or 144 x 14.7 per square foot or about 10,000 kg per square meter.
10 tons per square meter of mass is not particularly thin.
With Venus it’s 92 times more, but in terms of heated air, it depends upon elevation the air is heated at, which with Venus is around 50 km
above the land surface. Warm or cold air when it falls gets more kinetic energy and so becomes warmer.
And sunlight at Venus distance from the sun is more than twice the sunlight that reaches the Earth ocean surface where the sunlight warms the Earth.
Water clouds aren’t heated much by direct sunlight, but the Acid clouds on Venus are heated more and there is more sunlight to heat them.
On Earth clouds burn off by sunlight- they evaporate and the clouds on Venus also evaporate from the sunlight.
But Earth and Venus are evaporatively cooled {and vapor heats when condensed back into liquid of solids} and matters when in terms of elevation it does this.
“But Earth and Venus are evaporatively…”, I meant: Both Earth and Venus are evaporatively cooled…
And in terms greenhouse effect it’s about the uniformity of global temperature, on Venus the atmosphere which thin like Earth rotates around the planet about every 4 to 5 days, this creates a global uniform surface air temperature.
Of course, if you put Venus at Earth distance from the Sun, you get less mixing, and acid clouds don’t heat up much. And Venus surface is less uniform and thicker at surface, and the cold dense gas is colder air, the 15 C degree on average.
15 C is cold Earth air, 15 C Venus thicker air is even colder.
Say, there is billion people living in Venus orbit. They get a lot of free solar energy and the solar system provides them with oceans of water.
And you want to live on the Venus surface. And people in Venus are “robbing” 1/2 of Venus nature sunlight. Or the planet is getting as much sunlight as Earth gets. And Venus precious acid has also been “robbed” as had billions of tons of CO2 been robbed. But Venus still has about 3 atm of nitrogen and more than 50 atm of CO2.
Venus still doesn’t rotate fast and you want live in the warm “bright spot” which slowly moves.
Or if don’t live in the bright spot, it’s always darkness. The polar regions are always dark, and the bright spot is where the sunlight is higher the 45 degree above the horizon.
Most people in in the Venus sky, but you want to warmer air at the ground and to live life of traveling.
You might be able to live in dense air which more than 20 C and your house/living quarters might closer to vacuum, say 2 atm of pressure.
And you are constantly around room temperature without need heating or cooling and there isn’t any glaring sunlight.
Hmm, I was thinking, about Earth at Venus distance.
It seems Earth would be habitable planet. Particularly in terms of oceanic life.
And even if Earth had a slow rotation period like Venus, it would be habitable.
I think there could issues related to global weather.
And it seems Earth would be a lot cloudy.
Earth currently, is pretty cloudy, but it seems Earth at Venus distance would be more cloudy than Earth has ever been, though if Earth had much slower rotation, it’s cloudiness and weather in general has too many unknown factors, but Earth should still be a habitable planet.
Hello Christos,
“because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !”
I must disagree. The atmosphere does not warm the surface at all. Indeed it cannoy as a warmer surface heats the atmosphere, not the reverse..
as the 2lot demands…
Hello PhilJ,
In your opinion there is not any radiative greenhouse warming effect.
Not even in the agricultural greenhouses? No radiative IR capturing warming?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hello Christos,
An agricultural greenhouse prevents concevection.
The so called greatest ‘greenhouse gas’ drives convection and COOLS the surface
A colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface. 2LoT
PhilJ,
I’m on your side, albeit with a slightly different mechanism.
The atmosphere prevents about about 35% of energy from the Sun from even reaching the surface. That’s why maximum temperatures on the surface are about 30 K less than the Moon.
No radiation of any frequency at all is prevented from leaving the surface, and fleeing to outer space – never to be seen again! So much for the “conservation of energy” that SkyDragon cultists love to misunderstand. About as silly as their “energy balance” nonsense – where “energy out” must equal “energy in”.
No GHE at all. None. Nothing. Zero.
“Thats why maximum temperatures on the surface are about 30 K less than the Moon”
And how bout splashing why the AVERAGE T is higher on Earth!
Non-radiant atmospheric insulation Nate. Oxygen and Nitrogen only radiate at high temperatures. If it weren’t for water and CO2 the atmosphere would be a lot hotter.
And uh other radiant gases like ozone etc. Its a complex issue that nobody is trying to figure out because they don’t want to. The hog troughs got filled with slop and its full time grazing with the nose in the trough.
“If it werent for water and CO2 the atmosphere would be a lot hotter.”
Got any legit sources to support that ridiculous declaration??
Of course not.
Nate says:
”If it werent for water and CO2 the atmosphere would be a lot hotter.”
Got any legit sources to support that ridiculous declaration??
Of course not.
————————-
Does one actually need a source for something so basic?
Bottom line is without an atmosphere the earth’s surface would go from close to 400k to 90k each day as does the moon.
Put in an atmosphere with no GHG exactly how does 400K air moving by convection away from the surface cool substantially during the night? Fact is convection is an opportunistic means of cooling the surface. It will cool it but the heat is going into a container of air from which it has very limited means of cooling. Add in GHG and you now have a far better means of cooling. Use your own logic you use for the insulating effect of the atmosphere and realize that with greenhouse gases your insulation is being reduced.
The entire climate change argument is based upon the same logic except for recognition that the mean temperature of the surface is higher with GHG.
Heat isn’t being manufactured in this process as it is with the 3rd grader radiation model. Its just in different containers and the net difference if any isn’t even known. So since scientists can’t seem to wrap their head around that; they limit the comparison of our current earth to one with zero atmosphere.
And then to compound the error they assume that albedo would be the same as current earth.
After which they ignore they ignore the Stefan Boltzmann equation emissivity parameter and offer it up as 1.0 as a blackbody.
Then of course they conjure up an answer as to how much more CO2 will warm the surface and they can’t agree on that beyond its somewhere between 1.5C to 12.0C by selecting who weighs in on the topic . . .ignoring the dissenting voices of scientists not compliant with the group think of the benefitting institutions.
Lets hear your argument for why the atmosphere would be colder.
BH,
First…The moon’s average temperature is 200 K or about 90 K lower than that of Earth’s average temperature. [Williams et al. 2017 DOI:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.08.012]
Second…CO2 and H2O impede the transmission of radiant energy and the 1LOT has yet to be proven false. Those two unequivocal facts necessarily mean that the atmosphere must be warmer with them than without them. It is literally that simple and is as settled as anything in science can be settled.
bdgwx, and you claim there is no other way for the atmosphere to warm than radiation from the surface right? If not then how does your conclusion follow from your premises?
BH said: you claim there is no other way for the atmosphere to warm than radiation from the surface right?
I said no such thing.
Well if you aren’t implying that then how can you be sure the atmosphere wasn’t warmer than the surface before greenhouse gases were introduced?
“Does one actually need a source for something so basic?”
Yes. When it is made up nonsense.
it is basic. without greenhouse gases it will always be the hottest gases that get trapped in the atmosphere as convection will draw the cooler gases back to the surface for warming.
and the hottest gases are recorded as 57C.
Nate driving out in a blizzard comes across a man in short sleeves and shorts shivering like crazy. Nate waves to him and tells him that since he is cold he is losing less heat by being cold and will be fine and that lesser loss of heat will surely warm him up shortly.
Interesting!
Ball4 has an answer to the question. Did you just make that up or do you have a source?
“it is basic. without greenhouse gases it will always be the hottest gases that get trapped in the atmosphere as convection will draw the cooler gases back to the surface for warming.”
Huh? trapped in the atmosphere?
Still nonsense, and still no source.
Convection only occurs because GHG are cooling the atmosphere Nate. If the atmosphere reaches a uniform temperature there would be no convection as for convection to occur the gases near the surface would need to be warmed to a warmer temperature than the gases above. There is a limit to how long that would go before the gases above are as warm as the gases below. So as it is convection is only identified as occurring a few hours a day starting in the morning into the afternoon until the surface starts cooling. Of course diffusion operates all the time at a much slower pace as that is how lighter molecules like CO2 become evenly distributed in the atmosphere.
“Convection only occurs because GHG are cooling the atmosphere.”
There is global nil convection in the lower stratosphere for about 9km of height above the tropopause where added GHGs really are cooling that part of the atm. proving Bill wrong.
The rest of Bill’s 3:06 pm comment thus falls apart.
Ball4 says:
”There is global nil convection in the lower stratosphere for about 9km of height above the tropopause where added GHGs really are cooling that part of the atm. proving Bill wrong.”
well you will have proven me wrong but only after your sourceless declarative statement above is proven right. right now it appears that stratospheric temperature changes are believed to be related to disturbance waves from the polar vortex. Another way for the stratosphere to cool is for ozone to thin out and stop absorbing incoming UV, actually creating some convection through the stratosphere.
“Convection only occurs because GHG are cooling the atmosphere Nate.”
Yes. And yet Nature finds a way to cool the Earth, Bill. But you seem to forget it.
With surface temp @ 288. And emissivity 0.95, as observed. The surface now radiates direct to space. MORE than 240 W/m2 as it previously did.
It ends up cooler.
nate just drivels out as fact whatever his daddy told him to say.
And if the earth’s surface previously emitted 240w/m2 its 100% coincidental.
Fact is the earth’s surface is not made up of clouds. the only way for snow to fall is for the earth to have an atmosphere with GHG in it. The idea of any certainty at all that the earth’s surface once emitted 240w/m2 is ridiculous as rock, oceans, sand, and grass would have to have the emissivity of clouds.
You are so hopelessly screwed up on science topics Nate its ridiculous. You might have a science education but you sure has heck wouldn’t pass a good science comprehension examination.
Without GHG, the planet radiates MORE IR energy to space, and COOLS, opposite to what you claimed.
And you offer nothing quantitative to dispute that, just hand-waving assertions.
And as usual, when you have no answers, your ad-hom intensity increases.
to put it another way due to the uncertainties surrounding mean global atmospheric emissivity from TOA (an equally nebulous altitude), one cannot divine what the actual radiant temperature is.
However, if we look to science that has been made available to me. . . I will go with Stefan Boltzmann greybody calculation until somebody proves that Stefan Boltzmann should not be applied to TOA.
That gives us a greenhouse effect of 9C rather than 33C. Maybe you have a good source showing how Stefan Boltzmann does not apply?
And gee Nate. If you go with 3degrees/doubling of CO2 and a 33degree GHE; that means 11 doublings in total.
So if CO2 is impotent at driving water vapor and resulting feedbacks from water vapor then you 9 degrees divide by 11 for eleven doublings you get 0.8C per doubling. Then if you find that CO2 only has a primary effect and no longterm feedbacks you get 0.27C/doubling.
Thats makes a range well within the negative feedback found by Roy.
My own opinion is if the institutions wanted to learn about natural climate change they could if they wanted to repurpose the funding they are getting for climate science and climate response.
But that really doesn’t fit with the leave no child behind, Title 9, and spreading all revenues across all the disciplines. Right?
Just sayin! I mean institutions build creds on more than one discipline.
“That gives us a greenhouse effect of 9C rather than 33C. ”
Then you agree that GHG result in warming the Earth, as opposed to your original assertion that they Cool the Earth.
My work here is done.
Nope you just made the mistaken assumption that the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases. I realize you can’t see that nuance. Not surprising since you can’t see that the 1940’s neither stopped the LIA recovery nor has been identified as being part of it.
phil j…I think Christos realizes that. What he is talking about is the warming effect produced by an atmosphere as opposed to a planet, like the Moon, with no atmosphere.
Christos is not taking about the atmosphere warming the surface through back-radiation, which contradicts the 2nd law, he is talking more about air molecules retaining heat absorbed from the surface via conduction/convection.
The alarmist theory is that trace GHGs in the atmosphere are warming the atmosphere some 33C over a planet without an atmosphere and oceans. Christos claims it is closer to 4C.
At least, that’s how I understand his comment, having experienced many of his posts in the past.
Hello Gordon,
“What he is talking about is the warming effect produced by an atmosphere as opposed to a planet, like the Moon, with no atmosphere.”
There is no ‘warming effect’ from the atmosphere. the surface warms the atmosphere, not the reverse.
A planet, like the Moon or Mercury that no longer has an atmosphere is much further along in its cooling than one still retaining an atmosphere.
The ’33C’ number for Earth and whatever number used for other bodies based on insolation for a BB is the limit a planetary body will COOL TO given enough time and all else being equal..
phil…”There is no warming effect from the atmosphere. the surface warms the atmosphere, not the reverse”.
***
There most definitely is a warming effect from the atmosphere but it’s the entire atmosphere, not just a trace gas. The entire atmosphere absorbs heat directly from the surface and cannot get rid of it since nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate well at terrestrial temperatures and need to rise to higher altitudes to dissipate the heat. Anyone living at lower altitudes down to sea level are warmed by that air.
It’s the back-radiation theory that is the basis of the GHE/AGW theory that is wrong. GHGs heated by surface radiation cannot radiate back to the surface to raise the temperature of the surface. That’s why the energy budget is so screwed, it completely disregards the 2nd law.
If you walk outside on a hot summer’s day, you are feeling largely the effect of the atmosphere if you are in the shade.
We in the northern climes, in coastal cities like Vancouver, Canada, are warmed by wind and ocean currents from the Tropics all year round. We’ve had heat waves locally in recent years, the most recent in May, a normally coolish month here. That heat had to come from somewhere.
A heat dome a couple of summers ago parked itself over a 500 mile area from Oregon in the US to mid-way through British Columbia. It just sat there for a month, night and day, without moving. That was atmospheric warming, yet outside the dome, temperatures were normal.
Hello Gordon,
“. The entire atmosphere absorbs heat directly from the surface ”
Indeed, the surface warms the atmosphere, not the reverse..
A high pressure system such as the heat dome you mentioned may slow convection and thus the rate the surface cools, but slower cooling is not warming..
“Thus the rate the surface cools, but slower cooling is not warming.”
It results in warming. Same as closing the oven door results in it getting hotter.
Nate says:
”Thus the rate the surface cools, but slower cooling is not warming.”
It results in warming. Same as closing the oven door results in it getting hotter.
———————
no it clearly is not the same Nate.
slowing cooling is but one property of insulation. oven doors also serve as solid barriers to heat transport by convection which is equal to more capable of cooling the surface than radiation is within a gaseous atmosphere. try a different argument.
“slowing cooling is but one property of insulation. oven doors also serve as solid barriers to heat transport by convection”
IOW insulation!
“which is equal to more capable of cooling the surface than radiation is within a gaseous atmosphere. try a different argument.”
Which is unsupported gobbledegook.
nate now is in denial that convection exceeds the cooling of the surface by radiation. Earth to nate! come in please!
It is your usual red herring, that ignores the key fact that radiation is the ONLY mechanism for Earth to emit heat to space, and thus cool itself.
Apples vs Oranges Nate we are talking about the surface cooling and heating the atmosphere. Fortunately ghg are there to cool the atmosphere. Imagine what would happen if the atmosphere could not cool to space. . . .that would have the maximum effect of reducing emissions to space. . .and the only way for that to happen is for there to be zero greenhouse gases. The entire logic of the AGW science community is built on a house of cards. The start with the ”Present King of France” in playing with definitions about how we measure our climate temperature (its the near surface atmosphere not the surface) and from that illogic they build a theory that makes no sense and when put to the 3rd grader radiation theory test it fails.
So the entire theory is gibberish. You take gibberish and encode it in models and force the results with the illogic above what you have done is create garbage in and garbage out.
“Imagine what would happen if the atmosphere could not cool to space.”
There would be no sunshine on Earth as the sun could not cool to space either. The rest of Bill’s comment falls apart accordingly.
“So the entire theory is gibberish.”
Sure, to the science illiterate.
Vournas
” The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing… ”
Now you start lying, because you have been shown several times that we are not at all in any warming orbital phase, as all three Milankovitch cycles show that we are in their middle.
Why can’t you stop your little manipulations?
You are doing here the same as with the lunar spin which is visible in all your oldest posts but deny since a while, probably in order to get on par with the GHE den~iers who ‘by accident’ de~ny the lunar spin as well, he he.
.
Thank you, Bindidon.
Now lets see:
Earths and Moons orbital period around sun is
365,25 days
Lunar diurnal cycle period is
29,53 days
Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
27,32 days
Lunar orbital period around Earth is
27,32 days
*****
Lets have the rates:
Moon revolves in reference to the sun
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
Moons diurnal cycle rate is
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
Moons sidereal period rate is
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day
*****
(1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day) = (1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day) + (1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day)
Lets do the (1 /365,25 + 1 /29,53)
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
============0,036601717 rot /day = 1 /27,3211
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot /day = it is Moons sidereal period rate!
*****
There is not any Moons rotational rate (rot /day) about Moons local axis.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are forgetting that the Moon’s orbit is not circular.
Since the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse, the time between Full Moons is not a constant. The value given for the Lunar diurnal cycle period is an average over a year.
The Moon rotates once an orbit, with the sidereal period.
Sorry Swanson, but you’re just making crap up, again,
You don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, so you don’t even know what orbiting is.
Maybe we can explain it to you when. you grow up….
Hey, Pupman.
No idea why you’d bait once more. Here’s a model: an orbit.
There you go. You can thank me later.
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."
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 below GIF (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4). Don’t forget that this has a specific meaning, which I have outlined numerous times.
4) “Orbit” and “spin” are independent motions, as shown in the following video: https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
The above four 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 four points.
We see the usual members of the “No Spin” cult responding to my post. grammie clone claims I’m making things up and grammie just repeats his usual non-sense. So, for you cult members, here’s my data and the source.
https://app.box.com/s/zb9pofqkrh5m1ngettt7xccsvjx47n6k
…and, my points 1) – 4) remain correct, regardless.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1555386
Astute readers await with bated breath our ball-on-stringers’ model a comet’s orbit.
You will receive a response to your linked comment tomorrow, Little Willy, as you know. As for the orbit of a comet, I’m afraid that is outside the scope of my points 1) – 4), which remain correct regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
Child Swanson has no viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, so he has to make crap up.
Now he’s collecting Moon orbital data because he believes that “proves” Moon is spinning!
Poor child. If Moon were spinning we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Gaslighting Graham gets confused by the levels of description of his own pet toys, fails an elementary logic litmus test, and fumbles over a simple homomorphism. All this because he still has to realize that objects spin, orbits don’t.
No wonder Mighty Tim stopped bothering and Bob only uses Moon Dragon cranks as a scratching post.
All wrong, Little Willy.
Since Gaslighting Graham has no further argument, astute readers will appreciate the First Law of Motion (FLOM):
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Another silly abbreviation, just like Gaslighting Graham like them!
The world awaits the Sky Dragon cranks to reveal the secret force that turns the Moon into a ball on string!
We’re strictly on points 1) – 4), Little Willy.
The “No Spin” cult continues to spew their usual non-sense, as if repeating it over and over makes it true. For example the “csaitruth” video animation is pure crap. His “moon” is attached to an arm, so that the motion of it’s center is always around a circle. Orbits are ellipses, of which a circle is a special case, which does not pertain to the Moon. Tidal locking is a special case, but a moon being so constrained does not imply that one observes the exact same side at each full moon as that moon orbits.
For our Moon, the effects of the elliptical orbit are demonstrated by the differences in period between successive Full Moons, as I pointed out. For our Moon, it’s rotation exhibits a constant rate of once per orbit, but that does not prove that it’s rotating about an external point, which the “No Spin” cult claims.
Gaslighting Graham pretends he’s the Topic Master in a subthread kicked off by Pupman’s baiting.
Sorry, Swanson, “elliptical orbits” are outside the scope of points 1) – 4). Once you, and all “Spinners”, have agreed that points 1) – 4) are correct, then the discussion can move on to such matters. Start with 1), and tell me if you agree with it, or disagree, and why.
If the children had a valid, viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, they wouldn’t have to continually throw their crap against the wall.
But, they’ve got NOTHING.
E. Swanson says:
csaitruth video animation is pure crap. His moon is attached to an arm, so that the motion of its center is always around a circle. Orbits are ellipses, of which a circle is a special case, which does not pertain to the Moon.
Tidal locking is a special case, but a moon being so constrained does not imply that one observes the exact same side at each full moon as that moon orbits.
—————–
Actually elliptical orbits is proof that rotations on external axes includes elliptical motion as well as the circular motion of circular orbits. If a moon is in a circular orbit you acknowledge it meets the requirements of a rotation on an external axis.
So you need to explain two things to make your case.
1) if an object is in a circular orbit and it receives an acceleration from a force dead center on the orbital line accelerating the moon increasing its velocity and angular momentum. Why does the axis change from the planet the moon is orbiting to the center of the moon and what kind of physics causes this shift?
2) if an object is resting on the surface of the earth it is viewed by all as rotating around the center of the earth. If it receives a vertical boost and begins to orbit why is the angular momentum associated with the objects rotation around the center of the earth move to the center of the object?
A concise answer to both those question would be a good way to make your case. Ignoring the questions as has been the pattern just shows your unwillingness to intelligently discuss the matter. . .meaning of course winning an argument is more important to you than advancing science.
An orbit isn’t a thing that spin, Pupman. Besides:
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
That’s better than a model.
> Actually elliptical orbits is proof that rotations on external axes includes elliptical motion as well as the circular motion of circular orbits.
Actually, Gill, circles are ellipses, but ellipses are not all circles.
Grammie wrote:
Actually, my reply to CV was about the Moon and it’s orbital motion. Since your 4 red herrings have nothing to do with the Moon’s real motions, there’s no reply required.
And grammie clone’s demand for a model of his special case ignores the fact that the same mathematical description of a body’s motion as orbiting translation of it’s CG and rotation about an axis thru said CG can be applied to his special case, given the appropriate description. Of course, one would need to understand and accept that said math model would be structured using inertial reference frames, etc.
There is never any reply “required” by anyone, Swanson, I just thought you might like to weigh in on those issues, since your fellow “Spinners” have spent tens of thousands of comments arguing with “Non-Spinners” about them over several years. There is at least one “Spinner” in agreement on each of the four points, though no one “Spinner” agrees on all four at once, as far as I know. You might be the first. Of course, “Spinner” has never argued against “Spinner”, despite their many disagreements with each other over the 1) – 4).
Swanson now rambles incoherently.
If the children had a valid, viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, they wouldn’t have to continually throw their crap against the wall.
But, they’ve got NOTHING.
“Once you, and all Spinners, have agreed that points 1) 4) are correct, then the discussion can move on to such matters. ”
Good, nobody agrees, so might as well pack up and go home. Glad that is settled.
Ah, I see Nate commented. I don’t read his comments any more, but back when I did, I know he agreed on point 2). So, anyone disagreeing on 2) can argue that out with Nate.
“1) if an object is in a circular orbit and it receives an acceleration from a force dead center on the orbital line accelerating the moon increasing its velocity and angular momentum. Why does the axis change from the planet the moon”
The axis is placed where it is most convenient to describe and understand the motion.
For an independent body in orbit, its ORBIT describes where it is in 3D space, as a function of time. With the ORBIT, one can answer the question:
‘Where is the Moon tonight at midnight GMT?’ wrt to the stars. Or where is it wrt observers on Earth?
And from the POV of physics, the COM is where gravity is acting on orbiting bodies.
From the Orbit, one can predict eclipses in the distant future.
And of course its Orbit, where it is in space, is defined by where is its Center of Mass.
Then, rotation is an independent motion, determined conveniently in reference to an axis thru the COM, since it is an independent body whose COM motion has been determined.
Astronomers, astrophysicists, and engineers have found this to be the most convenient way to describe orbital motions.
Thus, you will have a very hard time convincing them of an urgent need to change it.
Nate demonstrates that he has NOTHING.
Clint has no response. Responds anyway.
"Nate demonstrates that he has NOTHING."
Well, nothing except agreement on point 2), and presumably point 4), as well. I can’t imagine many "Spinners" disagreeing with the idea that "orbit" and "spin" are independent motions.
Exactly, Nate.
…and we already know from previous discussions that Little Willy agrees on points 2) and 3).
He also agrees that "orbit" and "spin" are independent motions, but for some reason can’t see that they’re independent motions with the CSAItruth equipment. That’s what he’s currently struggling with over on the other thread.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1555697
Exactly as I said, Little Willy: astute readers can see that you are struggling with that very, very basic concept over on the other thread.
“”Nate demonstrates that he has NOTHING.”
Well, nothing except agreement on point ”
Ha!
Since DREMTY doesnt read my posts, he cannot know what is, or is not in it.
Astute readers rather realized a long time ago that the arm of the CSA Truther’s clock displaces and changes the orientation of the Moon at the end of the arm at the same time.
Gaslighting Graham would rather gaslight instead of accepting a fact that he touted elsewhere as a benefit of the Moon Dragon cranks approach to FLOM.
Your confusion on that issue will be dealt with in the response you will receive tomorrow, over on that other thread, Little Willy.
Nate says:
”The axis is placed where it is most convenient to describe and understand the motion.”
Reality isn’t reality its merely how simple minds can better understand it. Indeed Newton did provide that service to his lessers.
Also notice how Nate mentions 1 of 2 challenges but doesn’t attempt to give an answer to either beyond stomping its foot and claiming its more convenient.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”And from the POV of physics, the COM is where gravity is acting on orbiting bodies.”
Only for the simple minded that believes that gravity doesn’t act on particles of the moon but actually believes the statistical mean is the reality of what gravity physically works on. Sheeesh!! Like they have the same problem with insulation and what it is. All it is is a major lack in actual experience.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”From the Orbit, one can predict eclipses in the distant future.
And of course its Orbit, where it is in space, is defined by where is its Center of Mass.”
The real question here is can an object orbit without any force on its individual particles applying torque to the moon. Of course the answer is no, thus one can conclude the separation of orbit and spin within a rotation on an external axis is impossible and an unreal conceptualization that confuses spinners to no end.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Then, rotation is an independent motion, determined conveniently in reference to an axis thru the COM, since it is an independent body whose COM motion has been determined.”
That would be correct if you subtituted one letter and said ”notion” instead of ”motion”.
Thus you are answering my 2nd challenge by claiming that the COM about which the moon rotates is determined by convenience and simplicity of notion as opposed to a physical reality. Interesting way of looking at the world, probably explains the tendency of liberals to be idealists wanting to socially shape the world in their own image as if they were God. Perhaps all you need is a little humility.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Astronomers, astrophysicists, and engineers have found this to be the most convenient way to describe orbital motions.
Thus, you will have a very hard time convincing them of an urgent need to change it.
————————-
Nobody I am aware of here has suggested they change their notions about how to deal with astronomers and astrophysicists. They don’t need to understand reality because they don’t create new stuff. Engineers on the other hand have already made the transition and accept what a rotation on an external axis is to the extent they can create such an axis.
Talking about a lack of vision.
> Indeed Newton did provide that service to his lessers.
Preach, Gill:
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Tell me more about the “orbit without spin” you’re supposed to have difficulty finding.
As DREMT has pointed out countless times. An orbit without a spin is as the MOTL. Though DREMT and myself have acknowledged many many times that for the sake of convenience its OK to think of them independently even if they are not.
By “pointed out” you must mean “asserted ad lib,” Gill. The ROOMBA disagrees with both of you. Gaslighting Graham may disagree about that dependency. You should check out T1 & T2 with him.
By ROOMBA, Little Willy is mocking something that he actually fully agrees with, the concept of objective physical reality, OPR. He believes that the moon spins, as he puts it, “for real”. Thus he disagrees with those who say that the moon spins wrt an inertial reference frame and does not spin wrt a non-inertial reference frame, and tacitly agrees with my point 3). Great…except he’s got it wrong about the moon.
Little by little, though, he’s making progress towards understanding and agreeing with each of the four points. Really, he should understand by now the OPR is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis, since it’s being swung around on the end of a string, which constrains its motion and prevents it from doing so. He contradicts himself by asserting that it can be both spinning and not spinning, since:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, and
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis
are geometrically equivalent. He should really get that to solve this problem you need physics as well as geometry. Once he does so, he might be agreeing to point 1) as well.
By ROOMBA, I’m mocking two things.
First, Gaslighting Graham’s recurring acronyms he never introduces properly that end up being more cumbersome than simply talking about the (actual, virtual) motion of the Moon. With them he often passes ideas that would not hold up when expressed plainly.
Second, his constant confusion between levels of description. ROOMBA refers to the real world, in which the Moon is said to spin. By his silly acronym, he’s referring to the material conditions by which the CSA Truther’s contraption works in his video, which means he’s basically confusing model and reality. A model remains a model even if it’s not a virtual one.
With my acronyms (ROOMBA, TMDNS, FLOM, and others), I’m also trying to show him ways to improve his mnemotechnics
His silliness does not end there. Our Ball-on-Spinner is trying to argue both that two descriptions are equivalent and that one is better than the other. He also claims that an external translation is *one* transformation, but that it preserves independence between orbit and spin. If not between change of orientation and displacement, at least the way *he* defines them.
And to top it all we still don’t have the two forces behind that external rotation!
“By his silly acronym, he’s referring to the material conditions by which the CSA Truther’s contraption works in his video”
Incorrect. You’re just obsessed with that equipment. The objective physical reality is “the real world”, as you put it. It means exactly the same thing as your “ROOMBA”. So it applies to the CSAItruth equipment, the XY plotter equipment, the ball on a string, a Ferris wheel, a bicycle pedal, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, our moon, everything in reality.
“Our Ball-on-Spinner is trying to argue both that two descriptions are equivalent and that one is better than the other.”
Incorrect. I’m arguing that two geometric descriptions may be equivalent, but the OPR is that an object cannot be both spinning and not spinning at the same time. I’m separating geometry from physics. You should try it.
“He also claims that an external [axis rotation] is *one* transformation, but that it preserves independence between orbit and spin”
Your eternal confusion on this issue will be dealt with on the other thread, as repeatedly explained.
“astronomers and astrophysicists. They dont need to understand reality because they dont create new stuff.”
What rot.
“Engineers on the other hand have already made the transition and accept what a rotation on an external axis is to the extent they can create such an axis.”
Bullshit.
> Ball-on-Spinner
Ball-on-Stringer. Damn. Even my autocorrect drank the kohl-aid.
Every time Gaslighting Graham goes for a quote fest he provides a tell. It would make more sense in an oral debate, as it throws many diversions at the same time. In written form, with time to address each squirrel by order of importance, it only makes the task easier.
Astute readers can spot the empty rebuttals and the non-responses. The lies take a little more time. But not that much – Gaslighting Graham keeps repeating himself, so it is not that hard to find when he misrepresents what he himself says.
Let them work on it for a short while.
A total non-response from Little Willy. Any time I include a couple of quotes he loses the ability to debate, apparently. So, instead, he just insults and falsely accuses.
“Really, he should understand by now the OPR is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis”
Gee, a previous DREMT seemed to understand very well that motion, like the MOTL, which is exactly the motion of a ball on a string, could be described in at least two ways, one of which included internal axis rotation.
But now, an apparently different DREMT, suggests that only one of these ways of describing the motion is actually objective reality!
At some point there’s little one can do about Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting. I say that the ROOMBA refers to the Moon, not the contraption or his other models:
[ME, A PATZER] By his silly acronym, hes referring to the material conditions by which the CSA Truthers contraption works in his video, which means hes basically confusing model and reality. A model remains a model even if its not a virtual one.
What does he understand? That it includes everything:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, A GRANDMASTER] Incorrect. The objective physical reality is the real world, as you put it. It means exactly the same thing as your ROOMBA. So it applies to the CSAItruth equipment, the XY plotter equipment, the ball on a string, a Ferris wheel, a bicycle pedal, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, our moon, everything in reality.
Is it so hard to understand that a contraption that models the motion of the Moon is only a model of the Moon, even if it is a “real” toy model? Certainly not someone who would keep saying that a ball-on-string is only a model!
Here’s a little trick. When I speak of the Moon, its spin or its orbit, I am referring to ROOMBA. These are concepts that belong to the material mode of speech. When I speak of its models, of transformations like translation and rotation, I am not. These concepts belong to the formal mode of speech.
So Gaslighting Graham once again tries to tell me how I understand things. Pure gaslighting. Even if the CSA Truther’s contraption is made of real stuff, it’s not a real Moon, it does not implement how the Moon spins or orbits.
It’s just a toy.
Just like Moon Dragon Cranks Master Argument, come to think of it. It simulates an argument. Astute readers know by now that it’s not a real one.
Another long comment from Little Willy, essentially devoid of any substance. Apparently he thinks only the motion of the moon can be objectively “real”. He can’t look at, say, the motion of a ball on a string and decide whether it is rotating on its own internal axis, or not. Amazing.
More gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
The motion of the Moon is the reality we want to model.
A model is a model, whether it’s a program, a contraption, or a thought experiment.
See what I mean? I could ask Little Willy for the rest of my life about the ball on a string. He will never give a straight answer.
Astute readers see what I mean when I say that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting.
I tell him that my ROOMBA isn’t his “OPR” I had to check once again.
He responds that it’s the same.
I show him quotes that prove him wrong.
He taunts.
I explain how he’s wrong, and why it matters.
He deflects.
All this to escape FLOM.
Sad, really.
If your ROOMBA is not the OPR then your ROOMBA is…meaningless.
It shouldn’t only apply to the moon.
A ball on a string is a real object, with a real motion.
Completely forget about the moon for a minute. Just think about the ball on a string. Don’t think of it as a model of anything, just think of it as an object in its own right. If you cannot give me an answer on whether it is rotating on its own internal axis or not, then what good is your ROOMBA?
It’s of no use to anybody. No use to physics. No use to trying to understand the world around us.
The OPR, on the other hand, is quite simple, and useful. The ball cannot rotate on its own internal axis, because it is "held in place" by the string. See how easy that was?
“Its of no use to anybody. No use to physics. No use to trying to understand the world around us.”
If we’re going by that standard, then ‘The Moon does not Spin’, TMDNS, model is of no use to anybody, since no astronomer, physicist, or engineer has any use for it.
The objective physical reality, OPR, is that the TMDNS model is only used to diminish science, which has been the most effective way to understand the world around us.
Nate chimes in again. I wonder if he would ever be able to give a simple, straight answer as to whether a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, or not? Not that I’d read it if he did, but I doubt he would, anyway.
He would probably just point out that according to the geometry, it 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.
He would never actually go beyond that geometry, into the simple mechanics of the ball on a string, to just give a definitive answer either way. His "physics" appears not to be very useful. Well, it certainly didn’t appear to be very useful back when I was reading his comments, anyway. Whether that’s changed, or not, I guess I’ll never know.
As I noted, the old DREMT agreed that there are two ways to describe the ball on the strings motion.
I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.
Such as predicting that if the (thin) string broke, the ball would translate linearly and spin on its axis, and no additional forces or torques would be required to create that axial spin.
One could understand this most easily with a model that the axial spin already existed, and the ball had spin angular momentum, and it was conserved after the string broke.
What did Nate say, Bill? Did he give a straight answer?
Poor low energy DREMT, can’t even move his eyes up an inch or two.
Next, he’ll probably need someone to wipe his bottom. Any volunteers?
Gaslighting Graham persists on conflating model and reality:
The “reality” of that motion is never really explored by Sky Dragon cranks. How long is the string? What kind of attachment is there on the ball? How heavy is the ball? How strong is the swinger? Do we count the motion as starting at rest? What happens when we cut the string?
They never tell.
Why? Because they only use it to illustrate external rotation without internal rotation {1}. Physics teachers don’t use that example to make a mere geometry point, but to explain circular motion with tension, e.g.:
https://youtu.be/kEYlueoSVZk?si=6Fo45SvsiBRT-8_o
The ball is just drawn on the blackboard most of the times. It’s not the “reality” of the ball that matters, but the forces it helps represents. Physicists use the ball of string as a model to simulate the theory the motion of objects in general.
This is the ROOMBA level. It can be applied to the Moon, just as it can be applied to every object of the universe. This is where FLOM applies. This is the level Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to ignore with his gaslighting.
{1} Unless Gaslighting Graham wishes to pull Nate’s leg, in which case he invokes physics, but without ever exploring that question himself.
Little Willy is mostly just emitting his usual verbal diarrhoea, but he does manage to spew:
"What happens when we cut the string?"
That old chestnut. Sure, when you cut the string, the ball flies off at a tangent, in a straight line, rotating on its own internal axis as it does so. However, that does not mean the ball is rotating on its own internal axis before you cut the string. As Tesla explained:
"The rotation 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."
Those tangential velocities are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis (and not on its own internal axis) prior to the string being cut.
Simple, really.
The objective physical reality for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis. It’s physically incapable of doing so, when swung around.
That’s that.
“The rotation 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.”
Very profound… Different tagential velocities of parts of a rigid body is a measure of rotation!
Thus he is saying that rotation is not due to angular motion ( rotation) but due to measurable rotation!
Just endless silliness…
How does a distant astronmer measure rotation of a body? The light from one side of the body is red shifted and the other side blue shifted, thus indicating different velocities. See Doppler effect.
And this effect looks the same for bodies in orbit or flying freely!
Because rotation is rotation in both situations.
That old chestnut. Sure, when you cut the string, the ball flies off at a tangent, in a straight line, rotating on its own internal axis as it does so. However, that does not mean the ball is rotating on its own internal axis before you cut the string. As Tesla explained:
"The rotation 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."
Those tangential velocities are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis (and not on its own internal axis) prior to the string being cut.
Simple, really.
The objective physical reality for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis. It’s physically incapable of doing so, when swung around.
That’s that.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
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.
Ball-on-stringers are only using the ball on the string to illustrate Fact 1:
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.
They don’t need to invoke a ball on string at all to say that.
I briefly thought DREMT had the intellectual sophistication to be able to understand this:
“I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not physical reality.”
Oh well!
"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."
A change of orientation does not equal internal axis rotation. As you know, and have already agreed.
"Ball-on-stringers are only using the ball on the string to illustrate Fact 1:"
No, Little Willy. That’s not why we "invoke" a ball on a string. But, it’s nice to see you repeatedly agreeing with my point 2). Please continue.
A ball on a string is a model of "orbit without spin". That’s why it’s usually "invoked". Not in this case, however. All I’m doing at the moment is treating the ball on a string as a real object, with a real motion…the objective physical reality of which is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”What did Nate say, Bill? Did he give a straight answer?”
Straight answer? No!
But he did agree that you are right in being able to perceive it two different ways. But he avoided any argument at all on the true physical reality which has been the main topic of this discussion for a long time.
At least Nate sometimes realizes he has no physical argument until you press him. So you get the above response.
Then when pressed he will once again regress to coverup mode and making a lot of irrelevant observations. . .like gee the moon’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. He will then back away from that one on the topic of giving a physical reason why a circular orbit should be different than an elliptical one. And his rationale why your perception is wrong is because it becomes too difficult for him to calculate the moon’s exact position in space with an elliptical orbit.
We have been rotating around this absurd rationale since day one.
Thanks, Bill.
"Straight answer? No!"
No surprises there, then.
"But he did agree that you are right in being able to perceive it two different ways."
Well, that’s progress, I suppose.
"But he avoided any argument at all on the true physical reality which has been the main topic of this discussion for a long time."
That doesn’t surprise me, either. Nate was always like that. Little Willy sort of vaguely begins to understand that we’re interested in the objective physical reality of what’s happening with the moon, but he’s not yet willing to try to think about the OPR for something as simple as the ball on a string. It’s a lot easier to work out the OPR for the ball on a string than it is for the moon!
So it makes sense we should start there, with the ball on a string. Which is why it’s my point 1).
It physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis, because it is constrained by the string. Simple.
> But he did agree that you are right in being able to perceive it two different ways
Funny you say that, Gill, for these days Gaslighting Graham is more into “there’s only one true way” with his ball on string.
Are you a Ball-on-Stringer, by any chance?
No, Little Willy. Nothing has changed in…what…five years now? I’ve not changed my position one iota. There’s two ways you can describe the motion, geometrically. However, as you always, obsessively used to say, over and over and over again, you have to look at the physics, not just the geometry. Physically, the ball on a string cannot both be rotating on its own internal axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis, at the same time. It has to be one or the other.
And, the objective physical reality is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
Gaslighting Graham tries too hard:
This is a geometric fact, not a physical one. Both descriptions are equivalent. Physics can’t beat geometry {1}.
Gaslighting Graham tends to forget that when he’s suggesting that one should be preferred to the other, for instance with his silly ball on string, which is only a model of “orbit without spin” when we understand this expression in a very peculiar way.
Besides, there obviously must be some spin in that model!
At least physically speaking.
{1} Although it can work with a different one.
Little Willy goes back on every single word he ever said on this subject, and now claims that geometry trumps physics!
So, never mind that the ball on a string physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis…now Little Willy is saying, because you can describe it as rotating on its own internal axis, geometrically…that means it physically can rotate on its own internal axis! Amazing. Physical reality just melts away under the laser beam of "descriptive truth".
“And, the objective physical reality is that its not rotating on its own internal axis.”
Clearly DREMT can no longer grasp that given two equivalent ways to describe the motion, neither one is ‘physical reality’.
Our mathematical descriptions of motion are for us, and they are not ‘physical reality’.
Draw a small chalk circle on the floor, towards the edge on one side of a spinning merry-go-round platform.
The OPR is the contents of that chalk circle are not rotating on their own internal axis, just because the merry-go-round platform is spinning.
Anybody who asserts otherwise needs to seek psychiatric help.
Gaslighting Graham is clearly doing physics:
Certainly not geometry.
Another dumb response from Little Willy.
Here we go again, for the umpteenth time
“Sorry, Swanson, elliptical orbits are outside the scope of points 1) 4). Once you, and all Spinners, have agreed that points 1) 4) are correct, then the discussion can move on to such matters. Start with 1), and tell me if you agree with it, or disagree, and why.”
Point 1 is wrong: the ball on a string is changing its orientation, therefore it is rotating on an internal axis. If you mark the ball with an internal arrow halfway from the center to the surface and allow the ball to complete an “orbit” the point of the arrow will describe a circle, indicating rotation.
Point 2 is wrong: as per the caption “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.” It is rotating and revolving with about the same period.
Point 3 ignores the fact that the Moon’s motion is observed using reference frames, not using reference frames means you are not observing the Moon. The use of the proper reference frame does resolve the issue.
Point 4: Look the dude in the video can’t count rotations, from 0:50 to 1:30 the Moon actually rotates twice, not the once the dude claims.
If all the “spinners” agreed to points 1 through 4, there would be no more spinners. You are going to have to convince a whole lot of astronomers of your flat earth type theories.
Calling us spinners poisons the well, and I haven’t seen any spinners since 1995, the last Grateful Dead concert I attended.
Claiming all these are settled, ha, who are you, the Pope?
Gaslighting Graham still plays dumb instead of acknowledging the most basic point.
He has no need for a silly ball on string to make the point he is making with it. It is just a silly way to hide his misinterpretation of orbit and spin.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”That doesnt surprise me, either. Nate was always like that.”
Yep all he does is extrapolate from the equations he learned as a child to analyze the motions of the moon. He has never ventured beyond that into a visualization of how you would engineer something like this.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”So it makes sense we should start there, with the ball on a string. Which is why its my point 1).
It physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis, because it is constrained by the string. Simple.”
Indeed. I have thrown in there another conceptualization asking for an explanation for why a rock like the moon resting on surface of the earth would be perceived as rotating every 24 hours around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface and the rotation around the earth continues because of angular momentum why that rotation would now be transferred to around the center of the rock and a translation around the earth.
Seems they are so married to those equations they can’t at all think outside of the box framed for them by their inculcators.
“Draw a small chalk circle on the floor, towards the edge on one side of a spinning merry-go-round platform.
The OPR is the contents of that chalk circle are not rotating on their own internal axis, just because the merry-go-round platform is spinning.”
Anybody who asserts otherwise needs to seek psychiatric help.”
Yes, here we are again, deja vu any one?
I held my not rotating hole saw against the chalk circle, and now the chalk circle is on the ground below the merry go round.
Neatly cut out of the merry go round.
Because relative to the hole saw, the merry go round and the chalk circle are rotating.
“Indeed. I have thrown in there another conceptualization asking for an explanation for why a rock like the moon resting on surface of the earth would be perceived as rotating every 24 hours around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface and the rotation around the earth continues because of angular momentum why that rotation would now be transferred to around the center of the rock and a translation around the earth.”
Yes, I saw that. Great argument!
Seems they are so married to those equations they can’t at all think outside of the box framed for them by their inculcators.”
Well, just look at bobdroege. He can’t even admit he’s wrong on point 2), when all the other “Spinners” around him are tacitly agreeing with it as part of the ongoing discussion we’re having! I think I’m just going to have to ignore him, as I know there’s no point trying to talk any sense into him. When he can accept he is wrong about point 2), I might consider engaging with him on the subject again.
“I have thrown in there another conceptualization asking for an explanation for why a rock like the moon resting on surface of the earth would be perceived as rotating every 24 hours around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface and the rotation around the earth continues because of angular momentum why that rotation would now be transferred to around the center of the rock and a translation around the earth.”
Sounds a lot like the situation of the ball on the string when the string breaks.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556188
DREMT seems happy to have the axis of rotation suddenly transfer from the center, to the COM of the ball, upon the string breaking, without any forces or torques on the ball!
TO him its OPR. Go figure!
For physics it can be understood most most easily with a model that has an existing axial spin, giving the ball spin angular momentum, and this is conserved after the string broke.
Again, no OPR is involved, since these are simply models found to be useful, with physics, for predicting the motion.
DR EMPTY the Pope,
Point two is the caption to your bloody gif.
If I am wrong, then the caption to Wikipedia is wrong.
Yeah, I can’t admit that I am wrong, because I am right.
Then Mahdavi is also wrong, but I don’t think so.
Let’s look at some more of those high speed videos of things coming apart because they are rotating too fast.
That will show them.
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 below GIF (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
bob, the caption to the GIF doesn’t mention “rotation about an external axis” at all. Which is why it’s irrelevant to point 2). You keep trying the same crap, and failing every time. You can’t learn. Which is why I’m not going to bother to engage with you on this topic unless and until you can admit you were wrong on point 2). You have been wrong on this point since the beginning. You continue to be wrong. Just admit it.
DR EMPTY the Pope
That’s because you are the one being sloppy with your thinking.
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Like I said the gif states the Moon is orbiting at the same period as it rotates around its own axis.
Per Mahdavi, if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating on its axis.
That’s all you need to know to accept that you are wrong and have been for how long now.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
“Which is why Im not going to bother to engage with you on this topic unless and until you can admit you were wrong on point 2).”
I’ll bet you can’t resist.
What do you want to wager?
Not taking the bait, bob. When you are ready to admit you’re wrong on 2), just let me know. Until then, I have nothing to discuss with you on the moon issue.
Does Gaslighting Graham really believes that Bob denies Euler’s theorem?
Astute readers would like to know.
Here is a link to bob saying “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the “moon on the right” (MOTR):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548362
He’s wrong. It is motion like the MOTL. As you have tacitly agreed a dozen times over, Little Willy. As Nate has also agreed, in the past, back when I used to read his comments.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name.
“Not taking the bait, bob.”
You just did.
Here is a comment by Gaslighting Graham that shows that he’s working (let’s be generous) with a made-up definition of orbit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548372
[LITTLE WILLY] he’s working (let’s be generous) with a made-up definition of orbit
[BOB] A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Gaslighting Graham cites a guy who says:
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
You can’t make this up.
bob cited him, not me.
bob thinks “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, and thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR.
Nate thinks “revolution/orbit” is a translation in an ellipse, and thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
Combine bob on orbit and Nate on transformations and you would have the ultimate “Non-Spinner”.
“You couldn’t make this up”.
Gaslighting Graham defines an orbit this way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553797
Astute readers might wonder: which is it?
“Orbit without spin” is just a clearer way of saying “orbit”. I explain why, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553898
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
“bob thinks revolution/orbit is a rotation about an external axis, ”
As usual Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name get things backwards and gaslights for extra measure.
I never said revolution or orbit is a rotation about an external axis. Because it’s not, all orbits are elliptical, while are rotations are circular. Therefor all your bunk about rotations about external axes is just that, bunk.
I said a rotation about an external axis is an orbit or a revolution about another body.
Words are not communitive, if a is b, that does not mean b is a.
You flunked logic is what three little birds told me.
I thought you promised not to engage with me on this subject, but then you call me out.
What an ******
bob lies about what he said, even though we can all plainly read:
“A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.”
This is why he should be ignored.
https://reversedictionary.org/
Note:
[The Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name]
bob thinks revolution/orbit is a rotation about an external axis,
[Bob}
I said a rotation about an external axis is an orbit or a revolution about another body
[Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:]
bob lies about what he said, even though we can all plainly read:
A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Those who can think clearly can see the difference and who is lying and who is not.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name, maybe you can find where I said on this thread that a rotation about an external axis is a circle, while all orbits are ellipses.
So obviously I don’t think an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.
That’s why you continue to gaslight me.
This is truly funny.
https://reversedictionary.org/wordsfor/orbital%20motion%20without%20axial%20rotation
See the third and fourth words.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
No, it’s not clearer. And no, it’s nobody’s definition but a few Moon Dragon cranks. It is *not* Bordo’s. It may not be Gill’s.
Astute readers know that the notion of orbit is independent from the notion of spin.
Willard says:
”Astute readers know that the notion of orbit is independent from the notion of spin.”
Only in the universe where ”astute” means ”brain fractured”
bobdroege says:
”Per Mahdavi, if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating on its axis.”
Yes indeed she does but you missed the part where she said the axis can be external to the object; so your argument completely collapses on that goof.
bobdroege says:
”Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name, maybe you can find where I said on this thread that a rotation about an external axis is a circle, while all orbits are ellipses.
So obviously I dont think an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.
Thats why you continue to gaslight me.”
Thats not a logical argument Bob. And sorry to hear that you are questioning your sanity over all this.
Gill becomes Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting pardner.
And once again he forgets that circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
Little Willy, if I go around saying “orbit” is this, and “orbit” is that, then eventually somebody will say something as per my explanation here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553898
So I will then have to clarify, “orbit without spin”.
This is only a problem for the truly desperate. Are you truly desperate, Little Willy?
A mystery “Spinner” makes the objectively false statement:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548362
[MYSTERY “SPINNER”] 1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.
Little Willy knows he is wrong, because he has watched this video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
and has seen, from 0:50 to 1:30, where a model moon is rotated once on its internal axis for every one rotation about an external axis (in the same direction as the external axis rotation), and it is not movement as per a ball on a string.
Will Little Willy admit that the mystery “Spinner” is wrong?
For ball-on-a-tring it is stated that
“And, the objective physical reality (OPR) is that its not rotating on its own internal axis.
Same is said about moon fixed on a rotating arm. Or a chalk circle on a rotating platform. TMDNS!
If that’s the argument they are going with then where does that leave us with the REAL MOON, not attached to anything?
How do we KNOW what its ‘objective physical reality’, OPR, motion is?
Well let’s see, the Moon keeps the same side to us as it orbits. And we know that a SPINNING thing shows us ALL sides.
So….the TMDNS is our conclusion! That is its OPR.
Except, it requires one to be ignorant of the rotating reference frame from which the Moon is being viewed!
A distant observer sees all sides of the Moon! For them, the OPR is that the Moon has SPIN.
Because in the end, it is indeed all about reference frames!
And in the end, our models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
Presumably Nate was just correcting the mystery “Spinner”, as anybody with integrity would be doing.
No surprise, DREMT gets just about everything wrong.
Could someone confirm if Nate had the integrity to correct the mystery “Spinner”?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again, and he *still* falls for the CSAI Truther trick!
I was actually trying to keep his name out of it, to spare him the embarrassment, Little Willy. I will assume you agree he is wrong, judging by your previous comments.
More of the same gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
Astute readers ought to ask themselves – why does he keep ignoring the question about Euler Theorem?
Either the mystery "Spinner" is correct, or this is correct:
"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."
Can’t be both.
“‘Orbit without spin’ is just a clearer way of saying orbit.”
Sure it is.
Just as “walk without chewing gum” is just a clearer way of saying “walk”.
This argument never stops being hilarious!
Gaslighting Graham sees two concepts, finds them equivalent, and declares:
His genius transcends logic.
Both this:
"1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing."
and this:
"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."
cannot be true. Only the second statement is true.
Outside Dragon Cranks circles, equivalence is “the state or property of being equivalent.”
For Gaslighting Graham, it means “can’t be both.”
The first quoted statement is not equivalent to the second quoted statement.
Either Gaslighting Graham accepts that two claims are equivalent or he accepts that they are incompatible.
Can’t be both.
The first statement is incompatible with the second statement.
The second statement contains two claims, which are equivalent.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again.
Perhaps he should ask him what he really means.
Perusing Euler’s theorem might help him.
The mystery "Spinner’s" statement is objectively false. There’s nothing in the world that can save it.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob. Perhaps he ignores Euler’s theorem? Astute readers may wonder why his 1-3 are in reverse logical order, and why he decided to join his 4 to them.
Maybe there is an astute reader who can tell the Pop DR EMPTY the first of his name why this statement is incorrect.
“”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.”
It has something to do with what orbits are not.
I see Hunter has weighed in but he seems unaware that he is in the thimble weight division and is trying to punch way above his class with little success.
“Yes indeed she does but you missed the part where she said the axis can be external to the object; so your argument completely collapses on that goof.”
Yes, but that means is also has to rotate on an internal axis, it must be rotating on two axes, one external and one internal.
“Thats not a logical argument Bob. And sorry to hear that you are questioning your sanity over all this.”
Explain to me Hunter, what is not a logical argument?
Me, I am sane, and the Moon is rotating on it’s own internal axis.
Little Willy, bob just said your “Fact 1” was incorrect.
[smug grin]
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob once again.
Perhaps he should remind him what “the planet” stands for.
bob just said your “Fact 1” was incorrect, Little Willy. You may want to dispute that with him. Just a thought.
Nate says:
Well lets see, the Moon keeps the same side to us as it orbits. And we know that a SPINNING thing shows us ALL sides.
A distant observer sees all sides of the Moon! For them, the OPR is that the Moon has SPIN.
————————
the same is true for a rotation on an external axis if you are at a fixed position outside of the arc of rotation. so your conclusion is not exclusive for ‘spin’. try another argument.
Willard says:
”Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob once again.”
—————————–
Poor Bob! Bob is questioning his own sanity and now Willard recognizes that to be so too.
Gill gently gaslights Bob again.
Perhaps he could tell me to what does “the planet” refer in
again?
If he wants a hint, all he needs is to ask Gaslighting Graham about the accompanying YT video…
“the same is true for a rotation on an external axis if you are at a fixed position outside of the arc of rotation. so your conclusion is not exclusive for spin. try another argument.”
This fails because all the planets, and the Sun are rotating on external axes.
And rotation on an internal axis is independent of a rotation on an external axis.
But then, can you show me a circular orbit?
It’s weird…if I said that Little Willy was incorrect about something, he would dispute that with me. When bob says Little Willy is incorrect about something, Little Willy doesn’t dispute that with him! Even though Little Willy is right and bob is wrong.
It’s like all the wind has been taken out of his sails.
From your comment, it looks like Nate was bringing up reference frames, Bill?
Anyone thinking reference frames resolve the moon issue still doesn’t understand the moon issue. Even after all this time!
Points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
Nothing weird in Gaslighting Graham gaslighting Bob again!
I mean, he could revisit the context in which the facts were establised. Perhaps he could read again on Euler’s theorem, as already intimated many times already. Or he could read Bob more closely. That way he’ll realize that the facts I’m talking about are tangential to Bob’s point.
I mean, it’d would not be that hard for him to remind Bob about the CSA Truther’s contraption. But no, to gaslight Bob seems to be his mission in life.
Why are you arguing with me, Little Willy? It’s bob that disputes your “Fact 1”, not me!
In fact, I taught you your “Fact 1” in the first place!
Ingrate.
Why does Gaslighting Graham keep gaslighting when he should be researching Euler’s theorem?
Just for the benefit of any readers, for this statement:
"1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing."
to be true, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” would have to be movement like the MOTR…but if that was the case, then this statement:
"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."
would no longer hold.
willard continues to blame DREMT for his self-doubt about his own sanity. its ok willard we have a nice snowflake safe place for you in California.
Readers might appreciate Bob’s demolition of the CSA Truther’s argument:
“Point 4: Look the dude in the video can’t count rotations, from 0:50 to 1:30 the Moon actually rotates twice, not the once the dude claims.”
Looks like Bob figured out what I call the 1+1 trick!
From there and going in reverse order, all of Gaslighting Graham’s points fall one by one.
The OPR is that it “spins” once per “orbit” in the same direction as the “orbit”, Little Willy. It’s OK that you still don’t understand, though. This stuff is complicated, to the uninitiated.
Astute readers might notice that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again, switching to his idiosyncratic concept of orbit to sidestep the fact that me and Bob spotted.
The CSA Truther changes the orientation of the Moon as he displaces it along the axis of “the planet” we alluded to earlier. Fact 1 was couched in terms of that contraption. It was *not* referring to the Earth which, as Bob rightfully observes, does not move in circle. Neither does the Moon, for that matter, in ROOMBA.
Funny how Gaslighting Graham does not recall Fact 2 or how he does everything in his power to distract readers from Euler’s theorem. Truly funny.
If point 2 is wrong, your “Fact 1” no longer holds, Little Willy. Fortunately, point 2) is correct, and so your “Fact 1” holds.
Of course, this means you are in direct disagreement with bob. Which is why you are trying to distract by moving to your misunderstanding on point 4).
Had Gaslighting Graham any geometric intuition, he’d realize that his interpretations of (1) and (4) are incompatible.
Perhaps he ought to start by looking at Euler’s theorem?
bob said your “Fact 1” was incorrect, Little Willy. When are you going to dispute that with him? You can discuss Euler’s theorem with him, too, if you like.
While Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob, astute readers might observe how he fails to realize that his (1)-(2) depends on his misconception over (3).
Our Ball-on-stringer can’t construct a position without twisting himself in a pretzel, and Bob is having a ball twisting him furthermore, pun intended.
Points 1) – 4) are correct, Little Willy. Sorry that upsets you so much.
Point 3) has a specific meaning, as I have repeatedly explained. It refers to those people who simply believe the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt a non-inertial reference frame. Those people are wrong. The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
This does not mean that reference frames aren’t useful, and necessary. They are useful, and necessary. Indeed, it’s wrt an inertial reference frame that we judge the orientation of an object when deciding if it is moving like the MOTR (which “Spinners” would describe as “translating in a circle”) or like the MOTL (“rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”).
Bob underlines the problem with Gaslighting Graham’s interpretation of frames of reference:
No wonder he keeps to his Very Narrow interpretation of (3)!
No problem at all, Little Willy. Why would it be?
I wonder how long Little Willy will evade his disagreement with bob? One hundred comments? A thousand?
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
This old comment by Mighty Tim reinforces the same point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552868
That’s not the same point, at all, Little Willy. Never mind.
In any case, already done it, already won it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552876
Pope Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Both Bob and Mighty Tim shows that reference frames matter, and Gaslighting Graham’s non-response evades the fact that his stance always revolves around (pun intended) a very peculiar frame of reference, whether it’s the contraption, his pet GIF, or when he speaks of a ball on string.
Show me some respect, show me some gratitude for the amount of time I spend patiently trying to teach you, argue against bob over your disagreement instead of evading it, and maybe I’ll teach you about reference frames.
Otherwise, I have no interest in engaging with you further on this. So, if you respond with more abuse, expect not to get a reply.
Yeah I would suggest Willard take a vacation or go play someplace else. I feel sorry that he is questioning his own sanity simply because you remain consistent in your viewpoint on this.
Willard must view himself as some kind of an incompetent and/or failure as a social justice warrior or something to be so disturbed by what you think.
As a Freedom Fighter, perhaps Gill should white knighting for Gaslighting Graham.
Next he’s gonna tell us that he’s been an amateur astronomer in another life, so he knows best.
> perhaps Gill should white knighting
Perhaps Gill should stop white knighting, of course.
Instead, he could comment on these quotes:
[BOB] the ball on a string is changing its orientation, therefore it is rotating on an internal axis
[MIGHTY TIM] In that frame, the horse is most definitely rotating. The nose will continuously change orientations from +x to +y to -x to -y and back around to +x.
‘Well lets see, the Moon keeps the same side to us as it orbits. And we know that a SPINNING thing shows us ALL sides.
A distant observer sees all sides of the Moon! For them, the OPR is that the Moon has SPIN.’
Bill sez “the same is true for a rotation on an external axis if you are at a fixed position outside of the arc of rotation. so your conclusion is not exclusive for spin. try another argument”
Not my argument.
And my question was how do you know the ‘objective physical reality’ is ‘The Moon does not Spin’?
read Dr. Madhavi on her definition of a rotation on an external axis.
You claim no physical connection between the moon and its rotational axis around which the moon rotates. But thats a claim that gravity has no physical connection between the attractor and the attracted.
Bill, bob and Tim can’t really be blamed for thinking a change of orientation equals rotation about an internal axis. bob has said before that he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” are the same movement, like the MOTR…and Tim doesn’t think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” even exists as a motion! So, no wonder they are so confused. Of course they are going to think that.
Little Willy, on the other hand, has no such excuse. He only brings it up to shift focus away from his disagreement with bob. He’ll keep evading that for the rest of this thread. He knows full well that the argument “a change of orientation equals internal axis rotation” is very easily debunked…simply by the existence of the transformation, “rotation about an external axis”.
He’s just trolling.
“claim that gravity has no physical connection between the attractor and the attracted.”
Exactly. There is no physical connection.
Gill goes the gaslighting route:
The claim is that the center of mass (or COM) is where gravity is acting on orbiting bodies, Gill. This helps answer questions such as what is the COM of the Earth-Moon system that orbits the Sun?
Here’s a hint:
https://youtu.be/tzJNqcKWnrY?si=EcyrPlgD9xYi8Ez-
That being said, Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting can’t be dethroned that easily:
This kind of comment is where distinguishing levels of description is quite useful, for transformations do not exist in ROOMBA! His problems with ontological commitments has already been underlined earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1555194
Besides, the claims he imputes to Bob and Tim said are far from being incompatible. They are in fact both true. Neither of them is relevant to the fact that it is only by making a frame of reference explicit that we can interpret motion as translation or rotation.
Yep isn’t the truth that you put 4 spinners in a room and talk about rotations around an external axis and you will get 4 completely different ways of describing and setting rules for it, including denial there is such a thing. And to a man they think all those descriptions are what Newton described.
Nate says:
”claim that gravity has no physical connection between the attractor and the attracted.”
Exactly. There is no physical connection.
——————————
Apparently Nate thinks Newton’s topic of gravity doesn’t belong in Physics.
Gill, Gill,
When will he cut to the chase and tell us how gravity spins the Moon?
“This kind of comment is where distinguishing levels of description is quite useful, for transformations do not exist in ROOMBA!”
Well, “rotation about an internal axis” is also a transformation. So, now Little Willy is saying “spin” does not exist in his ROOMBA. Oh well.
“His problems with ontological commitments has already been underlined earlier:”
Little Willy links to a comment where he misread what I said.
“Besides, the claims he imputes to Bob and Tim said are far from being incompatible. They are in fact both true.”
Little Willy is completely ridiculous. If bob and Tim’s claims are true then his own “Fact 1” is false.
“Neither of them is relevant to the fact that it is only by making a frame of reference explicit that we can interpret motion as translation or rotation.”
As I have never disputed. However, depending on where you place the origin of your reference frame, you can confuse yourself into thinking something is rotating on its own internal axis when in fact it might turn out to be only rotating about an external axis, instead. As I explained in the comment I linked to, earlier. But, like I said, if you want to learn more, you’re going to have to buck your ideas up, and stop evading your disagreement with bob.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
When will he cut to the chase and tell us how gravity spins the Moon?
—————
Willard ask Nate as thats his belief.
But in fact, The earth’s gravity causes the moon and all its individual particles to rotate around the earth.
You are just confused because some other moons have particles rotating around the centers of those moons and as we know sometimes the eye is deceived to the extent that we can no longer process the idea that those particles are also rotating around the planet those moon’s are rotating about. And they it was reinforced by an inculcating elite class that operates only in an idealistic world that they spend most of their time on a couch trying to bring about.
And my question was how do you know the objective physical reality is The Moon does not Spin?
Neither Bill or DREMT has an answer.
Gill gaslights again.
Nate does not believe that gravity spins the Moon. The Moon spins because it has been spinning since its formation. OTOH, Gaslighting Graham holds that the Moon does not spin anymore. Gravity put the full breaks to it. A spin-orbit lock is thus a spin stop.
Gill is aligning himself with the crankiest position there may be in contemporary science after Flat Earthers!
“Yep isn’t the truth that you put 4 spinners in a room and talk about rotations around an external axis and you will get 4 completely different ways of describing and setting rules for it, including denial there is such a thing.”
The “Spinners” disagree amongst themselves on the absolute basics of this discussion, and, as we have seen, refuse to debate each other over those disagreements. This total lack of integrity is the reason the discussion won’t ever progress beyond the basics.
The OPR ‘logic’ fails to work for the Moon.
TMDNS is at a dead end.
Oh well!
I see Nate felt the need to comment again. He’s probably just saying that yes, the “Spinners” do need to argue amongst themselves until all are in agreement on points 1) – 4), as that’s the only way forward for this discussion. I remember, from back when I used to read his comments, that he would refer to the moon issue as “a long blog nightmare” or “this ordeal”. If he still feels that way, and ever wants it to end, he knows exactly what he has to do.
DREMTs attempts to respond to my posts would be more effective and on target if he stopped pretending to not read them.
Also, he is understandably desperate to divert the thread away from the original topic which was whether TMDNS and the OPR of that.
Neither he nor Bill seem to have anything to support the claim that the OPR is TMDNS.
Oh well!
…and, as a reminder for readers of what those points 1) – 4) are, let’s take a trip back to the very beginning of the sub-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555462
I see that Gaslighting Graham has nothing against this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557643
Why would I get involved in a dispute between you and Bill? You two can sort that out yourselves. Just like how I won’t get involved when you and bob get into your disagreement.
Willard says:
”A spin-orbit lock is thus a spin stop.”
Yes thats correct any object in rotation around an external axis has forces to create a spin stop on any independent spin. We have talked about this with rotating bowls floating on a spinning bowl of water where the independent spin they possess upon acceleration of the spinning bowl is eliminated by water resistance. Moons and planets have drag on any independent spins they may possess.
So unless there is an active force maintaining the spin (see the engineering manual on that) the rotation on an external axis will bring an end to the independent spin.
Lets review. https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Dr. Madhavi says: ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.” Well no straight line within the moon keeps the same direction so we can eliminate both translations and general plane motions. Translations by definition of being a translation. And general plane motions because they include a translation. Madhavi illustrates this with figures 2(a) and 2(b) and cautions readers to not confuse the two simply because the object is moving in a curved direction.
Thus that only leaves rotations. So for that see above and how Willard finally figured out what that entails.
“Well no straight line within the moon keeps the same direction so we can eliminate both translations and general plane motions.”
False. A general plane motion has translation of its CM, and a rotation around its CM. The Moon’s motion agrees with that description.
The problem you have is the moon’s COM rotates around the earth its not a translating motion.
Additionally, with its 6.7 degree tilted axis, the Moon has out-of-plane rotation.
Madhavi: “Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). ”
The Moon’s motion does not satisfy this description. Its orbit is not circular. And its rotation is around an axis tilted 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
Oh well!
Gill goes full Moon Dragon crank:
Denying FLOM is a thing of beauty!
You and bob will get into your disagreement, won’t you, Little Willy?
Nate says:
Madhavi: Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1).
The Moons motion does not satisfy this description. Its orbit is not circular. And its rotation is around an axis tilted 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
Oh well!
————————————-
well an ellipse is much closer to a circle than an orbit is to a translation. anyway you are talking definitions rather than physics or the OPR.
and of course the reason the axis is tilted is because it is influenced by a hierarchy of multiple gravitational forceS and rotations.
so basically your argument is there is no such thing as a rotation on an external axis as all such rotations will be variously tweaked by gravity from multiple objects so why not write the good doctor and the thousands of teachers in the world teaching this stuff and just tell them every particle in the world rotates on its on axis and translates around the universe on all sorts of non-circular motions. lol!
and while your at it, should you deny that position explain why a rock on the surface of earth is deemed to rotate around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface by excavating the soil from under it that motion around the earth magically becomes a translation around the center of the earth and a spin on the rock’s COM.
“nyway you are talking definitions rather than physics or the OPR.”
As opposed to what you guys offer which is no physics or sources that agree with you.
If you want to use a circular model to describe orbits, you certainly can.
Though I don’t know why anyone would choose to use a circular model that so innacurately predicts motion! When a much more accurate elliptical translation model from Kepler Newton is available.
In any case, these are models and not OPR.
models are not OPR.
"well an ellipse is much closer to a circle than an orbit is to a translation…"
Exactly, Bill. Picture the CSAItruth equipment. That’s the "Non-Spinner" model of "orbit" and "spin". Now picture an XY plotter, with a model moon attached to the pen, with a motor that can rotate it on its own internal axis, or not. The XY plotter equipment can translate the model moon in a circle ("Spinner" model of "orbit") and rotate the model moon on its own internal axis ("spin") by engaging the "moon spin" motor.
Both the "Non-Spinner" and "Spinner" equipment is comparable in that both require the "moon spin" motor to be engaged for "spin" to occur. The difference between them is what "orbit" is, in either case. Rotation about an external axis for the "Non-Spinners", and translation in a circle for the "Spinners".
Now, there’s neither a giant XY plotter in space, to move the moon around the Earth, or a giant arm connecting the Earth to the moon. However, one is clearly preferable to the other, since the XY plotter scenario disconnects the object being orbited from the object doing the orbiting. Thinking of "orbit without spin" as being translation, as per the "Spinners", disconnects the orbiting object from the object being orbited, completely. However, the OPR is that there is a connection between the two objects – gravity. Thus, the "giant arm" connecting Earth to moon has to be preferable than the "giant XY plotter".
That’s the beginnings of an argument to why the OPR is that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Strictly speaking, such arguments are outside the scope of my points 1) – 4), but I introduce it now, anyway, just for fun.
Here is how Gill Returns to Aristotelian Motion
(GRAM) Unless there is an active force maintaining the spin the rotation on an external axis will bring an end to the independent spin.
Natural motion needs movers!
“However, one is clearly preferable to the other, since the XY plotter scenario disconnects the object being orbited from the object doing the orbiting”
Which matches the situation of the Moon and all other planets!
DREMT disconnects TMDNS from OPR.
Whoops!
Now, all rational "Spinners" should agree that there is a connection between the object that’s orbiting and the object being orbited – gravity. Thus, the XY plotter equipment is not appropriate as a model for "orbit" and "spin".
More intelligent "Spinners" might try to counter this with a different model, like a yoyo with a frictionless connection between the string and the body of the yoyo, so that when swung in a circle it moves as per the MOTR. That way, they might argue, the "gravity" connection is simulated, whilst not compromising their beliefs.
The problems with this are two-fold:
1) It no longer shares the comparison to the CSAItruth equipment that "spin" occurs when the "moon spin" motor is engaged. As soon as you were to connect a motor to the yoyo equipment, it would move as per the MOTL without the motor engaged, rather than the MOTR.
2) The OPR for the yoyo with a frictionless connection is that it’s rotating on its own internal axis. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but if you imagined that you could increase the friction gradually at the point of contact between the string and the yoyo, such that you slowly reduced the ability of the yoyo to "spin" until it was no longer physically able to "spin", the overall movement would shift from initially being like the MOTR to finally being as per the MOTL. When physically unable to rotate on its own internal axis, the yoyo would move as per the MOTL. When physically able to rotate on its own axis, the yoyo would move as per the MOTR. Thus we know that the OPR for the yoyo with a frictionless connection is that it’s rotating on its own internal axis.
“More intelligent “Spinners” might try to counter this with a different model, like a yoyo with a frictionless connection between the string”
Why the endless fruitless attempts to find toy model for the Moon’s motion?
When we already have perfectly good physics understanding of the Moon’s Orbit and rotation?
Also, let’s not forget:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1550495
…but now, back to points 1) – 4).
Just a reminder that a gravitational field does not reach out and reorient objects flying through it, as a string attached to a ball would, as a rigid arm attached to the object would.
Anyone can observe this. For example, a launched basketball in a 3-pointer, follows a curved trajectory into the basket. It’s orientation does not follow its trajectory.
As opposed to if it were attached to a string whose other end was attched to the floor, the basketball would reorient due to the string’s attachment as it followed its trajectory to the basket.
In reality, a basketball can have any spin at all, on any axis, forwards, backwards, sideways, as it TRANSLATES on its trajectory (path) to the basket. Because it’s translation and rotation are independent motions.
Gravity does not reach out a grab hold of it and reorient it!
Just as planets can have any orientation, or spin at all as they TRANSLATE in their orbit. Because their translation and rotation are, in general, independent motions. Because gravity does not, in general reach out and grab them and align them to it.
Thus planetary orbits and rotations are described with independent parameters. Astronomy, physics, and engineering require a compelling rationale to change this.
No idea what Nate said, but I doubt it was anything very interesting, or compelling. He never used to make very good arguments, back when I read his comments. Not sure why he keeps responding.
Nate’s comment is actually both interesting and compelling allowing DREMT to learn from the comment. Nate et. al. keep responding in order to rightfully correct DREMT’s mistaken and half-truth comments.
Oh God, the Beast of Sophistry has been summoned, for some reason.
Nate’s reply demonstrates that he doesn’t have any knowledge of the basis of physics. Nate believes that physics describes an OPR, Objective Physical Reality.
But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (”SIR”) of a physical reality. Thus Nate’s concept of reality is instead imprecise (though very useful) and is designed for ease of use and represented in comparison to an idealistic perfection that has no analogue in the real physical world.
The OPR is that the earth’s gravity rules the rotation of the moon. But Nate with his lack of philosophical training and logic doesn’t comprehend that. Instead he considers SIR to be physical reality.
And he continually expresses that belief by kowtowing and name dropping (like politely addressing his teachers and their idols as ”Sir”). Its really kind of cute. But like most libs they have a lot of idealistic concepts flashing in their brains causing them to be ignorant of the true nature of things and often sends them off on religious crusades that do a lot more harm than good. Worse they ignore the underlying basis of all that and think they have moved from generations of religious bigots to a generation who honors the true OPR of the world. All the Kings men of old weren’t true scientists even when the fact is they used the same style of reasoning. . . kowtowing to all the Sirs in very undemocratic and authoritarian ways.
Nate says:
”Just a reminder that a gravitational field does not reach out and reorient objects flying through it, as a string attached to a ball would, as a rigid arm attached to the object would.”
Here is the perfect example I was talking about in the previous post.
Nate argues that since he believes a cannonball would not rotate in time with its trajectory instantaneously then the cannonball will be free to rotate at whatever speed it started out with forever.
But this is known by physics to not be true. Also its known by physics that the string nor rigid arm exercises 100% control over the orientation of the ball. Gravity still influences the rotation but the forces provided by the string and arm override them and the friction on bearings that support the string and arm will eventually end the rotation.
Gravity though will not end the rotation as the arm of gravity follows the ball around the earth. It will end any extraneous additional rotation that the object might have though.
For example in the scenario that Nate refuses to address where a rock is elevated above the surface of the earth and the rotation it had going around the earth as part of the earth’s surface is magically moved by physicists from the axis being the center of the earth to a non-rotating orbit plus a rotation around the COM of the rock.
Lets delve into this a little deeper. If you lift the rock off the surface without accelerating it (as would a flag going up a pole) but instead this is a cannon giving only existing rotation and a vertical boost. The flag pole top is moving around the earth faster than its base. So the flagpole top will create more angular momentum on the flag as it is raised to the top. The ball shot out of cannon will not do this. So the orbit period would become greater because the velocity did not increase with elevation. Spinners confuse themselves with the typical cannon shot because the object does get acceleration in its trajectory, but not so with a vertical shot. So the orbit period is longer than the time the earth takes to rotate. And the spin part of rotating around the center of the earth is no longer in time with the orbit. It has a counter rotation effect that gravity will eventually eliminate. And of course spinners always argue that all gravity ever does is slow an existing rotation around the COM of the obect but what is really happening is the object eliminating the counterspin to bring it into tidal locked compliance with a rotation around the COM of the earth. The orbit speed will still be the same so the earth with its spin will continue to be out of sync with the rotation of the rock. But that is always going to be the case unless you use the flag pole technique of elevating the rock.
Oh, I forgot to link to this earlier, when I linked to Swenson’s comment about Newton’s cannonball:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
The animations show what happens when a cannonball, launched without spin, orbits the Earth. “Spinners” somehow see the cannonball as moving like the MOTR. I’m not sure how they can possibly see it that way, but they do. To me (and Swenson too, apparently) it seems obvious that it would be moving as per the MOTL, or as per a ball on a string.
You should be able to see the parallels to the orbit of the moon if you use this:
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_all.html
and select both “Gravity Force” and “Velocity” for the Earth and moon simulator.
Gill spills all of Gaslighting Graham’s beans:
The string of the ball in string meant to simulate gravity!
Perhaps our Aristotelians should get their story straight.
“Nate argues that since he believes a cannonball would not rotate in time with its trajectory instantaneously then the cannonball will be free to rotate at whatever speed it started out with forever.”
I don’t recall saying that.
But clearly, a cannonball travelling in space, without the drag forces of the atmosphere, or any other torques, would rotate at its initial speed and on its initial rotational axis for a long time.
Because it obeys conservation of angular momentum.
“Gravity though will not end the rotation as the arm of gravity follows the ball around the earth.”
Yep.
“It will end any extraneous additional rotation that the object might have though.”
Assertion lacking any physics rationale.
“To me (and Swenson too, apparently) it seems obvious that it would be moving as per the MOTL,”
Wow, The ball has no distinguishing features to indicate its orientation.
Clearly non-spinners imagination is hard at work supporting their beliefs!
“Nate believes that physics describes an OPR, Objective Physical Reality.”
Bill shamelessly misrepresents my beliefs.
This is actually the opposite of what I have clearly stated, several times now.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556188
“I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
“Gill spills all of Gaslighting Graham’s beans”
Why are you bringing me into it? Oh yeah, you’re obsessed with me.
Little Willy, when are you going to have your dispute with bob?
And FYI, Bill, it is DREMT who is the one promoting the idea that specific models for motion are ‘objective physical reality’, OPR.
EG
DREMT: “Really, he should understand by now the OPR is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis, since its being swung around on the end of a string, which constrains its motion and prevents it from doing so.”
So you really need to explain your SIR narrative to HIM:
“But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (SIR) of a physical reality.”
Bob was thus right all along: our Ball on Stringers are just sloppy with their thinking.
Astute readers will immediately see how Gill replaces FLOM with GLAM, evades ROOMBA with SIR, and tries to cut his losses by hiting that TMDNS in OPR, none of which resolves the incompatibility between 4) and 1-2) or addresses Gaslighting Graham’s misunderstanding of 3). In fact none of this explains how Moon Dragon Cranks get from Rules 1-2 and T1-2 to MOTR.
Astute readers undoubtedly kept track of all these acronyms too!
If bob was “right all along” about my point 2), then Little Willy’s “Fact 1” would be wrong. That’s why bob said that Little Willy’s “Fact 1” was “incorrect”. Since Little Willy is actually right, on that, and bob is wrong, I wonder when he will scrape together the integrity to argue that out with bob?
Gotta redefine these acronyms again in each new Comments section.
What is GLAM?
And FLOM is Newton’s First Law, and is also known as the Law of Inertia (LOI).
“…none of which resolves the incompatibility between 4) and 1-2) or addresses Gaslighting Graham’s misunderstanding of 3).”
There is no such incompatibility, or misunderstanding. Points 1) – 4) are correct.
“But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (“SIR”) of a physical reality.”
Bill hits the nail on the head, again. So, back to my point 1), which introduces the concept of objective physical reality, or OPR, to the discussion. Instead of the usual ball on a string, let’s go with a wooden horse, securely bolted to the floor of a spinning merry-go-round.
Kinematically, you can describe the movement of the wooden horse as:
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, that’s SIR. Not OPR.
You could say that the wooden horse appears to be rotating on its own internal axis wrt some specific reference frame, and not rotating on its own internal axis wrt some other specific reference frame.
However, that’s SIR, again. Not OPR.
The objective physical reality for the wooden horse is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis, as the merry-go-round spins. Have the merry-go-round stationary. Can the wooden horse physically rotate on its own internal axis? Of course not. It’s securely bolted to the floor of the merry-go-round. So, when the merry-go-round spins, is the wooden horse suddenly now physically able to rotate on its own internal axis? Of course not. It’s still securely bolted to the floor of the merry-go-round. The OPR is that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own internal axis.
That’s OPR. Not SIR.
“Bill hits the nail on the head, again. ”
So DREMT declares. Then proceeds to contradict Bill.
Bill is saying our mathematical models for motion are symbolic representions of reality. For us. To use. To describe and predict motion.
They are NOT EVER objective physical realty.
But DREMT asserts, without a sensible rationale, that some models, particularly his pet models, ARE objective physical reality.
Obviously if two geometric models can equally well describe a motion, they are both symbolic representations of the motion, and neither one is OPR.
Obviously this point went well over his head.
The objective reality is that the Moon is a paper cutout glued to a clock, and Gaslighting Graham is a freaking genius.
Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m a genius, but I’m certainly more intelligent than Little Willy. That isn’t saying much, though.
The OPR for the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis. The OPR for the ball on a string is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
I’m not talking about them in terms of being models of the moon’s motion, of course. I’m simply talking about the actual, real world examples themselves.
To get to the OPR for the moon is more complex, but I’ve started an argument to that effect already, and nobody has had any sensible rebuttal, so far.
The OPR is as simple as identifying the superior force that does or will control the motion in question. in rotations that is a matter of identifying the primary axis around which the rotation in question is occurring.
spinners though ignore the OPR as they have been trained like seals to consider a SIR as the OPR even if that was not the intent of their instructor. a seal will catch a thrown ball even though its not food because he believes some food will eventually tossed. only dumbseals catch the ball thinking that its food.
Gaslighting Graham and Gill try to gaslight astute readers into thinking that a silly contraption is more real than the laws of physics.
LMAO!
Astute readers will know that’s a false accusation, Little Willy.
Gill believes that when the CSA Truther creates a translation by removing an internal rotation from the external rotation, the internal rotation does not exist.
ROFL!
Willard says:
Gill believes that when the CSA Truther creates a translation by removing an internal rotation from the external rotation, the internal rotation does not exist.
ROFL!
——————–
On command Little Willy snatches yet another red plastic ball out of the air believing it was a huge chunk of sashimi.
Nate says:
”I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
Yes indeed. But that is true if and only if you have correctly identified the source of the force that will cause the motion. If you don’t properly identify that your prediction will in all likelihood fail unless serendipity interferes.
Its important to amend the above with a few facts of life.
Unless you have your OPR correct your SIR models are worthless. They don’t teach much OPR in academic settings (lab work being the exception). OPR is pretty much left to graduating and getting a field job where you get to put your models to work and you start out at the bottom gaining experience and advancing as your knowledge of OPR increases.
the same process is true for all fields. That’s where the meme came from: ”Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” and the meme also provides a major reason why students get so little experience or training in OPR. Going to a military school is a whole different kind of experience.
Bill, @10:06 PM, is that really what Nate said!? It’s unusual for him to agree with us so completely. All good progress, though.
Gill issues another papal bull:
(UYHYOCYSMAW) Unless you have your OPR correct your SIR models are worthless.
UYHYOCYSMAW is so confused it is getting ridiculous. Let the CSA Truther Contraction be CTC. A few questions:
Q1. Is the CTC at scale?
Q2. What is the Earth orbit in the CTC?
Q3. Where is the Sun?
Q4. Where is the barycenter in the CTC?
Nate: “I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
Glad to hear that Bill clearly agrees:
“Yes indeed.”
“physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (SIR) of a physical reality.”
But then he totally CONTRADICTS himself, insisting that we CAN describe ‘objective physical reality’ with physics and mathematics.
“The OPR is as simple as identifying the superior force that does or will control the motion in question.”
“The OPR is that the earths gravity rules the rotation of the moon.”
As usual, Bill is an unreliable narrator of his own thoughts.
Little Willy gets himself more and more confused, introducing more and more ridiculous acronyms into the debate in an attempt to parody me, yet I’ve only actually introduced MOTL, MOTR and OPR. Everybody involved in the debate knows what the first two mean, and OPR seems to be catching on, fine. There’s no need to overdo it, though.
The CSAItruth equipment is not meant to replicate the moon’s motion, exactly, down to every last detail. Nor would the XY plotter equipment be expected to. All it’s really doing, IMO, is showing the basics of what the "Non-Spinner" position is, just as the XY plotter equipment shows the basics of what the "Spinner" position is. You can’t expect the equipment to resolve the issue of what the OPR is for "orbit without spin", completely, but it does point the way for an argument that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, rather than the MOTR, since the XY plotter equipment disconnects the object being orbited from the object doing the orbiting, whereas the OPR is that there’s a connection between them – gravity.
The OPR is that there is a physically-motivated model where TMDS and it works much better than the one where TMDNS, to describe and predict the Moon’s motion precisely as needed by science and engineering.
And the OPR is that DREMT and Bill keep declaring that TMDNS is OPR, but offering nothing substantive to support the claim.
So that’s a dead end.
As nobody has even come close to addressing the arguments I’ve made, let alone refuting them, I guess my hands are tied – I’m forced to declare the issue settled. I’ll reluctantly accept the winner’s medal, along with Bill. Winning arguments is hard work, but someone’s got to do it.
GG cannot evade a simple fact:
(TCCTOTM) The CTC changes the orientation of the Moon.
Why would I “evade” what is obvious, and not a problem?
Astute readers already know the answer to that one –
TCCTOTM implies that SOANI!
Grow up, Little Willy.
GGGA.
(TIS) TCCTOTM Implies SOANI!
Nobody knows what SOANI is. Nobody cares.
Astute readers may not care about Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting, just as they don’t care much about his silly acronym game.
They should note that our acronym was incorrect:
(TITS) TCCTOTM Implies That SOANI!
If SOANI stands for Spin and Orbit Are Not Independent, then Little Willy is wrong, again.
I could equally argue that "spin" and "orbit" are not independent with the XY plotter equipment, because from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, they’re not. However, I wouldn’t argue that, as it’s just a silly and illogical argument. The correct statement is that "spin" and "orbit" are independent with both the XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment, the difference is in how "orbit" is perceived by either side of the debate.
I see this discussion has deteriorated to its predicted state.
For the navel gazers out there:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/reality-objective-exist/
If you are making up new acronyms you are either a crackpot or on the cutting edge of science.
Or taking the piss.
OTTP
bob turns up to argue with Little Willy, no doubt, as he should.
Just a reminder…bob said:
"Maybe there is an astute reader who can tell the Pop DR EMPTY the first of his name why this statement is incorrect.
“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.”
It has something to do with what orbits are not."
That "Fact 1" was Little Willy’s statement. So, Little Willy and bob are in direct, absolute disagreement. Off they go.
The Pope Dr EMPTY the first of his name.
You are busted, it’s your fact 1 in the first place, you even admit to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557114
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556957
In that post you claim
“1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.”
and this:
“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.”
I claim the first is true and the second is false.
The second is false, and it is your statement, not Willard’s.
Because satellites orbiting planets all orbit in ellipses where the speed of the external “rotation” or you should say revolves, does not match the speed of the internal rotation.
Because Kepler.
I have proven 1) to be true, more than once, you should be familiar with my proof, you have not been able to refute it so far.
Maybe try again?
Sorry, bob, I might have taught him it in the first place, but Little Willy agrees, and it’s his statement you said was incorrect. Your disagreement is with him. Plus, he said:
“The CSA Truther changes the orientation of the Moon as he displaces it along the axis of “the planet” we alluded to earlier. Fact 1 was couched in terms of that contraption. It was *not* referring to the Earth which, as Bob rightfully observes, does not move in circle.”
So, there you have it. Little Willy’s “Fact 1” relates to the CSAItruth contraption, which moves in circular motion, not elliptical. So, all your garbage about elliptical orbits is just that – garbage. We are discussing circular motion only. There is no excuse for you, no way out. You disagree with Little Willy, directly, and absolutely. Either argue it out with him, or continue to look ridiculous. Your choice, bob!
You got a problem Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name.
I could care less about circular motion.
The Moon rotates on its axis.
I am right about that.
If you want to discuss that, that would be fine.
bob simply doesn’t have the integrity to debate Little Willy. What a loser.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name.
“So, there you have it. Little Willys Fact 1 relates to the CSAItruth contraption, which moves in circular motion, not elliptical.”
Not correct, “Fact 1” has the word planet in it, so it does not refer to the CSI truth contraption.
Not well played.
Well, according to Little Willy, who wrote the “Fact 1” statement, it relates to the CSAItruth contraption. My guess would be the “planet” referred to is the model planet “Earth” in the centre of the contraption. Maybe that’s another thing you can argue with Little Willy about, though.
And so Gaslighting Graham finally agrees with Bob – Fact 1 does not refer to the real Earth!
There is hope.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
When you quote someone it is appropriate to mention who you are quoting.
In this sub thread I could not find where Willard said what you said he said, I could only find where you said it without attribution.
So add Rhetoric to the list of topics you are flunking.
He said it here, bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557151
Little Willy, I do not agree with bob, and nor do you. His:
“1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.”
is incompatible with your “Fact 1”. bob is wrong, you are right.
Gaslighting Graham finally admits that he was gaslighting Bob.
There is hope.
When will he cite the original comment, so that he will be able to confirm with Bob that “the planet” does not refer to the Earth?
Little Willy won’t debate bob, and bob won’t debate Little Willy, despite their disagreement. How sad. It makes them both look absolutely terrible, though, so long may it continue, I guess.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again.
When will he link to the original comment from the original thread?
Meanwhile, astute readers can see that there’s no real disagreement between me and Bob when we interpret frames of reference properly.
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, Little Willy. Your "Fact 1" puts it as movement like the MOTL. bob think it’s movement like the MOTR. Your disagreement could not be more absolute.
Reference frames won’t bail you out of this one, since the reference frame is a given – the origin is in the "Earth" (circle in the centre on each side of the GIF, which the "moon" orbits) and the coordinate system axes point to "fixed stars".
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
Here is the truth of the matter:
1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.
and this:
Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the origin is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
Now both statements are correct.
Here is why reference frames matter
Your claim DR EMPTY
“Reference frames wont bail you out of this one, since the reference frame is a given the origin is in the “Earth” (circle in the centre on each side of the GIF, which the “moon” orbits) and the coordinate system axes point to “fixed stars”.
The fact is the Moon on the left rotates because the face of the Moon points in different directions as the Moon rotates and revolves around the Earth.
While the Moon on the right points consistently to one direction, meaning it is the one that is not rotating.
Now bob believes two incompatible statements are both correct! Hilarious. More, please.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
Speaks with Papal supremacy.
Why don’t you explain why the two statements are incompatible?
Will Gaslighting Graham, First of His Name (GGFOHN) try to gaslighting Bob with his misreading of Holy Madhavi again?
Will he finally admit that the CSA Truther’s Contraption (CTC) keeps the same face of the Earth facing the Moon?
So many questions, so little time.
Even more hilarity ensues as bob fails to understand why the two statements are incompatible.
The two statements are incompatible, bob, because for your statement about the ball on a string to be correct, "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" would have to be movement as per the MOTR; whereas for Little Willy’s "Fact 1" to be correct, "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" would have to be movement as per the MOTL.
Little Willy’s "Fact 1" is correct, and your statement about the ball on a string is incorrect.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob.
When will he concede that he was quoting a geometric fact?
When will he accept that incompatibility and equivalence don’t mix?
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
You are just stating that a ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis while rotating around an external axis is incorrect.
You fail to explain yourself.
I wonder why.
No, bob, I was explaining why the two statements were incompatible, like you asked.
If you now want to know why a ball on a string is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis, try watching the CSAItruth video again. You will note that when the moon rotates about both an external and an internal axis, it does not move as per the MOTL. All pretty simple, really.
Amazing that you’ve been wrong about it for over five years, and counting.
And, that’s hilarious.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
I can keep correcting you all day
“whereas for Little Willys “Fact 1” to be correct, “rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis” would have to be movement as per the MOTL, as long as the two rotations are synchronous”
There, I corrected your statement.
There aren’t two rotations, bob. There is only one, about the external axis. That’s why it’s "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Not having a very good day, are you?
Alright. Let’s help Gaslighting Graham. Here’s the backstory to the original comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1554511
Little Willy doesn’t seem to realise, he’s on "ignore". I’m just speaking to bob, and bob alone.
bobdroege says:
” ”the two rotations are synchronous”
There, I corrected your statement.”
Oh oh! Bob strays off the reservation! The Spinner Tribe Tribal Council is going to have to send out a posse to round him up.
GGFOHN gaslights again.
Here’s the comment that follows:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1554521
"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?"
Mind you, bob’s answer to that question would have to be, "no".
Unless he was going to go back on himself, and suddenly say that he agrees "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, after all. In which case, he would answer, "yes".
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
“There arent two rotations, bob. There is only one, about the external axis. Thats why its “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.”
Yes there are two.
First of all, per Mahdavi and others, an external rotation does not include a change in orientation.
Second, if it’s rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, then the orientation must stay the same.
End of story, why don’t you discuss it with Willard.
I am putting you on ignore.
If you’re putting me on "ignore", bob, I guess that means you won’t be commenting at all, for the rest of the sub-thread. Since I’m the only person you’ve been responding to, as you refuse to speak to Little Willy over your disagreement.
"Yes there are two"
No, bob. Read "Fact 1" again:
"Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the origin is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees."
And so GGFOHN Tries To Gaslighting Bob Again (GTTGBA)!
Here is the comment that follows:
For some reason GTTGBA instead of responding.
“First of all, per Mahdavi and others, an external rotation does not include a change in orientation.”
Wrong. All the particles of the body move in concentric circles about the axis of rotation, remember? That means the body is changing orientation.
“End of story, why don’t you discuss it with Willard.”
I would, but his comments reveal he agrees with me and disagrees with you on this. So, there’s nothing much to discuss.
I guess you two are never going to debate your disagreement. Oh well.
Poor Gaslighting Graham. He forgot to emphasize:
“”Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the origin is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.”
bob is actually one of the least intelligent and least effective “Spinners”, being wrong about this basic, fundamental issue (my point 2)) for over five years. Of course, that doesn’t stop Little Willy from worshipping the ground he walks on. A few months ago, bob went off on one and was arguing with me for days on end about the GHE, and Little Willy obediently tagged along. Turned out they were both wrong, of course, as Tim Folkerts later confirmed. You would think Little Willy would have learned his lesson, but no. This time, Little Willy doesn’t even agree with bob himself, but he’s still trying to somehow support him, at the same time! Really weird.
Gaslighting Graham might be the dumbest Moon Dragon crank there is, for he forgets a few little details to keep his story straight.
First, the Earth is not fixed, so whatever point he thought he had with Holy Madhavi is empty.
Second, the Earth and the Moon are not fully synchronized, which means that the CSA Truther’s contraption is void.
Third, equivalence implies compatibility, which implies that he once again fails basic logic.
Fourth, frames of reference are required to determine an axis of rotation, hence Bob wins another round.
One and two are outside the scope of my points 1) – 4), three I’ve already been through with you once:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556966
Four I’ve been through with you multiple times:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557174
I just go back to one of them.
bob doesn’t win anything, Little Willy. I’m right on points 1) – 4).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more. The CSA Truther contraption moves the Moon by rotating the Earth. This implies that the Earth keeps its same side facing the Moon.
This leads to two important conclusions regarding the contraption:
C1. It does not model the Motion of Moon (MOM).
C2. It makes the motion of Earth and Moon interdependent.
This leads to two important conclusions regarding GGFOHN’s toll bridge:
C3. C2 refutes Graham’s (4).
C4. C1 refutes Graham’s overall stance about Objective Reality.
The Earth does not drag the Moon through the sky by one big fantastic external rotation, and that’s that.
“C3. C2 refutes Graham’s (4).”
Not in the least. “Orbit” and “spin” are independent with both the XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment. The difference is what “orbit” is, in either case. The motion of the model Earth when the model moon “orbits” with the CSAItruth equipment is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why you can’t see that, but guess you’re just desperate.
“C4. C1 refutes Graham’s overall stance about Objective Reality.”
Nah, not at all. I am not claiming that the CSAItruth equipment models the exact motion of the moon. So you’re just attacking a huge straw man.
“The CSA Truther contraption moves the Moon by rotating the Earth. This implies that the Earth keeps its same side facing the Moon.”
I can see elsewhere in the comments that you’re currently having another huge meltdown about this, arguing with Swenson and Gordon and revealing how utterly confused you are. The CSAItruth equipment moves the moon by swinging a rotating arm. That’s what you should focus on. That on one end of the arm they affix the model Earth, which thus rotates when the arm moves, means absolutely nothing. It is not implied that they think the Earth keeps its same side facing the moon, in real life. They could have attached the model Earth to some low friction washer making it move independently from the movement of the arm, but what would that achieve, really? Most people should be intelligent enough to understand that the Earth’s spin is irrelevant in the model. You’re massively clutching at straws, here.
“Wrong. All the particles of the body move in concentric circles about the axis of rotation, remember? That means the body is changing orientation.”
I see DREMT is deferring to the standard definition of Rotation about an external axis.
Nice.
But he and his TEAM don’t hesitate to reject this same standard definition, regularly as needed to support their beliefs!
“Actually elliptical orbits is proof that rotations on external axes includes elliptical motion as well”
Just a note that this has been a very long sub-thread (the longest under all the comments, as is to be expected whenever I start posting – nobody can resist responding to me since I live rent free in so many people’s heads) and so, naturally, no matter what, I’ll be having the last word. Even if we have to be here until next November. I may have to lock things down to a "single response from me every 24 hours" situation, soon, though, before it gets even more out of control than it already is.
“nobody can resist responding to me since”
I admit it is difficult to resist responding when DREMT (again) posts such obviously contradictory self-goals.
…I may have to lock things down to a "single response from me every 24 hours" situation, soon, though, before it gets even more out of control than it already is.
Gaslighting Graham plays Humpty Dumpty once more:
Reinterpreting my words does not counter what I am saying. But even if we grant his idiosyncrasies, he’s still wrong. In the CSA Truther’s contraption, the Moon depends on the Earth‘s spin. More than that, but the Earth-Moon system becomes totally interlocked, as the Earth only faces the Moon one way. We’re far from having independent motions!
Astute readers may wonder how long Gaslighting Graham will continue to gaslighting them. Nobody knows.
Little Willy ignores the debunking of his comments and simply repeats himself. Not interesting.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
GGGA. His trademarked armwaving does not counter anything.
There’s no Objective Reality behind the silly contraption. It only serves to illustrate a geometric equivalence that he portrays as an incompatibility.
All this is utterly contemptible.
Willard what we are talking about here is OPR (Objective Physical Reality)
You are perfectly welcome to build a device that shows your OPR in a different light. . .gee you can even comb the internet and find a video of one like DREMT did.
Until you do that consider that you are losing the argument. And if you don’t chalk it us as a loss.
Bill,
It’s trivial, but I was the one who introduced the CSA truther video.
Bob you are or anybody else who questions the OPR of a rotation on an external axis is more than welcome to design, build, demonstrate or produce a video of such a device that rotates on two axes and looks like the moon.
When you are done come back and we can discuss your results. Until then DREMT is the only one in here who has accomplished the challenge.
Fine, I will repeat the debunking:
“In the CSA Truther’s contraption, the Moon depends on the Earth‘s spin. More than that, but the Earth-Moon system becomes totally interlocked, as the Earth only faces the Moon one way. We’re far from having independent motions”
The independent motions are the “orbit” and “spin” of the moon. Who cares if the equipment spins the Earth when the moon “orbits”!? The motion of the Earth is completely irrelevant to this model! As I said, and you ignored:
“The CSAItruth equipment moves the moon by swinging a rotating arm. That’s what you should focus on. That on one end of the arm they affix the model Earth, which thus rotates when the arm moves, means absolutely nothing. It is not implied that they think the Earth keeps its same side facing the moon, in real life. They could have attached the model Earth to some low friction washer making it move independently from the movement of the arm, but what would that achieve, really? Most people should be intelligent enough to understand that the Earth’s spin is irrelevant in the model. You’re massively clutching at straws, here.“
Not that Little Willy will learn. He’s completely ineducable.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gill fumbles the ball on his line of 10:
He’s now confusing Gaslighting Graham’s artifice with ROOMBA!
Astute readers should wonder how realistic is a model of a complete tidal lock for the actual Earth-Moon system…
And…Gaslighting Graham confirms his Humpty Dumpty act:
His “orbit” and “spin” does not refer to orbit and spin as usually understood among astronomers.
He defines an orbit without spin as implying a change of orientation of a celestial body, whereas a spin involves a change of orientation!
Astute readers might wonder if he believes that repeating his little semantic games will change reality or convince the community of astronomers that he alone is right.
And the Objective Physical Reality is that DREMT and Bill keep declaring that TMDNS is OPR, but offer nothing substantive to support the claim.
So thats a dead end.
Bill,
To accurately model the motion of the Moon, you would need half a dozen servos and motors.
The OPR, or the empirical evidence shows that the Moon revolves around the Earth with one axis, and rotates on another axis that is not parallel to that external axis of rotation.
But there is a flaw in calling it an external axis of rotation because the orbit is not circular, so your OPR is incorrect.
But you can build a contraption that will model the two non parallel axes.
Start with a rotating arm supporting the Moon powered by one motor.
At the end of this arm put another motor rotating clockwise to remove the rotation of the Moon, then add another motor rotating counterclockwise tilted by 5 degrees.
That would get a step closer the the OPR of the Moon’s actual observed motion.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
To accurately model the motion of the Moon, you would need half a dozen servos and motors.
————————————–
that is irrelevant. it is also true that is true for all real world rotations on an external axis as in the real everything is gravitationally affected by every object in the universe. you need to control your emotions and inculcation and realize how you flip flop between SIR and OPR based upon how close you want to look at an engineering problem. you guys make the same error when you start concluding stu-pid stuff about climate. lets keep the motions of the moon within the scope of the motions you can perceive with your naked eye from a place on the surface of the earth and build that device.
bobdroege says:
Start with a rotating arm supporting the Moon powered by one motor.
At the end of this arm put another motor rotating clockwise to remove the rotation of the Moon, then add another motor rotating counterclockwise tilted by 5 degrees.
yes and all the power sources driving most of this is simply the gravitational forces of other objects as is true with every object rotating on an external axis.
You seem perfectly willing, if you were consistent, to argue their is no such thing as a rotation on an external axis.
you may as well tell us that massless particles of the earth don’t rotate around the center of the earth but instead orbit the center of the earth while spinning on the center of the dimensionless space they take up.
logically your argument is circular. again model me a rotation on an external axis and tell me what powers every motor you install. then i will show you a simpler way of building it.
you see bob engineers need to be efficient as well as be observant.
“yes and all the power sources driving most of this is simply the gravitational forces of other objects as is true with every object rotating on an external axis.”
Sure. And gravity from Jupiter affects babies being born on Earth, thus we need to consult the astrological charts carefully before conceiving, and later when choosing their spouse for them.
Even more so:
“the real everything is gravitationally affected by every object in the universe”
Bill,
” lets keep the motions of the moon within the scope of the motions you can perceive with your naked eye from a place on the surface of the earth and build that device.”
**** that, I have a telescope, and a camera.
OPR is not just what is observable to the naked eye.
Bill,
You know you need the non engineers to tell you when you go off the rails.
“you may as well tell us that massless particles of the earth dont rotate around the center of the earth but instead orbit the center of the earth while spinning on the center of the dimensionless space they take up.”
Massless particles have to move at the speed of light, so they don’t rotate around the center of the Earth. Obviously you missed that in class.
“logically your argument is circular. again model me a rotation on an external axis and tell me what powers every motor you install. then i will show you a simpler way of building it.”
Yeah, but I am interested in modeling the motion of the Moon, which is not rotating on an external axis, no matter how much of the non-spinners cool aid you drink.
Nate says:
”Sure. And gravity from Jupiter affects babies being born on Earth, thus we need to consult the astrological charts carefully before conceiving, and later when choosing their spouse for them.”
————————
It really is fun in here watching how many ignorant guys in here who post about science but obviously don’t know anything about what they are posting.
Here we have Nate essentially claiming Jupiter has no effect on the rotations other planet systems, which of course a lot of high school students know well. Nate’s take is about as well accepted as a flat earth.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-pull-of-jupiter-and-venus-on-earth-causes-major-climate-events/
”Earths orbit around the sun is almost a perfectly circular one. That is, except every 405,000 years, when the gravitational pull of massive Jupiter and Venus yanks the earths orbit into an ellipse of about 5, producing the Milankovitch cycles that cause the planets glacial and interglacial cycles. Scientists can now link changes in the climate, environment, dinosaurs, mammals, and fossils around the world to this 405,000-year cycle in a very precise way, says geomagnetic researcher Dennis V. Kent of Rutgers University, who has now documented this periodic warping of our orbit.”
bobdroege says:
”Yeah, but I am interested in modeling the motion of the Moon, which is not rotating on an external axis, no matter how much of the non-spinners cool aid you drink.”
Bob repeats the best scientific argument for the moon not rotating around the earth that he has been able to muster to date. [/s]
The discussion continued down-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561088
and reached its conclusion.
Bill, note that bob believes “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR rather than the MOTL! I know, hilariously and obviously wrong. So, there’s no point you trying to reason with him. Note that he has also argued to the effect that every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is rotating on its own internal axis, just because the Earth spins. He’s one of the least intelligent and least effective “Spinners”. A desperate and hopeless failure that’s lost every argument he’s ever had on the subject due to his confusion over my point 2).
Oh well.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gill schlurps another one, and Gaslighting Graham links to some braying by Mike Flynn. The argument he tries to evade is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561201
Since he hasn’t countered it, I consider that I won another exchange.
“Here we have Nate essentially claiming Jupiter has no effect on the rotations other planet systems”
As usual, Bill informs me on what I supposedly believe.
But can’t quote me stating or implying any such thing.
What Jupiter’s gravity does NOT DO is affect babies, or tabletop mechanical devices on Earth.
Which was what Bill was suggesting:
“it is also true that is true for all real world rotations on an external axis as in the real everything is gravitationally affected by every object in the universe”
even Bob’s tabletop planetary simulator:
“and all the power sources driving most of this is simply the gravitational forces of other objects as is true with every object rotating on an external axis.”
And that ridiculous notion of his is what I was ridiculing.
Nate says:
”As usual, Bill informs me on what I supposedly believe.”
Nate back pedals from his comment below at the speed of light!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561343
When I say “gravity from Jupiter affects babies on Earth”
Just for the record, that was sarcasm. I do not think Jupiter’s gravity affects babies on Earth.
Bill reads that and concludes:
“Here we have Nate essentially claiming Jupiter has no effect on the rotations OTHER PLANET systems”
Most people do not confuse babies and planets, as Bill does.
Looks like Bill has everything sorted up here.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
“Looks like Bill has everything sorted up here.”
Sure, as long as you don’t read my posts, or those of any of his other opponents.
Seems to me he did Nate.
After you 100% backpedaled from this response terming it sarcasm:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561343
you have not at all addressed the issue at all much less provide any rebuttal.
So exactly what was DREMT supposed to have read?
“After you 100% backpedaled from this response”
Not at all. My statement:
“Sure. And gravity from Jupiter affects babies being born on Earth, thus we need to consult the astrological charts carefully before conceiving, and later when choosing their spouse for them.
was obviously sarcasm. Are you really unable to tell, Bill?
And I’m not backpedaling from it, and there is no need to.
It said absolutely NOTHING about Jupiter’s effect on other planet’s rotations, which you FALSELY claimed I did.
So that’s the end of it.
OK fine Nate then I am supposed to take it you agree that the moons axial tilt and precessions are all related to forces of gravity from the various objects in the universe proportional to their gravitation influences.
I will also accept your sarcastic reply as a grudging acknowledgement you have no source to dispute that nor any alternative idea of why those are as they are.
“then I am supposed to take it you agree that the moons axial tilt and precessions are all related to forces of gravity from the various objects in the universe proportional to their gravitation influences.”
Axial tilt? No. Why?
Precession, of course.
Babies, no.
Gravity does what it does, which is not everything.
Again – looks like Bill has everything sorted up here.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Nate says:
then I am supposed to take it you agree that the moons axial tilt and precessions are all related to forces of gravity from the various objects in the universe proportional to their gravitation influences.
Axial tilt? No. Why?
————————–
Nate agrees precessions are. the sum of the precession of the axis is zero tilt.
Angle denier.
Observed properties that don’t fit your OPR narrative are ignored.
Axial precession is indeed due to interaction of spin angular momentum with gravity of the sun and other planets.
But you can’t have axial precession without an axis, a rotational axis.
You can have precession of an axis without axial tilt, which you can’t have without an axis, a rotational axis.
So the entire TMDNS notion, that the Moon has no spin on its axis, yet it has axial tilt, and axial precession is self contradictory.
I expect in response some high level handwaving to wish that away.
Nate says:
”Axial precession is indeed due to interaction of spin angular momentum with gravity of the sun and other planets.
But you cant have axial precession without an axis, a rotational axis.”
—————–
Yeah so what. The axis has no role in the OPR of the moon’s rotation. Its not an axle it lacks bearings and drive gears. Its purely an imaginary axis located by observing the motion of the moon. One can do the same for ANY rotation upon an external fixed axis making all your other myriad of complaints about the rotation not being a circle, not being connected by a rigid arm, etc. simply evidence you will throw anything at the wall to see if it will stick.
Nate says:
”You can have precession of an axis without axial tilt, which you cant have without an axis, a rotational axis.”
——————–
Thats crazy and illogical. How about a source? what am I missing here? Am I just peering into a huge gap in the logic of your thinking?
‘You can have’ should have been ‘You can’t have’ clearly.
So here yet another contradiction in the whole TMDNS narrative, and it simply dismissed as if it is not a contradiction at all.
-Axial tllt of the Moon is 6.7 degrees. That means is rotates in a plane that is tilted 6.7 degrees wrt its orbital plane.
-It’s orbital angular velocity is variable.
-It rotates around its tilted axis at a constant rate.
These facts are inconsistent with a model involving one rotation around a single external axis.
As are the others.
From reading Bill’s comments, it looks like the discussion has drifted outside the scope of points 1) – 4). Until “Spinner” can scrape together the integrity to argue against “Spinner”, this debate is going nowhere, overall. All “Spinners” need to agree on those four points, and since they disagree amongst themselves over them, the least they could do is resolve the disputes between themselves. No need to bring the “Non-Spinners” into it, at all.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Nate says:
”So here yet another contradiction in the whole TMDNS narrative, and it simply dismissed as if it is not a contradiction at all.”
No contradictions at all. We have been over this stuff I guess we can go over it again for the slow people in the room.
”-Axial tllt of the Moon is 6.7 degrees. That means is rotates in a plane that is tilted 6.7 degrees wrt its orbital plane.”
Caused as just pointed out by perturbations of other objects primarily the gas giants and venus that rotate around the sun and exert gravitational forces on the moons rotation.
”-Its orbital angular velocity is variable.”
Most rotating objects have variable angular velocity. So thats a non-starter.
Most rotating objects that change velocity require energy to do so and that affects angular momentum. In the case of the moon’s elliptical orbit angular momentum is constant.
”-It rotates around its tilted axis at a constant rate.”
Yes angular momentum of the moon is conserved and is constant but you can’t remove the ”r”value from angular momentum of an orbiting object without violating the conservation of angular momentum. You just want to play around with equations and pretend you can do that kind of stuff without a change in torque.
These facts are inconsistent with a model involving one rotation around a single external axis.
Just the opposite is true. If any of that changed you would not have a conservation of angular momentum. You would be the grand ignora-mus territory of perpetuum mobiles. . .changes in motion without changes in energy.
Remember Newton’s law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. pull the ”r” value out of the equation for a rotation on an external axis and you have changed the energy of the orbital motion without complying with Newtons Law.
that fact establishes as fact, by Newtons Law and mathematics, DREMTs claim that orbital motion without spin is as the MOTL.
“These facts are inconsistent with a model involving one rotation around a single external axis.
Just the opposite is true. If any of that changed you would not have a conservation of angular momentum.”
Why? What does this even mean? It is a non-sequitur.
Again for the slow-drift-catchers, we have:
First off, a rigid-body-rotation is defined as all parts of the body move in concentric circles around an external point.
Concentric circles obviously lie in a single plane.
For the Moon we have:
a. Motion of the Moon’s COM on an elliptical path, in one plane, and a VARIABLE angular rate.
b. Rotation of the Moon’s orientation in a different plane, tilted 6.7 degrees to the first, at a CONSTANT angular rate.
One could try to pretend that (a) is rotation, even though it is non-circular.
But one cannot take a) and b), which are obviously two distinct motions, and jam them together and pass them off as one single rotation.
It just makes no sense, and it shows desperation to preserve a belief that runs against all the evidence.
“Remember Newtons law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
And???
“Pull the r value out of the equation for a rotation on an external axis and you have changed the energy of the orbital motion without complying with Newtons Law.”
Nonsense.
Newton showed that his laws lead to elliptical orbits, with constant energy and constant angular momentum.
Nate says:
”Remember Newtons law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
And???
”Pull the r value out of the equation for a rotation on an external axis and you have changed the energy of the orbital motion without complying with Newtons Law.”
Nonsense.
Newton showed that his laws lead to elliptical orbits, with constant energy and constant angular momentum.
——————–
Well Newton was smart enough to not proclaim that that spin and orbit are two separate motions occurring in the moon as he would know that would be a violation of his own law.
The proof is easy. We know that when you subtract a spin from an orbiting object that energy is added to the angular momentum of the moon’s orbit by increasing the radius of the rotation of the orbit. That is a conservation of energy.
So when you consider that spin as a separate motion from orbit in a tidally locked moon you are messing with the energy of the orbital angular momentum without an offsetting action.
I have shown you the math that demonstrates that fact and the logic of that fact is above. So you can’t remove the spin part of the equation from a rotation on an external axis without changing the distance of the center of the moon from its axis.
Thus its a violation of the law of conservation of energy to leave the moon with no torque flying straight through space and still have the barycenter in place. As we, non-spinners, have contended your view of the moon having separate orbit and spin motions just doesn’t hold up to the math. Lspin and Lorb are inseparable unless you have a change in energy that separates them.
Its like an amoeba its one thing until the amoeba absorbs energy and uses that energy to split into two amoeba.
“The proof is easy. We know that when you subtract a spin from an orbiting object that energy is added to the angular momentum of the moons orbit by increasing the radius of the rotation of the orbit. That is a conservation of energy.”
Bill,
This is like me saying to you:
‘Well Bill, the fiduciary of the profit margin is added to the LLC.’
It is mansplaining and gobbledegook.
Energy doesn’t EVER add to angular momentum. They are different variables with different units and different meanings.
You are thoroughly confused about what these quantities mean, and what to do with them.
Nate tries to con us that if you accelerate the ball on the string you increase the angular momentum but haven’t added any energy to the system.
Likewise, I suppose, if you decelerate the ball on the string you reduce the angular momentum and haven’t subtracted any energy from the system. Right? . . . no wrong!
Fact is Nate if you remove Lspin from the MOTL you have broken the torque arm that forces the moon to bend the moon around the earth.
You are left with a every different motion with less energy related to it than the original orbital motion.
“Nate tries to con us that if you accelerate the ball on the string you increase the angular momentum but havent added any energy to the system.”
False. Just pointing out that the more you mansplain physics, the more you get wrong and reveal your ignorance of this subject.
Clearly you think expertise has no value, unless it is your own.
“Fact is Nate if you remove Lspin from the MOTL you have broken the torque arm that forces the moon to bend the moon around the earth.”
This makes no sense. Lspin is not a source of torque.
And no torque is required to force the Moon to stay in orbit around the Earth.
TO get torque requires FORCES, such as tidal forces.
Nate says:
”This makes no sense. Lspin is not a source of torque.
And no torque is required to force the Moon to stay in orbit around the Earth.
TO get torque requires FORCES, such as tidal forces.”
Bingo! your inculcated view of lspin has conned you into believing that. thats not a physics argument as its a fallacious construction of an argument. as we have been saying since day one, prompting even the likes of nicola tesla to comment on it.
without lspin the moon travels straight and doesn’t have the gravitational moment arm attached that creates the tidal forces. you have been just sold a bill of goods by your inculcators and every argument you have raised against the nonspinner position are common to every object in the universe to various degrees.
your claim that celestial bodies and even the light from them is affected by these forces. they are so ubiquitous you take them for granted.
“without lspin the moon travels straight”
Hmmm. Makes little sense. Lspin affects only the Moon’s rotation on its axis.
Maybe you mean: without gravity, the Moon travels straight.
“and doesnt have the gravitational moment arm attached that creates the tidal forces.”
Uhhh, that also makes little sense.
There is no such thing as a ‘gravitational moment arm’. But as I said above gravity does create tidal forces.
“you have been just sold a bill of goods by your inculcators”
I have certainly been taught and learned physics. And teaching physics myself has given me good training in detecting BS laced with physics words, which is what you keep posting.
nate claims he qualifies for the physics teacher exemption that allows him to obfuscate all he likes. i will remind nate that tidal forces between earth and moon have existed for their entire existence.
binny van der klown…and why don’t you stop taking those nasty pills and going after a good guy like Christos, who is doing no one any harm?
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but the graph indicates a 0.9 deg C jump in temperature anomalies over about 7 months. So my question is, do the climate models predict that kind of spike? Is this kind of spike consistent with global warming theory? I’m genuinely asking. I am not on either side of the debate here.
On The Climate Brink, Zeke Hausfather updates how well global climate models simulate the extraordinary warmth of the last few months.
Bottom line: models have done a good job and there is no evidence of anything unexpected happening.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent
A,
Well, who’d have thought “There are ways of selecting a subset of CMIP6 models consistent with assessed warming . . . “!
Gee, Zeke and his SkyDragon cult buddies have figured out that if you look through the output of more than 100 models, you can probably find one or two which allow you to write “observations remain broadly consistent with climate model projections . . .”.
Who values such nonsense?
People like you, that’s who! Gullible and easily led.
ark…modelers have brayed in the past about how extreme lows are predicted by models, now they are claiming extreme highs are also modeled. Sound like a lot of hot air.
Pete, to the GHE cult EVERYTHING is proof of their beliefs.
But the reality is this recent spike in temperatures is due to the El Niño combined with the HTE. Neither has ANYTHING to do with the cult nonsense.
But by thinking for yourself, you’ve identified as a Skeptic. The cult will hate you. Welcome to the club.
Climate models don’t predict weather. Climate models do have similar month to month variability as in global temperature, so occasional high peaks and low troughs are modeled, though the timing won’t be the same as in the real world.
Barry,
” . . . won’t be the same as the real world.” Exactly – completely useless.
Just like asserting that one megawatt of energy from ice can be used to warm a teaspoon of water. Or 300 W/m2 from a colder atmosphere can warm a hotter surface.
You might consider standing in front of a microwave antenna. You’ll get warmer while the antenna will not.
Ken,
You wrote –
“You might consider standing in front of a microwave antenna. Youll get warmer while the antenna will not.”
I have stood in front of many. I did not get warmer. What has this to do with a megawatt of energy from ice? Nothing?
You must be a SkyDragon cultist, denying reality, but not prepared to accept that you are gullible and easily led!
You might consider trying to describe the GHE in some way which agrees with reality – or you might realise that you would merely be wasting your time.
barry…how do you model highs and lows when you have no idea when they will occur?
How does a casino ensure a profit if it can’t predict every bet?
Come on, don’t be dense.
They ensure a profit by rigging the payouts and cheating the customer.
Is being dense a prerequisite for AGW ‘skeptics’ or what?
The weather is the bet, the climate is the odds.
The casino can’t predict individual bets, but it knows the odds will always return a profit, because that’s the law of large numbers.
Climate models can’t predict weather, they can project climate.
I look forward to the next obfuscation with disdain.
“rigging the payouts and cheating”
Tee hee hee!
That’s a good analogy barry. I’ll probably use that in the future myself.
One way I’ve explained it in the past is in reference to chaos theory. Climate is the attractors. Weather is the oscillations around the attractors. Climate models only predict the movement of the attractors. Weather models predict the oscillations around the attractors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
And if you actually understand insulation and the physics of GHG you will know that record highs will continue to diminish in long term records. But it seems many of the folks in here while recognizing insulation don’t really understand it.
Gill follows his role model and becomes Insulation King.
Well at least I have calculated and designed insulation systems for as part of the homes and other structures I have built and remodels I have done for a living many years ago. I don’t start imagining that insulation does something insulation doesn’t do.
Of course you did, and I’m a ninja.
Casinos ensure a profit by stacking the odds in their favour. Please refrain from referring to others as dense when you are even denser.
bdgwx,
A popular refrain a few years back was something like, “Climate stacks the odds, weather rolls the dice.”
AGW loads the dice to favour higher rolls.
barry says:
”AGW loads the dice to favour higher rolls.”
Indeed that is a claim of special interests.
It’s also corroborated by the vast consensus of scientific opinion. There is a non-political aspect to the view that ‘skeptics’ are forever trying to cast as political. Or self-interested.
It is special interests. Have you seen how much money is being poured into the institutions of those scientists for climate mitigation? I would say the opinions of those scientists have been bought and paid for and I have yet seen details of exactly how CO2 is supposed to be warming the planet. Have you seen any Barry?
Corroboration that 90%+ of the Earth science research community agreeing with AGW is only doing so to feather their own nests will not be forthcoming from you, Bill. You’ll just make such vacuous statements regardless of any serious evidence.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, the scientific basis for AGW has been presented for the last 30 years over and over, with research going back to the mid 1880s as evidence.
But hey, I guess Tyndall (1859), Arrhenius (1896), Callendar (1938-64), Plass (1956), Wanabe & Wetherald (1967) and Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) were all on the gravy train!
barry says:
”Corroboration that 90%+ of the Earth science research community agreeing with AGW is only doing so to feather their own nests will not be forthcoming from you, Bill.”
i never said there was any corroboration barry.
there doesn’t need to be any to be skeptical of non-independent science opinions. . .at least for those who are wise.
“i never said there was any corroboration”
Of course there isn’t. That’s why your remarks are vacuous.
Barry on cue comes in with his advice for the unwise.
Bill wastes no time substantiating his view. If he could be bothered he’d eventually drill down to say, “That’s just how people are“.
barry people will do virtually anything that is legal, especially if its in their interest. if you want advice always get it from a real professional. one bound by law to give you the best advice.
obviously if you need legal, medical, financial, engineering, even plumbing advice go to a licensed professional. if they lie to you you have recourse.
“recourse”
In science the recourses are many. Publishing and disseminating work through presentation, exposes the work to scrutiny by many, notably expert competitors.
Incorrect findings or fraudulent results will not be replicated, and thus not be accepted.
Get advice from an expert in the topic – excellent advice, Bill.
If only ‘skeptics’ would stick to that advice.
But instead they wave away the experts “special interest,” and refer to people who are not experts on the topic.
So you reckon the overwhelming consensus of opinion on AGW from Earth science researchers is about “special interests,” but not the other professions you listed.
Climate researchers are crooked. They’re more prone to it, I suppose, eh, Bill?
Nate says:
recourse
In science the recourses are many. Publishing and disseminating work through presentation, exposes the work to scrutiny by many, notably expert competitors.
Incorrect findings or fraudulent results will not be replicated, and thus not be accepted.
——————-
Politically that could take forever to do anything. Its hardly like having the right to go to court, file a suit, and have a due process procedure to right the situation and compensate you for your losses.
The process you describe has zero recourse, no compensation for damages, just the prospect of a political win at some random time in the future. recourse means justice and making whole. All you offer is a political process of correction. Obviously in the ‘hard’ sciences there is a designed replicable experiment to replicate. In soft ‘climate science’ its entirely an elitist approach. The Kingmakers word and zero independence from benefits that result from that word.
And all one has to do is follow this forum and see all the ridicule leveled at skeptics and those with other ideas all over a science no one has shown how to replicate. Instead is all about cherry picking answers out of the well of ignorance.
barry says:
Get advice from an expert in the topic excellent advice, Bill.
If only skeptics would stick to that advice.
——————–
Well first of all you misquoted me. I said get advice from a professional. A professional owes his clients a ‘duty’ and can’t tell the client to just due what is profitable for the professional.
So with that correction, yes get advice from somebody who legally owes you a duty and ignore everybody else.
Barry says:
”Climate researchers are crooked. Theyre more prone to it, I suppose, eh, Bill?”
I never said that Barry. I said that climate researchers like everybody else looks to see which side the bread is buttered on. Without any legal recourse there will never be any butter on one side. . . all the butter will be on the employer’s side of the bread. You libs think that only applies some of the time.
“Politically that could take forever to do anything. Its hardly like having the right to go to court, file a suit, and have a due process procedure to right the situation and compensate you for your losses.”
You think courts work quickly?!
Thankfully science doesnt require courts to determine the truth. And indeed getting at the scientific truth takes time.
It took about 30 y for quantum mechanics to be worked out and generally accepted.
Much longer for Copernicus’s or Darwin’s theories to be generally accepted.
Indeed Nate science is very slow in getting it right. That alone prevents adequate recourse for those harmed by bogus science claims.
And the courts don’t determine truth what they determine is compliance with the laws and the standards of common law.
Juries are used to find some truth. Not all cases go in front of juries. But they do often get involved when facts are uncertain, then its left up to the common man to determine if all the facts have been considered and the underlying evidence of truth. . . its not up to the accused or the accuser.
So in cases where truth is in doubt, expert witnesses are brought in by both sides to argue the case in front of a common man jury. The way it should work.
That doesn’t impinge in any way on the process of science. Scientists are free to come to their own conclusions. We are not talking about limiting free speech here. We are talking about recourse against those that harm others. Those who take action against others that cause harm when they should know better.
Bill, all through the Bush administration the message to climate researchers was to play down global warming. Same during the Howard government in Australia. So the incentive was there for climate researchers to toe the part line out of pure self-interest.
But they didn’t. They got told off but the message was consistent.
This has played out all over the world when governments have been anti-AGW.
So I’m sorry, the record doesn’t in any way support your jaundiced view that Earth scientists have been serving their own interests with AGW. The science has been consistent despite pressure to make it otherwise.
There’s little financial incentive researchers to promote AGW.
This notion of yours is vacuous, as I said. It’s just a reflex cynical view that applies wherever is convenient.
And let’s remind ourselves of what prompted you to jerk the knee.
barry: (A few years ago a statistical allusion was popular) “AGW loads the dice to favour higher rolls.”
Bill: “Indeed that is a claim of special interests.”
The prior discussion was about the nature of statistics WRT to forecasting climate v weather. You interrupted with this mindless bit of rhetoric that added nothing to the point of the discussion.
You’re a political animal, Bill.
pete…unvalidated models like climate models cannot predict. When expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed that out to the IPCC, they were forced to change ‘predict’ to ‘project’. By project, they mean one of several ‘likely’ outcomes, much like betting at the casino.
BTW…the IPCC have their own convenient definition of ‘likely’, which is based more on opinion than fact.
Who told you that lie? ‘Projections’ was the language long before Vincent Gray became popular with ‘skeptics’.
God, the amount of straight out horse manure ‘skeptics’ come up with.
barry, compare that with your cult’s belief that ice cubes can boil water.
You’re so desperate….
Here comes Clint to squeal, “Look over there instead!”
And to do so with the same old lie.
Old dog can’t learn a new trick.
barry, please stop trolling.
That didn’t post- a lot aren’t.
Shorten it:
The Era Of Unquestioned And Unchallenged Climate Change Claims Is Over
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/11/04/the-era-of-unquestioned-and-unchallenged-climate-change-claims-is-over/#more-64823
–Several scientists who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed shock at the tactics used against those whose latest research is casting renewed doubts on the official climate narrative.
William Happer, Princeton professor emeritus of physics and former climate adviser to President Donald Trump, wasnt surprised by the response to the new findings.
Of course, the climate cult will be dismissive of any informationno matter how scientifically correctthat is politically incorrect, he told The Epoch Times, noting that the new findings made important and valid points.–
I wrote more, but mentioned a guy, Roy “disagree” with, mainly because he is “unprofessional” or crazy.
Which doesn’t include, Michael Mann, Gareth S. Jones, or Gavin Schmidt- rather, it’s other guy mentioned in article.
Go Willie, people will Soon see the fraud committed by climate alarmists.
Marcus House:
Yes! The official Starship flight timeline reveal, and FAA approves safety!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYjnv9pgVT0
Very interesting, ULA being sold. UK greater involvement with “Space Race. Which find more interesting after discussion of Musk and UK leadership {PM, Rishi Sunak} and including the audience involvement.
Assieland and US signed agreement and potential of countries near equator {Austrailia, India, and others} in launching rockets.
Marcus said race to the Moon is over, but race for the Moon has just begun.
Well, I never been a fan of the Moon, until about 1998 when the possibility mineable water in lunar regions was “discovered”.
And at this point, it seems we don’t know whether there is mineable water on the Moon.
Nor do we know if Mars has mineable water.
Mars certainly has a lot water, but probably has a lot gold also.
Mars water “could be” far more valuable then any Mars gold mined,
There could be 10 billion tons of lunar water in both lunar polar region, but it doesn’t mean there is any mineable water on the Moon- it seems “likely” but if we had known, there was mineable lunar water
in the Moon’s polar region 20 years ago, we would probably would started mining it, 10 years ago. And probably also already had several businesses going bankrupt failing to mine the water- but eventually more someone could make a lot money mining lunar water. But such company would probably make more money mining water in other parts of the solar system, including perhaps, Mars.
Or for me, the big thing about mineable lunar water, is starting market for water in space. There is lots of water in space, and the Moon could be a good place to start.
But another thing is, NASA should explore stuff, and the Moon is good place to start to explore for water in space, but NASA should then focus on the possibly habitable planet, called Mars. And explore lots of stuff, and one thing critical is finding mineable Mars water.
Or without mineable water, Mars is not habitable for humans.
bill h…”Pretty darned good demonstration of the futility of our efforts to reduce carbon. . .a 7% decrease since 1990 and 20% decrease since 2005″.
***
The humour there is that we humans only produce an alleged 4% of the entire allotment of CO2 emissions. This zero emission propaganda is inconveniencing and costing people over a reduction in CO2 emissions from 4% to 3.2%, and that figure is questionable.
The scary part is that the hooligan politicians actually believe the propaganda.
The scary part is that you don’t understand the problem.
Over a year all the natural CO2 emissions are absorbed. Apart from a small seasonal oscillation the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would naturally be expected to remain constant.
Only half of humanity’s CO2 emissions are absorbed, which is why our emissions have increased CO2 concentration by half since 1880.
There is still no evidence that CO2 causes climate to change.
The ab so rp ti on spectrum is saturated; it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
The problem for the sceptics is that they cannot explain how you can increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas without changing the climate.
And no, the a b s o r b t i o n spectrum is not saturated.
That’s no problem, Ent. But I noticed you specified “changing the climate”, rather than “warming the climate”. Tricky.
The more CO2 added to the atmosphere, the more Earth is cooled. Radiative gases emit to space. Non-radiative gases hold temperature.
You should know this stuff.
EM,
The atmosphere is chaotic. It always changes.
Remove the atmosphere, and it won’t change, obviously.
Changing any of its constituents won’t stop it changing.
You can’t even define the term “greenhouse gas” in any sensible way. The gases inside a greenhouse are the same as those outside it.
Are you trying to say that without the presence of certain gases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would stop acting chaotically? Hopefully not, because even you are not that silly, are you?
“The atmosphere is chaotic. It always changes.”
Thankfully we have science, for those among us who appreciate what it can do, which is to understand and predict change.
Yep making progress from about a few hours in advance up to the 10 day forecast we get today. Science is great!
“In a hushed room of a museum in Washington, cameras and cell phones focus on a tiny piece of rock, no larger than a piece of gravel.
The fragment might seem insignificant, but it is a sample taken from the asteroid Bennu, which scientists are studying in the hope of discovering if asteroids actually brought the building blocks of life — carbon and water — to Earth.
Exhibited to the public on Friday for the first time at the Smithsonian in the US capital, the tiny stone is just visible inside its small capsule.
“This asteroid, now we know, has water crystals and carbon, two of the elements that produce ultimately life,” said NASA boss Bill Nelson, a few minutes before the curtain rose on the dedication ceremony.
The new space venture is “part of our quest to understand, to try to understand, who we are, what we are, where we are, in the vastness of this cosmos,” Nelson told journalists and space enthusiasts eager to whip out their cameras to snap an image of the rock fragment.”
…
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/In_US_capital_selfies_with_asteroid_hinting_at_Earths_origins_999.html
AGW denial is a lost cause. Might as well discuss politics…
The term empire does not accurately describe the structure and intentions of the United States.
The U.S. does not have formal colonies in the traditional sense and its global involvement is driven by its foreign policy objectives, such as spreading democracy or protecting its interests.
Anti-empire more closely describe the US people, but politicians elected, are suppose to get along with other nations.
But anti-empire in sense, that a lot empires crashing/failing, which could be blamed on the US during a period of time it’s been a significant nation on the international stage.
US might not be a blame, but there some justification for blaming the US.
An empire is a political entity that exerts dominance, economically, militarily, and politically, over various territories or nations through the acquisition and maintenance of colonies, dependencies, or client states.
Regardless, the U.S., due to its unique history and ideals, is the shining city on the hill. It fills a leadership role on the global stage responsible for upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law.
Oh dear. The shining city on the hill is collapsing in on itself. The Hill is so riven by internal divisions that it struggles play a meaningful role in government and the next POTUS will be either a dotard or a crook.
How can you lead the world, upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law, when you can’t even uphold those standards at home?
I detect jealousy in your tone.
If everybody loves you, you are not doing your job.
Being universally liked indicates a lack of effectiveness in a leadership role.
Making tough decisions and taking unpopular stances when necessary, does not align with the concept of leadership by consensus versus leadership by conviction.
Haters will hate.
It’s not a matter of love of jealousy. Its pragmatism.
You were unable to deter Russia from invading Ukraine.
You were unable to keep China from growing its soft power or expanding into the South China Sea. Look up the change in voting balance in the UN as countries which used to support the West now support China.
Your aircraft carriers are obsolete, unable to defend themselves against hypersonic missiles.
You internal politics can only be described as embarassing.
You are heavily in debt to China, who are about to overtake you as the largest world economy.
Alas, your glory days are over.
The Islamic hordes are already within the gates.
Dark ages are upon us.
Maybe its best that the cold is coming back soon.
Hopefully Mexico will let us in through the wall.
You better kill all the children of those you intend to kill, Kennui, otherwise one day they’ll grow up and they might hold a grudge against you. Confer to Machiavelli for more.
Perhaps you found the secret to the unification of the Arab world.
Entropic man, you are living/walking prοοf that it’s easier to fοοl a man than it is to convince him that he’s been fοοled.
Sometimes those looking at a state from outside have a clearer view than than those inside it.
When SHTF we’ll see who among those feeding you propaganda come to your defense.
This one’s dedicated to Entropic man. Words to live by!
https://youtu.be/s4JyrYtNRRc
“As a general matter I don’t take Beijing’s propaganda at face value.”
When was the last time the US of A came at the defense of anything else than a S&P 500 company, TYSON?
And not a Chinese propoganda site among them.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/by-gdp
https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-world-most-powerful-militaries-2023-firepower-us-china-russia-2023-5?r=US&IR=T#1-the-us-25
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/with-frenemies-like-these-rising-power-voting-behavior-in-the-un-general-assembly/C9A6D7F908B47E50B8B4C444C1884BA1
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-survive-hypersonic-missile-strike-169034
https://imgur.com/a/yBtgyXj
“You were unable to deter Russia from invading Ukraine.”
However Russia has been deterred effectively by NATO. No NATO country, even the tiniest ones on Russia’s border, has been invaded.
Thus Russia had to keep Ukraine out of NATO.
The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization
Ark, your political view is much closer to reality than your science.
AGW can be easily denied, even for those that don’t fully understand the physics. Most responsible adults realize ice cubes can NOT boil water.
We’ve already proven ice cubes can boil water.
Next.
Ken,
Acting the fool won’t help people to believe in a non-existent GHE.
Do you believe that you are powerful, wise, and respected, perhaps? Why should anyone believe you proclaiming that radiation from ice can warm water even a tiny bit, let alone boil it?
Stop being silly.
Who said anything about warming water with radiation from ice?
The claim by the anti-science nutters is that ice cubes can’t be used to boil water. Its clearly possible and video has been posted showing how.
Ken is one of those immature anonymous tr0lls that believes he can appear smart by being stoopid.
By accepting the 255K as an approximation, you accept the 255K or -18C to emit the impossible
240 W/m.
Because the generally accepted physics say so. They have averaged the incident on Earth solar flux over the entire planet surface and came out with the 240 W/m.
It is known, from our everyday’s practice, that a body does not emit the impossible high 240 W/m at the very low temperature of -18C.
In our homes, it is the fridges what produce to that very low temperature.
When outside in winter, at -18C, there it is a deadly cold, there is nowhere any 240 W/m emission to warm our bones a little bit.
*******
Nevertheless, they, the generally accepted physics, have derived (from the planetary average surface emission of 240 W/m), they have derived the 255K or -18C as the Earths without-atmosphere uniform surface temperature.
They call it the Earths effective temperature
(Te =255K).
*******
Yes, it is a rather crude approximation. It rather much depends on the assumption of albedo. If you use the current average albedo of (about) 0.3, you get the 255 K, if you use the albedo of the moon ~0.1 (rock, no water), you get about 274 K.
*******
But should’t be there an equation which is capable to theoretically calculate every planet’s and moon’s without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere, (Earth included), shouldn’t be there an equation which calculates the planet average (mean) surface temperature?
–
Shouldn’t there exist an equation which could do the job?
–
Yes, inevitably, there should be an equation theoretically calculating the planet average (mean) surface temperature.
–
–
There should be an equation which is valid for every planet and moon without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, the “255K” has NOTHING to do with real Earth. That is the calculated value for an imaginary sphere.
Uh they will defend it as the ”dumbed down” version for the general public.
The elites like to treat the public like a mushroom farm. Keep them in the dark and feed them shit.
You’re right, Gill. We’d need a dumber version for Sky Dragon cranks.
How about: “blankets keep you warmer”?
Its pretty hard to predict what the water blanket will do in the presence of CO2 above it since its phase change temperatures flex by up to 48C.
It’s not that hard to predict that cranks will switch to predictions after they complain about their inability to get a simple energy-balance model.
Obviously you have never worked in this area.
It’s obvious you’re just playing word games like an amateur.
Bill, when you posted “Obviously you have never worked in this area.” You could have stopped after the 5th word and it would still have been accurate.
Wanna bet, Anon?
BH and Anon,
That is an absurd argument. I’ve not worked in the area of predicting eclipses. That doesn’t mean that eclipses cannot be predicted.
If you want to make a claim about effect E not being predictable then do so using evidence and logic. Saying E is not predictable because person P does not have professional relevancy not only unconvincing, but it’s also absurd.
Sheesh bdgwx at least read the thread before saying something about it.
It seems it’s just that they are dumb.
The imaginary sphere is the ideal {word for impossible/magical/or not seen in the real world}, so the ideal thermally conductive {so more conductive than diamonds can be}, so Ideal thermally conductive black body {ideally absorbing and radiating piece of magic}:
The ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere which *must* be in a vacuum.
So we start from the end part, nobody is living in a vacuum.
Most of known universe is more or less in a vacuum.
And humans should want to live in the vacuum of this universe.
But we, so far, are too dumb to able to do this.
One thing we got to do is test artificial gravity.
Everyone assumes is very similar to gravity. So we have test to see how similar it is. And we also have test how to best make the best kind of artificial gravity.
Artificial gravity involves people getting sick from spinning and it’s sort of like riding a bicycle- seems sort impossible until you learn a few tricks. It still remains sort of impossible but you can do it.
So, what you don’t want to do, is make a very expensive and time consuming artificial gravity station. This is what NASA talks about endlessly and uselessly. NASA wants the public to pay tens to hundreds of billions of dollar in order to make an artificial gravity station which they have no clue how to make.
So, NASA spends decades sending crew into orbit and crew live in microgravity and high radiation environment and in mere 6 months manages to cripple and wreck the human bodies {in name of science}.
Of course people still like going into space, even if it makes them sick and crippled.
So I think one make artificial gravity station at the cost of around the launch cost- so around 100 million dollars.
Musk plans lower launch cost, but use the cheapest existing launch vehicle which is the Falcon Heavy.
Musk thinks Falcon Heavy is not cheap enough, and fighting fish and game, to be allowed to test the Starship. Once tested, then need a lot work to make Starship cheap enough. There other companies also trying to lower the launch cost, which also lower launch cost a lot.
Launch companies have been lower launch costs for decades, we past the $2000 per lb, and $1000 per lb {$2200 per kg] to LEO goal already, but the dream is $100 per kg.
So, shouldn’t wait for the $100 per kg launch cost in order to test
artificial gravity in space.
The main cost of artificial gravity station is to send crew to it- it could take as much as 1/2 dozen crew launches to it. But it should be noted private citizens are paying to go to orbit, and testing an artificial gravity station could be more fun than going to ISS.
If someone actually figures out how artifical gravity works it won’t cost anything to put stuff into space.
Chemical rockets would become obsolete.
I’m partial to building a Beanstalk.
“If someone actually figures out how artificial gravity works it wont cost anything to put stuff into space.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity
You seemed to be confusing artificial gravity with anti-gravity.
But,
“Anti-gravity (also known as non-gravitational field) is a hypothetical phenomenon of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to either the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism and aerodynamic lift. Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction. ”
Just that lack gravity doesn’t solve much even if it could be done.
Related to this is what is called gravity loss or gravity drag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_loss
“For example, to reach a speed of 7.8 km/s in low Earth orbit requires a delta-v of between 9 and 10 km/s. The additional 1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v is due to gravity losses, steering losses and atmospheric drag.”
And atmospheric and steering losses are minor part of loss of “1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v” or gravity drag/loss is about 1.4 to 1.9 km per sec of delta-v. So with the impossible anti-gravity “thing” you would only gain 1.4 to 1.9 km/sec.
But big advantage is you don’t have acceleration so fast so people or things don’t experience 3 to 4 gees force while launching into space.
Or if you only when at say 100 mph constant speed to get to orbit, you would a huge amount gravity loss. Or major part of rocket design it limiting gravity loss to just “1.4 to 1.9 km per sec of delta-v” loss.
This a reason why a pipelauncher could be useful, a part of the idea is it would to reduce gravity loss. So if rocket starts at say 100 mph, it would significant lower gravity loss. Significant being about .5 km/sec less gravity lose {.5 km/sec = 1116 mph}.
So, assisted launch of rocket can reduce gravity loss, and one call them partially or fully “anti-gravity things”.
The moon has very little gravity loss, with Apollo the ascent stage had about 100 m/s or .1 km/sec of gravity loss. And Mars has around 500 m/s of gravity loss. But if left the Moon or Mars quite slowly-
{like something crazy like 1/10th of gee acceleration} you would then have a lot of gravity loss. And also applies also to landing slowly on the Moon or Mars, also.
attn Ken, just for fun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Regarding “private citizens are paying to go to orbit”.
Interesting interview with everyday astronaut guy- who going to orbit the Moon, and a private citizen paying to go orbit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VP8GwnIYiY
Astronaut Training and Starship – With Jared Isaacman and Tim Dodd- NSF Live
Astronaut training with Migs and private spacesuits and lots of fun
stuff- and Starship
Iran’s Military Strategy & Power Projection – Drones, Proxies & Production under Sanctions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy95hMoMhrY
Perun
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
From bogan Clint (g..e..r..a..n)
Is he the one with a PhD in physics?
Clint thinks there is a means by which a weakening in one polar vortex can be transferred to the other despite not overlapping temporally, so no.
False accusations ain’t science, Ant.
False attributions of cause, unsupported by evidence or even an attempt at explanation, are not science, Clint.
Clint’s message is loud and clear:
Science is bogus.
Clint R
I will ask for evidence for any of your “Reasons”. Everyone on this blog already knows you will provide zero (No Evidence, No Problem).
In your perspective, you believe that making points (without any supporting evidence) means they are true.
I will wait for the evidence of any of your Reason (1-5) but it will never be given.
He will instead resort to “you don’t understand science” without any attempt to show such understanding himself.
Norman, you seem to have your anal fixations under control. The therapy must be helping.
But sorry, as Ant mentioned, you wouldn’t understand the reasons. They involve science.
Clint R
Again with the diversion tactics. When any poster asks you to provide evidence you divert away.
Test me give me valid science for you reasons and then we can determine if I am unable to understand them. Also it does not get you out of the request for evidence.
Challenge for you. If you decide (which of course you will) not to provide any scientific evidence for you reasons then you will consider yourself a bogus poster. So you have options. Either you will be bogus (phony) or you will provide evidence. We already know the answer to this challenge. You will NOT provide any evidence at all and you will deny being bogus. So sad.
Norman, one of your problems is that you don’t understand science. REAL science is locked to reality. No reality, no science. In your cult, “science” is whatever you believe. Reality doesn’t matter. That ain’t science.
Another of your problems is you’re a child of the cult. You’re a whiney brat. If someone hits you with reality, you go into one of your meltdown rants, laced with insults, false accusations, and your anal fetishes.
So if you really want to face reality and learn some science, stop with the insults, false accusations, and childish behavior. IOW, GROW UP.
I’ll be waiting to help, but we both know what you will do….
Clint R
Totally expected. Just insult me but don’t provide evidence. Normal for you. I do not think you understand science at all. Science is an evidence based system of finding the Truth. It is not about making up claims and then insulting everyone who asks you to provide evidence.
I am not really the whiny individual you presume. I like rational thinking much better. It is not possible to do wo with you as you will not provide evidence and instead just insult my intellect and pretend you do did provide evidence (which you did not).
So let us see again, can you provide evidence to support your “reasons”? I do not think you will. So far you have not and nothing logically would suggest you can support any of your claims. It does not seem to matter with you. No Evidence, No Problem.
So Norman, if you really want to face reality and learn some science, stop with the insults, false accusations, and childish behavior. IOW, GROW UP.
I’ll be waiting to help, but we both know what you will do….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555845
Weekly ENSO update (week ending Nov 4):
1.2 … +2.2 (down 0.4)
..3 … +2.1 (up 0.1)
3.4 … +1.8 (up 0.2)
..4 … +1.4 (up 0.1)
October ENSO 3.4: +1.66
Aug-Sep-Oct SOI: +1.54
Grand Solar Minimum update
worth noting – The F10.7 cm radio flux has been declining since its peak 10 month ago
https://i.postimg.cc/rF6FDSY2/f10-7cm.jpg
Hmm, I am not guessing what F10.7 cm radio flux will be in Nov- just sunspot numbers- 90 to 110 for Nov, Oct was 99.4 in Oct.
But it “should” drop like spots, but safe guess is it goes sideways in Nov {like sunspots} but Dec and Jan I would guess gets a lot lower.
In terms my weather it only drops to 52 F, today, but forecasted to again get well below freezing, starting Wed to Sat then climb a bit above freezing- if you have much faith in forecasts many days into the future.
And I think it’s safe to say the Hurricane season is now over for the year. Nothing is now on my side or other side.
More from the “It’s T Sun Stpid” department
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/06/solving-the-climate-puzzle-the-suns-surprising-role/
good one, Eben. I was just trying to explain this to Phil J.
They are back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9ZP07Q6ak
Gaza City Surrounded By Israeli Military
I haven’t been watching much, but I will try to watch it for a hour or so, and get some kind of summary of this war.
80% support Hammas.
I would say it like the support for Saddam, which was like +90%.
Or can’t trust the polling- and people don’t want to be murdered by the Hammas murders. So probably was 100% of the people who are still alive, and adjusted down to 80% number to seem more plausible.
A citation for that 80% figure would be nice.
One has to be careful in what one means by support.
I haven’t seen any recent polls but have seen dozens of Palestinians and other Arab nationals interviewed on TV and haven’t heard one yet call Hamas a terrorist organization nor condemn its actions. Thats 100% support in that poll. To outsiders Hamas is a Freedom Fighting Organization.
But when it comes to ”preferred policies” during recent elections Hamas only got about 57% support.
So its like when a Gabby Giffords or a Steve Scalise gets shot way over 80% of the other party condemns the action. So while a lot more than 20% of Palestinians favor other less confrontational strategies; when it comes to action with outsiders they unify in support.
> I havent seen any recent polls but
Thanks for your effort.
Anyone else?
“A citation for that 80% figure would be nice.”
It’s from the above “Gaza City Surrounded By Israeli Military”
but I don’t it’s correct and don’t think it’s fair to do such a poll and/or to publish it.
It seems the terrorist would terrorize the people living in Gaza.
It’s like taking a opinion poll of people living in North Korea.
The only thing vaguely interesting would questions like do North Korean believe in UFOs? Does the Dear Leader have special relationship with Space Aliens.
Or a question like, “Do you think people can be brainwashed?” could be somewhat, interesting/informative.
Try this:
https://tinyurl.com/not-very-popular
barry…”Who told you that lie? Projections was the language long before Vincent Gray became popular with skeptics”.
***
Barry, the ozzie ijit. It’s well documented that Vincent Grey got them to amend from prediction to projection.
The first report has 96 “project”:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
Willard,
Which do you prefer – meaningless predictions or meaningless projections?
Do you agree with the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but it is certainly possible to project future climate states?
You are not making much sense, you know.
Any fool can predict or protect anything at all, as SkyDragon cultists are wont to do – again and again and again.
Mike Flynn
What are you braying about?
I prefer when Bordo says stuff.
He is saying stuff.
Cheers.
Gordon,
Willard beat me to it. I just checked the very first IPCC report from 1990. Yep, they used ‘projection’ for estimates of for global temperature. They also used it for estimating future emissions accumulation.
Like I said, ‘skeptics’ shovel out a lot of horse manure.
“It’s well documented that Vincent Grey got them to amend from prediction to projection.”
Excellent, Gordon, then you should have no trouble providing a reference for this claim. Let’s see it.
Aha, I think I found the source of your misconception – a blog comment, perhaps?
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/#comment-2060434
Which refers us to Vincent Gray’s short memo “Spinning the Climate.
https://www.climate.conscious.com.au/__documents/gray%20documents/SpinningThe%20Climate.pdf
The blog comment almost credits Gray with getting the IPCC to change “prediction” to “projection.”
“In tacit agreement with Dr. Gray, the IPCC changed the word ‘prediction’ to the term ‘projection’ but they did not do so consistently.”
“Tacit” agreement? Tacit means implied, not stated.
So we check the reference for this assertion – Gray’s short criticism of the IPCC and….
He doesn’t credit himself with the alleged ‘change’. But he does have a habit of musing (on other items) that perhaps he had an influence on other changes to the IPCC wording.
Chinese whispers in the skeptiverse lead to horse manure. Stop the press.
[BORDO] It’s well documented that Vincent Grey got them to amend from prediction to projection.
[VINCENT] they tend to prefer “projections”
Yup
Little Willy, barry, please stop trolling.
Projection is the correct word.
”Elsewhere in society for example, in military and financial planning scenario-based projections are widely used and it is understood (except perhaps by nave investors) that these are projections of what could happen and not predictions of what will happen. Although we might all wish we could provide reliable (and verified) predictions, the complexities of society and the climate are such that we are forced to rely on projections if we want to use our understanding to look forward into the future.”
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zine/archives/1-29/26/guest.html#:~:text=In%20contrast%20to%20a%20prediction,then%20that%22%20types%20of%20statements.
For example CPAs are prohibited from predicting but with adequate disclosure they can prepare projections. The problem with the IPCC is the political nature of it, its not beholding to adequate disclosure as there is no one to force it upon them.
Why not go to source?
“A potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Unlike predictions, projections are conditional on assumptions concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised.”
Why do ‘skeptics’ not know basic stuff?
One of the variables that is used in climate scenarios is different emissions pathways, ie, strong mitigation, less mitigation, no mitigation (business as usual) of CO2 emissions.
This is climate 101 stuff. But in their desire to muddy the waters ‘skeptics’ avoid simple facts and definitions.
barry, please stop trolling.
nothing is posting…
christos…”By accepting the 255K as an approximation, you accept the 255K or -18C to emit the impossible 240 W/m”.
It is known, from our everydays practice, that a body does not emit the impossible high 240 W/m at the very low temperature of -18C”.
***
Science is being replaced with that kind of codswallop. S-B has been applied in areas where it makes no sense and does not belong.
part 2…
In relativity theory, which many are peddling to replace Newtonian theory, the second can change length as can the metre. Yet, the second is defined based on the rotation of the Earth and the metre is defined as a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
Both are fixed intervals of time and space yet Einstein amended the definitions to fit his strange theory. He got away with it because he is Einstein and none of his modern groopies can even begin to explain how fixed intervals can vary.
Whenever I raise the subject, Binny goes off the deep end, waves his arms furiously, and likely pulls his hair out. Yet he can offer no explanation as to how a second can change its length, or a metre, just because velocities get closer to the speed of light.
part 3…without url…
Same with S-B. It was derived in a temperature range from about 500C to 1500C and the T^4 relationship only applies in that range. It is blatantly obvious that ice cannot emit 315 w/m^2 yet S-B applied incorrectly tells us it can.
Here’s a calculator so you can test it for yourself. Enter 1 m^2, 0C, and ice and you get 306.2 watts emitted over the 1 m^2. Now enter blackbody and you get 315.66 watts. Enter concrete and you get 287.25 watts.
Now enter 3000C, which is about the temperature of a filament in a 100 watt bulb and you get an astounding 6,508,408 watts produced from a blackbody and 6,313,156 watts from ice. ??? Would the ice not have melted by then?
Ask Bindiclown how he powers the light bulbs by radiation from ice, maybe he will solve the mystery for you, but he is not telling me
Still waiting for Eben to explain how so many materials can abs.orb IR, with its low low energy photons.
Nate,
I’m still waiting for you to explain what happens to the photons emitted by ice which is totally submerged in water.
The water doesnt get hotter, does it?
So what happens to the photons emitted by the ice?
You haven’t a clue, have you? Go on, look it up on on the internet. Can’t find an answer?
Gee, are you stupid, or just hopelessly incompetent?
[sniggering]
What are the many materials that heat up when surrounded by colder objects ??? I have never seen one,
Are you that stup>id or what ???
swannie…that was one of your dumber comments. Who has actually gotten close enough to the Sun, with a thermometer, to verify S-B at solar temperatures? And even if you could get that close, how would you verify the average temperature?
Gordo’s comment didn’t appear after mine, not that that’s such a big thing.
But, to try to answer, consider that the effective radiating temperature of the Sun has been a settled value in physics for a very long time. Perhaps that’s because that value matches the spectral data for the Sun and is central to what’s called “color temperature” in rating the spectral characteristics of lighting sources.
nate…the only example of IR warming an object that comes to mind is a heat lamp for keeping food warm. However it is driven by an electrically heated filament in the range of 300 watts. I am not convinced it is the IR alone heating the food, I think the proximity of the lamp to the food at about 1 foot allow heat from the lamp to be convected to the food.
Brooders used to rear baby chickens can be heated by a 60 watt tungsten-filament light bulb. Obviously, it’s the heat given off by the lamp via convection that warms the brooder.
I don’t regard photons based on their energy level but by their frequency, intensity of power source, and proximity to the target. Obviously, IR photons are lower intensity than UV photons. Even at the distance of the Sun, UV has a far greater intensity than solar IR, but even that IR has many times the intensity of IR radiated from Earth’s surface.
The ability of any material to absorb IR has little to do with intensity and everything to do with the IR frequency. Even Einstein knew that in 1905 when he produced his photoelectric theory. If the electrons in the atoms making up the material like the frequency of the IR, they will respond. However, they don’t like frequencies emitted by lower temperature materials. That’s why radiation from ice won’t affect the electrons in warmer materials.
Gordo repeats his usual mantra about hotter bodies not absorbing thermal IR from lower temperature bodies. He’s clearly forgotten about my “Ice Plate” demonstration.
Swanson, I stopped at the second paragraph. You’re so ignorant you can’t get anything right: “…the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be transmitted from a body of lower temperature
to another body of higher temperature in thermodynamic situations”
WRONG. 2LoT is about “heat”, not energy. “Heat” is a specific form of energy that transfers from hot to cold. Your cult can’t understand the difference between energy, heat, and flux.
You can’t understand, and you can’t learn.
grammie clone continues to project his ignorance onto the rest of us:
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-radiation-heat-transfer-definition/
aha…it did not like the URL…
https://tinyurl.com/4fnsdd36
link for calculator..
Perhaps Gordo will study the link he presents, which includes a calculation of the effective temperature of the Sun based on the measured rate of energy received by the Earth at 1 AMU. The answer as calculated is 5776K. At that radiating temperature, the calculator gives a rate of emission of 63,113,157 w/m^2, about 10 times the rate calculated at 3000C. Don’t forget that iron melts at ~1200C (try standing next to a port in a blast furnace), titanium melts at 1670C and Tungsten at 3400C (6152F!).
Of course, Gordo’s comment about ice at 0C, ignores the fact that said ice both emits and receives thermal IR from the surrounding environment. If the ice receives more than that 315 w/m^2, it will exhibit melting, if less, it will cool below 0C. Basic engineering that.
Gordon, there’s nothing wrong with the S/B Law. The problem is with people that can’t. understand it. It would be hard to get ice to 3000C!
When children like Swanson and Norman constantly correct you, that should tell you something….
I have yet to see you (clint) offer a scientific rebuttal to anything I have claimed. I have explained clearly what is wrong with applying S-B at terrestrial temperatures and you have offered no scientific rebuttal.
I pointed out that it would be silly to get ice to 3000C, I guess your lack of comprehension prevented you getting that far. I was pointing out the idiocy of claiming ice can radiate 315 w/m^2 as calculated by S-B at terrestrial temperatures.
Seriously, you should restrict yourself to arguing with Norman.
What you don’t understand Gordon, is that you are Norman. You’re very similar to him, except you’re in your own cult. He’s in the GHE cult.
I no longer waste my time with people that can’t learn.
El Nino getting another strength booster from the winds:
http://mikeventrice.weebly.com/hovmollers.html
RSS AMSU 4.0 also has a record, around 1.3 deg C, but within this rounding error, it was the same 1.3 in Feb 2016.
LM, Glad to see that RSS has updated their data thru October. Of course, the February 2016 number was at the peak of the El Nino that year. We await the peak for this round of El Nino warmth.
Is that really you Lubos? So many impersonators these days. If it is you, glad to see you posting, we could use a good physicist around here. No ‘strings’ attached. Inside joke.
So all of a sudden you support string theory. Interesting.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Does human body at 36,6 oC = 310K, does human body emit the blackbody’s
524 W/m^2 ???
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s the body’s internal temperature. Typically skin temperature is less.
But, that’s an interesting question. The human body is warmer than it should be because of CO2.
Yes, that is sarcasm….
Emissivity of skin is 0.97 to 0.98, almost blackbody, and pigmentation makes little to no difference. Skin temperature at 25C room temp is about 34C, compared to core temperature of 37C. Of course, skin temperature will vary with environmental temperature.
christos…I think that power of radiation is ridiculous. According to S-B, ice emits 315 w/m^2 and the human body at 37C only emits 200 w/m^2 more.
Clearly there is something wrong. It is not possible to use the watt, a measure of mechanical energy, to measure radiation.
The inference is that ice, at 0C, can transfer an energy of 315 W/m^2 of energy to a nearby body. So, if you have a square of ice 1 metre square, you should be able to put a body above it that is 1 metre square and warm it from the ice.
Clearly, that does not happen and the watt is being used incorrectly. The HP is defined as 33,000 ft-pounds of force per minute. The HP in electrical terms is 746 watts. That means a watt is equivalent to (33,000 ft-lb/min)/(746 watts) = 44.2 ft-lb/min.
That is, radiation from a square metre of ice, if converted to power, should be able to do 44.2 ft-lb/min of work. Think of it, we could convert Antarctica, the Arctic, and Greenland into immense power generating plants.
A more accurate measure would be to use the calorie as the measure of heating. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise 1CC (or 1 gram) of water by 1C. Since 1 calorie is equivalent to 1.48 joules. the watt is defined as 1 joule/sec. Since 1 joule = 1/1.48 cal then the watt has to be 1/1.48 cal/sec = 0.68 cal/sec.
Going back to ice emitting 315 watts, that is 315 (0.68 cal/sec) = 214.2 calories/sec.
Anyone who has tried to lose weight by counting calories through exercise, knows the amount of work they have to do to produce 500 calories of heat, yet the suggestion here is that a square metre of ice can produce half that much work in the same amount of time while sitting there doing no work.
We need to re-examine the use of the watt to measure radiation and that applies especially to S-B used at terrestrial temperatures. It simply makes no sense. I accept that a certain amount of radiation applied to a surface can raise the temperature of that surface in certain instances, one being that the radiation source must be hotter than the receiving target. There are far too many variables, however, to make an exact statement about radiation.
Based on that, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that ice can radiate 315 watts/m^2.
Gordon Robertson
When referring to calories used in food or weight loss calculations you have to realize that they are using kilo-calories. A number 1000 times as large as the scientific use (one gram of water one degree C). A kilo-calorie is the energy needed to raise one kilogram of water 1 degree C).
500 calories when used with humans or food are actually kilo-calories so the 500 calories given in your post would be equal to 500,000 scientific calories.
Here:
https://www.verywellfit.com/what-is-a-calorie-3432508#:~:text=A%20calorie%20is%20a%20measure,)%20are%20kilocalories%20(kcal).
Here’s Norman teaching Gordon! The blind leading the blind.
Neither knows that 1 cal = 4.187 Joules and 1 Cal = 4187 Joules
And neither understands the difference between “heat” and “flux”.
But both can sure clog up a blog.
Clint R
Now you are just trying to provoke me for your own amusement I suppose. When did I claim anything at all about the calorie to joule conversion. Gordon was using the scientific calorie in food use so I was letting him know food calories are kilocalories. Not sure what the purpose of your post was other then just provocation.
I am still wondering if you will ever provide evidence for you “reasons” above that make claims about issues being bogus. So far you have not done so. You have chosen to insult me instead and call me a “child.” Not sure why but if you think it is a good word to provoke someone I guess you can attempt it and see where it goes.
Problem is you are still the NO EVIDENCE, NO PROBLEM poster. You continue on berating other posters but you neglect to supply evidence for any of your claims. Why is that Clint R? Why do you make claims and offer zero evidence for them?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555845
Clint R
No surprises with you. Just link to a previous meaningless post to avoid evidence.
It is obvious why you never provide evidence and divert away when someone asks you for it. You just make stuff up and pretend you know things. When caught in your game you run for the hills. You are the bogus one. Ever a phony making up false claims, not sure for who. Maybe you are KGB and you use this blog to see how gullible posters are. Then you use that information to destroy the USA by peddling false narratives that get people like Stephen P Anderson all wound up.
Norman, if you really want to face reality and learn some science, stop with the insults, false accusations, and childish behavior. IOW, GROW UP.
I’ll be waiting to help, but we both know what you will do….
Gordon,
“christosI think that power of radiation is ridiculous. According to S-B, ice emits 315 w/m^2 and the human body at 37C only emits 200 w/m^2 more.”
–
Thank you, Gordon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not posting, make it shorter:
A definition of Greenhouse Effect:
–noun
noun: greenhouse effect; plural noun: greenhouse effects
the trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface.–
And:
The ocean is also transparent to sunlight.
One could say the heating of the Earth’s surface of ocean and land is also not mentioned in above definition.
That more than 70% of Earth surface is ocean is a important aspect.
That we currently in an Ice Age is relevant current issue related to Greenhouse effect.
Does it like this?:
So very important aspect of a definition of a greenhouse effect has
to do with ocean surface temperature which is about 17 C and the average land temperature of about 10 C.
And average temperature of the entire volume of the ocean which is about 3.5 C.
Or it’s bogus because it lacks important things.
That will have to do. Why didn’t post, and what it didn’t like,
I will leave for different time.
gb,
Try describing it first. Your definition seems to indicate that the GHE only occurs while the sun is shining, which seems a bit pointless.
The other problem is that the definition doesn’t actually state what happens to the surface temperature – say at night, or over four and a half billion years, where this “greater transparency” nonsense is exposed as an illusion.
Obviously, the GHE does not result in warming, or the surface would not have cooled from the molten state.
Where may the GHE be observed, measured, documented? What disprovable hypothesis has been proposed to explain this phenomenon? What experimental evidence exists to support such hypothesis?
Not so easy if you are trying to use semantics to produce a fact from imaginary wishful thinking. What is the GHE supposed to do? Can you defend your supposition with facts?
I doubt it, but feel free to try.
“gb,
Try describing it first. Your definition seems to indicate that the GHE only occurs while the sun is shining, which seems a bit pointless.”
The ocean has most of sunlight being absorbed in top 2 meters of the transparent ocean. Or very little is absorbed 1/2000th of the meters or in the top 1 mm of the ocean.
The land surface not being transparent has most the sunlight absorbed by the top 1 mm, and the heated top surface has both conductive and even convection heat transfer to below the 1 mm non transparent surface.
Above the surface of land, the heated surface has convectional heat transfer to the air above it {though if wet, evaporative heat transfer also]. The ocean also has convectional heat transfer, but it’s always wet, so mostly evaporative heat transfer.
Warm water has a pressure, partial water vapor pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
And being in an Ice Age, Earth is drier. But even in warmer tropics, most clouds have ice particles or due to higher elevation have frozen water in the clouds.
And you have lapse rate, which due tiny droplet or frozen particle which constantly evaporating and condensing, but rest of world is pretty cold, and tropical ocean engine warms the rest of the world.
Most of Sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent tropical ocean and is absorbed by the ocean.
Water has very high content, 2 meter of ocean surface has same heat content as the 10 tons of air per square meter.
gb,
You haven’t managed to describe the GHE. You haven”t even mentioned the GHE!
Now, you wrote – “Most of Sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent tropical ocean and is absorbed by the ocean.”
Which heats up, with the hotter water sitting on top (it has no choice), where it promptly cools down at night.
The colder water sinks, the cycle repeats. The end result is that all deep bodies of water eventually have the densest water at the bottom – just above freezing, due to the peculiar properties of water. No silly “water cools at the Poles, moves around a spherical surface, up hill and down dales, finally accumulating at the Equator – where it just piles up, having nowhere else to go!”.
Your “description” of the GHE leaves a bit to be desired.
— Swenson says:
November 7, 2023 at 9:39 PM
gb,
You havent managed to describe the GHE. You havent even mentioned the GHE!
Now, you wrote Most of Sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent tropical ocean and is absorbed by the ocean.
Which heats up, with the hotter water sitting on top (it has no choice), where it promptly cools down at night.–
There are big waves in ocean, most of time, well mixed.
Tropical ocean has thick slabs of warm water, and 30 C is not hot, and very rarely get to 30 C. But 30 C:
30 C 86 F 4.2455 31.8439 0.0419 Atm
14.7 psi x 0.0419 = 0.61593 psi pounds per square foot is times 144 =
88.69392 pounds per square foot and over a square km it really adds up. Holding down that evaporation with glass, is not really possible/practical.
gb,
Waves don’t “mix” heat into the depths. That’s just a figment of the imagination.
Wave motion consists of particles moving mostly up and down in place – up, then down, rather like a ball bouncing (sorry for the poor analogy). A somewhat elliptical locus in truth.
There are some who believe that ocean currents driven by the wind transport “heat” into the depths, but they are sadly mistaken. About as mistaken as those (like Trenberth) who believe that “heat” is hidden in the ocean depths!
SkyDragon cultists have some very weird ideas.
— Swenson says:
November 8, 2023 at 4:28 AM
gb,
Waves dont mix heat into the depths. Thats just a figment of the imagination.–
Well not the depths, that requires other processes other just ocean waves, but waves mix down to about 100 meter.
This is related to why I think floating breakwater needs to be submerged at least 10 meter under the waterline. But the 20 meter diameter floating breakwater which about 1 meter above the waterline, is about the potential of having serious waves, and creating serious wave for surfers.
One could make them only 16 meter in diameter, but you don’t get as good surfing waves.
gb,
Waves don’t mix water to any appreciable depth in the open ocean. (That’s a NOAA and NASA fantasy.)
Even if they did, warmer water promptly rises to the surface! And , of course, radiates energy to outer space – gone, lost forever – and cools, being then displaced by warmer water rising (or displacing warmer water as the colder sinks – take your pick).
“Even if they did, warmer water promptly rises to the surface! And , of course, radiates energy to outer space”
Most energy from sunlight is absorbed in top 2 meter of ocean tropical ocean water which powers the tropical heat engine which warms the rest of the world.
This global engine is another unmentioned greenhouse effect not found in the given in the above definition of greenhouse effect.
“The other problem is that the definition doesnt actually state what happens to the surface temperature say at night, or over four and a half billion years, where this greater transparency nonsense is exposed as an illusion.”
radiant heat goes in all direction and randomly. So a surface has radiation going in a hemispherical direction. Or most of it, goes sideways and very little goes directly upwards.
This why a small area which very hot doesn’t go far, because most of it, is going sideways. Though if say size of door, it will go further. A tree all in flames is feel quite hot at 50 meters- because it’s quite hot and quite big.
The Sun is also quite big and really hot. And sunlight is called direct sunlight and indirect sunlight {but even indirect sunlight is quite directed}.
In terms 4 1/2 billion years- we don’t know much about it.
Though I will bring up a point which people might disagree about.
It’s thought 1/2 the heat emitting from our hot Earth’s interior, is generated from radioactive decay. And most is from mantle rather than it’s very hot core.
Also to get more arguments, it is thought the Moon could causing Earth to be heated by portion- 1/2 radioactive decay, the other 1/2 from heat from formation and some of that from the Moon- no one sure how much.
gb,
You haven’t mentioned what happens at night, nor why the surface has cooled since it was molten.
Maybe you could mention the GHE in your explanation?
-gb,
You havent mentioned what happens at night, nor why the surface has cooled since it was molten.-
I have mentioned what Earth would like, if it didn’t the sun for few months.
My weather, indicates what happens at night. Let’s see:
It says, it’s at 52, and then 49, and then 45, and last number, 41 F
and goes down some more and then starts rising to 49 F {quickly after 6 to 7 am. But this day had high of 61 F and suppose to or predicted to be low of 38 F.
Of course I live in desert, which when dry, has wide swings in air temperature. And hasn’t rained in awhile. It was suppose to snow up in northern California in the mountains.
“Maybe you could mention the GHE in your explanation?”
Well I live in LA county but there are mountains between me and LA, it’s roughly the high desert somewhat close to hottest daytime officially measured Which was at Furnace Creek.
So a little bit isolated from the Ocean- but further East would be more isolated. I used to live in Torrance, where you didn’t have worry that your lemon tree would freeze to death.
If the average ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, maybe a lemon tree wouldn’t freeze to death.
gb,
You wrote (I don’t know why) –
“If the average ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, maybe a lemon tree wouldnt freeze to death.”
If my aunty had testicles, she would have been my uncle!
I assume lemon trees don’t freeze to death unless they freeze. Seems simple to me.
–If the average ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, maybe a lemon tree wouldnt freeze to death.
If my aunty had testicles, she would have been my uncle!
I assume lemon trees dont freeze to death unless they freeze. Seems simple to me.–
The beets didn’t die, tomatoes, bean, water melon, and zucci did freeze death. I brought in lemon and mango sprout.
Anyways, average ocean temperature determines if in Ice Age.
And it’s a large part of greenhouse effect. Even a cold average 3.5 C ocean has greenhouse as compared to a colder ocean. Though not sure Earth has ever had ocean much colder than average of 3.5 C.
I would guess you need an ocean 2 C or colder to get the mythical Snowball Earth. But Earth with ocean of 2 C, would warmer than 1 C.
And mere months without the sun, does not change average ocean temperature by much- certainly, much less than .5 C colder.
gb,
You wrote –
“And its a large part of greenhouse effect.”
So what is this “greenhouse effect”, exactly? Are you saying that the GHE is really another name for average ocean temperatures, or just largely so?
It sounds as though you don’t really know, but don’t want to admit it.
There is no greenhouse effect, at least one that anybody can actually describe. Would you like to try, yourself? You might start with describing the role of the GHE in the surface having cooled from the molten state, and proceed from there.
Or you could just agree that you can’t actually describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality, I suppose.
” Swenson says:
November 8, 2023 at 6:42 PM
gb,
You wrote
And its a large part of greenhouse effect.
So what is this greenhouse effect, exactly? Are you saying that the GHE is really another name for average ocean temperatures, or just largely so?
It sounds as though you dont really know, but dont want to admit it.”
I have been constantly saying the average ocean temperature is actually global surface temperature- and that global average surface air temperature is kind of like proxy.
Sea level rise and fall as long been regarded as a proxy for global
temperature.
But no one says it, like I do.
NASA and NOAA are close when say more than 90% of global warming is warming the 3.5 average temperature ocean.
Some have said the ocean ate their global warming homework.
Say it’s lost to the ocean. I would say gained by the ocean
Only Question I have is, how much more than 90% do they reckon it is? I would say it’s close to 99%.
The problem is, that other than the Milankovitch cycles- which are factor- no one really knows what causes glaciation periods and interglacial periods.
But I just point out obvious, the ocean surface is warmer than land surface, and gulf stream warms Europe.
As some old American diplomat said.
SpaceX Starship Launch: IFT-2 Flight Analyzed With BIG Surprises!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7GfZxFjTBI
He said James Webb telescope is in L-1, but it’s in L-2.
It’s actually in Earth/Sun L-2 or there is Earth/Moon L-2.
Or Earth has 10 L-points or two sets of 5 L-points.
The closest L-point is Earth/Moon L-1, it’s towards Earth by about 60,000 km. Or 60,000 km closer to Earth than the Moon’s distance.
Earth/Moon L-2 is about 60,000 km behind the Moon. Earth/Moon L-3 is on the opposite side of Moon’s orbit. Likewise Earth/Sun L-3 is on opposite side of the Sun at Earth orbital distance {1 AU} and is the furthest Earth’s L-point.
And L-4 and L-5, lead or follow the planet or Moon’s orbit by 60 degrees.
Anyways, Earth/Sun L-1 is about 1.5 million km closer to Sun than Earth is and Earth/Sun L-2 is 1.5 million km further from the Sun than Earth is.
Or, he was only off by 3 million km.
For wee willy and other doubters that Vincent Gray talked the IPCC into changing their claim of model predictions to model projections. The following refer to the preliminaries circa 1995 when they were disputing the meaning of model validation.
The following document reveals the outright corruption in the IPCC. Gray reveals how Santer was appointed after one review to re-write the report offered by 2500 reviewers to agree with the Summary, written by 50 Lead Authors. Gray also reveals how a report from reviewers was bypassed when they admitted there was no real proof that CO2 was warming the atmosphere.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110313140007/https://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf
“I could claim a major improvement. The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 “Validation of Climate Models” as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever been “validated”, and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word “Validation” to “Evaluation” no less that fifty times.
Perhaps I should explain what is meant by “validation”. It is a term used by computer engineers to describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required. Without this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy can be expected from it.
The IPCC has never even attempted this process, and they do not even discuss ways in which it may be carried out. As a result the models are worthless, and their possible inaccuracy is completely unknown. The IPCC has developed an elaborate procedure for covering up this deficiency which is well described in the IPCC document on “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors on Addressing Uncertainties”.
It includes attempts to “simulate” those past climate sequences where suitable adjustment of the uncertain parameters and equations in their models can be made to give an approximate fit, but they rely largely on the elaborate procedure for mobilizing the opinions of those who originate the models. Most of them depend financially on acceptance of the models, so their opinions are handicapped by their conflict of interest. The outcomes of the models are classified in the following levels of confidence;
Very High Confidence; At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence. About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence. Less tha 1 out of 10 chance
These figures do not possess statistical significance as they are pure guesswork. As might be expected Low confidence and Very low confidence are extremely rare. In addition there are levels of Likelihood which take the place of predictions.
Virtually certain >99% probability of occurrence
Very likely >90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely <33% probability
Very Unlikely <10% probability
Exceptionally Unlikely <1% probability
As before, you search very hard to find anything at all that is below Likely; and as before, the probability figures are pure guesswork and have no relationship to mathematical statistics. These procedures are merely an orchestrated litany of guesswork".
More by Vincent Gray on IPCC corruption.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf
[BORDO] Vincent Gray talked the IPCC into changing their claim of model predictions to model projections
[VINCENT] they tend to prefer “projections”
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, don’t you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you can’t eve; describe!
Keep trying – it’s diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, dont you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you cant eve; describe!
Keep trying it’s diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
You “suppose,” Mike Flynn?
What are you braying about?
Suppose this –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, dont you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you cant eve; describe!
Keep trying its diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
Presumably, you think that linking to Mike Flynn (who denies the existence of the GHE) will convince others of your vast intelligence?
Chuckle.
Why are you talking of yourself in the third person, Mike?
Here is you describing the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Go on.
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, dont you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you cant eve; describe!
Keep trying its diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
Presumably, you think that linking to Mike Flynn (who denies the existence of the GHE) will convince others of your vast intelligence?
Chuckle.
It is easier to show that you are a hypocrite, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
October data from both Copernicus and RSS are out. Like UAH, they continue to show unreasonably high monthly anomalies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67332791
Oh dear, unreasonably high?
What do you say is reasonable?
For UAH, anomaly 0.25C. Recent months have exceed that by 0.65C
The equivalent surface datasets were running about 1.2C above pre-industrial.
This year promises to come in around anomaly 1. 43C and recent months have been as high as 1.7C above pre-industrial.
You will remember that 1.5 was set as a target because the Paris Agreement scientists and politicians agreed that this was the temperature at which our civilization would be significantly damaged.
Entropic man has been thoroughly brain washed , although in his case only light rinse was required
It makes perfect sense that various systems would record the combined effects of El Niño and HTE.
EM,
You still haven’t said what you think is “reasonable”.
I don’t share your childlike faith in “scientists and politicians”. Whether they agree on something or not is irrelevant, if they are denying reality.
Raised temperatures are due to civilisation. Civilisation creates waste – in this case heat. Better or worse than civilisation’s other physical waste, degradation? of the environment, species displacement , and so on?
You tell me. I rather enjoy my way of life. My guilt bag is a shrivelled up, desiccated, rarely used appendage, so don’t bother trying to fill it up.
Lol
Entropic man says:
”You will remember that 1.5 was set as a target because the Paris Agreement scientists and politicians agreed that this was the temperature at which our civilization would be significantly damaged.”
Well looking at my stock accounts the democrats haven’t yet been able to erase all the gains Trump made and looking back at the industrial revolution it looks like reversing that is what would be extremely damaging. That says alot about how smart those IPCC scientists and politicians are. My opinion is to just ignore them like ignoring a drunk bleating from atop a soap box in Pershing Square.
Perhaps you should discuss this with your insurance company.
They have become very unwilling to insure against floods and other extreme weather.
There was flooding in Downpatrick and Newry due to extreme rainfall recently and none of them had been able to get flood insurance.
Insurance companies are the best judges of financial damage due to climate change. They have to be, because their survival and profitability depend on accurate judgement and pricing of risk.
Entropic man says:
”Perhaps you should discuss this with your insurance company.
They have become very unwilling to insure against floods and other extreme weather.
There was flooding in Downpatrick and Newry due to extreme rainfall recently and none of them had been able to get flood insurance.”
nothing unusual about that. i have lived in high risk areas most of my life. opportunities to ensure always becomes difficult in the areas of disaster often for many years after. for example earthquake insurance in california has boiled down to a ”state” fair plan with large deductibles and limited coverage.
The weather is pissed at humanz , it can no longer be reasoned with
They say predictions are hard especially about the future, this is my prediction what the wind power generation will look like in the year 2100
https://i.postimg.cc/bwK3dqTp/meltedturbine.jpg
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
The equation — F = 5.45 X ln(C/Co)
Where Co is the reference CO2 concentration is ppm, C is the current CO2 concentration in ppm, and F is the radiative forcing in W/m^2
The equation is bogus. It is an example of “curve fitting”, combined with a perversion of physics.
Baskin/Robbins is a chain of ice cream stores. The chain started about 1950, and now has about 8000 stores, worldwide. Let’s “curve fit” that growth and claim it is “heating the planet”.
F = ln(S/So) = ln(8000) = 8.99
Now, let’s simply add units of W/m^2,
F = 8.99 W/m^2
And that is now proof that ice cream stores are heating the planet!
Hint for children: That ain’t science.
Who said anything about warming water with radiation from ice?
The claim by the anti-science nutters is that ice cubes cant be used to boil water. Its clearly possible and video has been posted showing how.
Thanks Ken for another example that you’re clueless.
I could tell people how clueless you are, but they might not believe me. So your confirmations add to my credibility.
Ken,
Not if you are referring to water boiling due to a rise in temperature. It seems commonly accepted in scientific circles that the the boiling point of water is 100 C, or 212 F, and thermometers are calibrated thus.
You are playing semantic games, conflating a phenomenon which resembles one aspect of water boiling due to temperature, with a rise in temperature. A good illusion, but not a demonstration of the operation of a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Accept reality – as Dr Spencer is forced to admit, at least a large part of the supposed “global warming” seems due to anthropogenic heat. I’d go further, and say all of it is, but then the good Doctor will no doubt express disapproval, and say “Oh my!”.
Boiling point of water is 100 C at one standard atmosphere. You left out half of the information. Rather important information for anyone not living at sea level which is the only elevation where there is one standard atmosphere.
Semantic games? Not. You just make really bad assumptions. The ravening nutter has never made any statement regarding radiation from ice cubes to boil water. He only claims ice cubes can’t boil water and its a demonstrably false claim.
Ken,
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even the tiniest amount of water.
No amount of radiation from a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a warmer object.
You cannot even describe the GHE, so diverting into silly semantic games in order to insinuate that it exists, is just silly.
The Earth’s surface is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago. The surface temperature falls every night.
Accept reality – if you can’t even describe this “GHE”, do you really expect people to believe anything you say? Mind you, there are millions and millions of Americans (for example), who will accept any rubbish they are presented with. If you are happy to be believed by such as those, good for you!
Your standards are pretty low.
Swenson says:
”Ken,
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even the tiniest amount of water.”
Not strictly true Swenson. I this comment section I provided a source showing that water can be unfrozen at -48C so ice that was warmer could raise the temperature of that super-cooled water.
But I get your point. But I don’t think Ken does.
Bill,
You’re right of course. As a sensible person, you would be aware that finding supercooled water surrounded by warmer ice in a natural state s likely to be difficult.
But hey, who knows? All the molecules of gas surrounding you could suddenly all start travelling towards the centre of mass of your head at their present velocities – or the Earth might stop spinning, or Ken and his ilk might accept the reality that the Earth has actually cooled since the surface was molten – all of it!
Oh well, anybody who understands supercooled liquids is likely to understand my point, I hope.
Swenson, I first learned of the effect when wondering my bottles of costco water would not freeze in my office refrigerator which was one of those desk high ones with a freezer compartment right in the main refrigerator.
My IR thermometer was telling me the bottles were -8C with no signs of any ice in them. Taking them out of the freezer compartment they were completely liquid. I could make them instantly freeze by tapping the bottle on the top of the refrigerator.
Science knows of this phenomena but can’t explain it. There are other unknowns about water such as the Mpemba Effect. where warmer water freezes faster than colder water.
Also in Yosemite National Park there is an annual attraction in winter when certain waterfalls and creeks will instantly freeze leaving the water in the waterfall frozen in place. So it does occur naturally and doesn’t have to be engineered. Apparently one of the conditions for it is highly purified water as water with particle solids in it generally freeze sooner.
It is a natural effect. But I agree with your point. Warmer stuff doesn’t cool cooler stuff. You would think the stooges in here wouldn’t argue that point.
Hunter, as in any experiment, unusual results require more attention to details. What’s the emissivity of the surface of your water bottle? What’s the field of view of your LR thermometer, are you sensing the temperature of the walls of the frige? Did you check the temperature using an internal measure, such as a thermometer or thermocouple? What was the air temperature inside the fridge, using a shielded thermometer to be sure that you weren’t measuring the general IR environment?
Furthermore, COSTCO lists their Kirkland Signature Bottled Water as having “Proprietary mineral blend added to create Kirkland Signatures pure taste. Bottled using state-of-the-art purification, filtration and reverse osmosis technologies with each bottle undergoing automated digital imaging inspection.”. So, is there any residual chlorine in the mix, or did they ozonate the water to remove potential bacterial contamination?
There’s a discussion of the Mpemba Effect on Wikipedia, which considers multiple possibilities. I doubt that your observations produce a definitive conclusion. More proof that you aren’t a very good engineer, I suppose.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, as in any experiment, unusual results require more attention to details. Whats the emissivity of the surface of your water bottle? Whats the field of view of your LR thermometer, are you sensing the temperature of the walls of the frige?
——————————
tested all that with multiple readings over multiple materials of the freezer compartment and the water bottle from different distance obtaining very small subdegree variation in readings.
E. Swanson says:
”Furthermore, COSTCO lists their Kirkland Signature Bottled Water as having Proprietary mineral blend added to create Kirkland Signatures pure taste. Bottled using state-of-the-art purification, filtration and reverse osmosis technologies with each bottle undergoing automated digital imaging inspection.. So, is there any residual chlorine in the mix, or did they ozonate the water to remove potential bacterial contamination?”
————
can’t speak to that beyond it being the costco brand in 2017 and the fact the effect is well known to science with the paper i linked in this comment section where this effect has been observed down to -48c
E. Swanson says:
Theres a discussion of the Mpemba Effect on Wikipedia, which considers multiple possibilities. I doubt that your observations produce a definitive conclusion. More proof that you arent a very good engineer, I suppose.
—————————
there are science theories all in dispute. i didn’t offer a theory but would instead caution those who believe that the major transport of heat from the surface will freeze at the same altitude in a changing environment should exercise some degree of skepticism
Hunter tr0ll, your efforts simply demonstrate known characteristics of H2O. For example the Wikipedia article on water’s properties notes that:
You’ve “re-invented the wheel” as we say. But, you drift further off into the weeds commenting about what happens in the atmosphere as pressure altitude increases. Again, from the Wikipedia page, the pressure vs. phase diagram shows that at lower pressures, the transition from vapor to solid would occur at lower temperatures as pressure declines with altitude into the Tropopause.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter tr0ll, your efforts simply demonstrate known characteristics of H2O. For example the Wikipedia article on waters properties notes that:
The melting point of ice is 0 C (32 F; 273 K) at standard pressure; however, pure liquid water can be supercooled well below that temperature without freezing if the liquid is not mechanically disturbed.
Youve re-invented the wheel as we say. But, you drift further off into the weeds commenting about what happens in the atmosphere as pressure altitude increases.
Again, from the Wikipedia page, the pressure vs. phase diagram shows that at lower pressures, the transition from vapor to solid would occur at lower temperatures as pressure declines with altitude into the Tropopause.
—————————-
You are just rambling here Swanson with no point other than to quote wiki.
You claim I drifted further off into the weeds but all you do is quote wiki. I have no idea where you are going here or what drifted off into the weeds as I see no inconsistencies of what I said in comparison to wiki.
My only point is to understand the GHE one must respect the water cycle and be explicit regarding these issues which are far more complex than what any claims I have seen that have been made by the amateurish Climate Science community in the area of explaining how any GHE comes to be.
They have always rested on the work of Arrhenius which was never ever experimentally demonstrated and the use of the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t hold up to experimentation either.
Hunter tr0ll can’t take it when I agreed with his description of super cooled H2O, so he wanders off into the Stratosphere again.
He ignores the scientific descriptions of atmospheric processes, such as the basic One Dimensional Radiative-Convective Models 1, 2 which have been the foundation of climate work for decades, claiming that the GHE rests solely on work ~60 years earlier.
Please, Hunter tr0ll, man up and do some homework and stop spreading FUD.
Seems to be potentially a problem with mainstream science since the atmosphere isn’t one dimensional. Anyway what do you mean by one dimensional? The discredited 3rd grader radiation model? If not that then what?
Hunter tr0ll writes:
Perhaps Hunter tr0ll is too lazy to read the references given, else he wouldn’t have asked such a stoopid question.
Swenson,
“It seems commonly accepted in scientific circles that the the boiling point of water is 100 C, or 212 F, and thermometers are calibrated thus.”
Oh really, I calibrated thermometers once upon a time, and I didn’t do it that way.
bobdroege,
Yes bob, I know. Of course, you are not going to tell everyone what you did, how you did it, and what relevance this has to a GHE which you cannot even describe, are you?
Anders Celsius decreed that water boiled at a degree of hotness that could be expressed as 100 of his degrees.
As far as I know, the bobdroege scale is calibrated in degrees of silliness – and is infinite.
Swenson,
You could look it up, then you would see you are wrong.
Or I could google it for you.
Fifty Bucks.
bobdroege,
Yes bob, I know. Of course, you are not going to tell everyone what you did, how you did it, and what relevance this has to a GHE which you cannot even describe, are you?
Anders Celsius decreed that water boiled at a degree of hotness that could be expressed as 100 of his degrees.
As far as I know, the bobdroege scale is calibrated in degrees of silliness and is infinite.
Come on, Bob, don’t keep us in suspense. How did you calibrate them?
Swenson,
“Anders Celsius decreed that water boiled at a degree of hotness that could be expressed as 100 of his degrees.”
Uhm, no.
That’s not true.
It might be news to you that Celsius had a different number for the temperature of boiling water.
Oh dear, bobby, trying to convince people that you are clever, by not saying anything!
You dummy, you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Go on, tell me what happens to the photons emitted by ice totally submerged in hot soup. Try and look it up on the internet. Ho ho, no wonder you refuse to commit yourself to anything specific!
Who would take any notice of somebody who refuses to accept reality? You, for example!
Keep ducking and weaving.
Swenson,
So you are telling me you don’t know what Celsius had for 0 and what he had for 100 with regards to the melting and boiling points of water.
Good to know.
Sounds exactly like your justification of your “HTE”.
“Temperatures have risen therefore I must be right.”
Sorry Ant, but this is about science. Your false accusations and inaccurate quotes are for children.
Grow up.
I haven’t seen any “science” from you on this matter, only unsubstantiated claims.
A,
That would be like a SkyDragon cultist claiming that a GHE exists?
Of course they could describe this phenomenon, but the Chinese stole their intellectual property!
What’s your excuse? The dog ate your description?
Ant, you would have to know science to recognize it.
All you ever have is your insults and false accusations.
Grow up.
As you make an insult and a false accusation …
Once again Ant, you have NOTHING.
Grow up.
A,
This would be like SkyDragon cultists saying “Temperatures have risen so it must be due to the GHE”, would it? The “evidence” for a GHE that temperatures have risen!
Not so brilliant, is it?
For the record, I agree with Clint on the HTE.
Based on what? grammie clone’s HTE doesn’t appear in the NOAA STAR TLS satellite record. Show us your proof, not your usual empty words.
Child, why do you believe the HTE would appear in the satellite record?
You’re still believing the HTE is based on photon emission. You understand NONE of this.
grammie clone the Magnificent Confuser still hasn’t provided any supporting evidence for his imagined HTE heating the surface. Logically, if there’s heating at the surface, would there not also be some impact at the lower Stratosphere? Look at the graph and recognize the impact of two previous volcanic events, both of which lofted lots of SO2 into the Stratosphere. Where’s the BEEF?
Child, Hunga-Tonga was NOT a typical volcano. You don’t understand any of this because you’re a child.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
grammie clone, I think we know by now that the HT-HH eruption was different than Pinatubo. So, what are it’s impacts and what’s the mechanism for them. So far, your efforts are simply repetitions of your previous empty assertions aka, more BS.
The Swanson child keeps proving me right by arguing with himself:
Swanson 1: Look at the graph and recognize the impact of two previous volcanic events, both of which lofted lots of SO2 into the Stratosphere.
Swanson 2: I think we know by now that the HT-HH eruption was different than Pinatubo.
Even after he stops arguing with himself, he has a lot to learn about science and reality. But, he can’t do that until he grows up.
E. Swanson says:
”grammie clone, I think we know by now that the HT-HH eruption was different than Pinatubo. So, what are its impacts and whats the mechanism for them. So far, your efforts are simply repetitions of your previous empty assertions aka, more BS.”
well we know that the United Nations science community has connected a half degree Celsius warming to to ozone depletion. but like with claims of cold co2 heating already hot surfaces they haven’t provided any specific details. but we do know that ozone absorbs somewhat over 30 watts/m2 in the uv bandwidths alone. so that is sunlight that never reaches the surface so we don’t have wonder at all about the mechanism.
and gee last year scientists at least in new zealand were warning residents to be especially wary about skin cancer risks due to unusual drops in the ozone layer. so what is it you are questioning?
” but we do know that ozone absorbs somewhat over 30 watts/m2 in the uv bandwidths alone. so that is sunlight that never reaches the surface so we dont have wonder at all about the mechanism.”
We don’t have to wonder, but perhaps, I have wonder.
It similar to doubling CO2. I main thing wonder about is the lack of measuring of any warming effect from Ozone or CO2 levels [which gone from about 300 to 400 ppm, that enough of increase that we should able to measure it]. I wonder about the should be able to measure it, part of it.
It seems quite possible that the billions of dollars spent on studying “global climate” is not working, and could be significantly inhibiting getting any reasonable results.
Climategate gives some clues about the destructive consequence of govt funding, and having about 50% of peer review, being proven to not work is a another data point.
I think we need more measuring, and I think more money spent on satellite measurement would not wasted money as compared other ways to spend money.
swannie…”still hasnt provided any supporting evidence for his imagined HTE heating the surface…”
***
The stratosphere is normally a super-dry place yet it interacts with the jet stream to control weather patterns globally. Dumping 150 billion kilograms of water into that space certainly doesn’t help. It’s still too early to formulate a theory but it seems no coincidence that very strange weather patterns followed the HTE and continue to do so.
There is no other obvious reason for the recent heat, even though the heating is just a crude averaging of global temperatures.
Cli,ate shysterin update \
https://youtu.be/OmndKVgLaf8
Cooling of the waterz imminent
https://i.postimg.cc/x8rdNgRF/GEM5-NEMO.png
At least we can be confident that the last two months of record-high monthly global temp anomalies for UAH are well-validated, and not some processing error.
And not related to trace gases in the atmosphere.
A trace gas without which our cranks would not exist.
Gordon Robertson says:
”And not related to trace gases in the atmosphere.”
could be worded better. it could be related, but the suddenness is a testament to the powerfulness of natural climate change that is completely unrecognized by our cawg brothers in here. at this point in time its its really unknown how long its going to take ozone to recover the warming from which is recognized by the United Nations science community.
Exactly, Bill, anthropogenic CO2 is not responsible for monthly or even annual variation. The scale at which AGW effects should be noticeable per global temperature is multidecadal. Gordon’s comment is a red herring.
bill…it was intended as a brief response to Barry’s innuendo re CAWG. Could have been stated better, as you pointed out.
“Barry’s innuendo re CAWG”
Is entirely in your own head. What a whirlwind of ideas must be in there.
Changes due to ENSO and other short term effects are NOT climate change.
ken…”Who said anything about warming water with radiation from ice?
The claim by the anti-science nutters is that ice cubes cant be used to boil water. Its clearly possible and video has been posted showing how”.
***
Depends on how you define boiling. If you mean bubbles forming in water and drifting to the top, that is possibly high on Everest when water is heated but due to the lower pressure, the water claimed to boil never gets past luke warm, a common complaint of climbers who would like a boiling hot cup of Joe, or soup.
In the video to which you refer, the water bubbled but it was clearly not boiling by the definition we normally apply to boiling. It was due to a pressure change. One definition of boiling is bringing water to the boiling point. That normally means at 100C. It could be applied to water that is bubbling and giving off vapour but does that happen below 100C?.
“It could be applied to water that is bubbling and giving off vapour but does that happen below 100C?.”
Yes
Boiling refers to water changing from the liquid to the vapor phase and is dependent on the pressure.
You can use a pressure cooker to raise the boiling point of water to 250 degrees F.
bob…250 F is significantly higher than the boiling point of water at 212F. The cooking is done largely by a higher pressure steam, That is not the case near the peak of Everest where water cannot warm to 100C (212F).
In science, boiling happens when liquid becomes gas, forming bubbles inside the liquid volume. This is called the boiling point.
It doesn’t matter that the temperature at which liquid becomes gas is lower on Everest than at Sea level. It doesn’t matter that the liquid becomes a gas in a jar by changing the vapor pressure by cooling the air in the jar. The water in both cases is at the boiling point.
Ken, I thought you didn’t like semantics?
This ice-boiling-water nonsense is about typical conditions, NOT about conditions on Everest, or in a vacuum. Your cult leaders have actually claimed that ice cubes can boil water. And cult children like you have willingly swallowed that crap. You have to, in order to support the false belief that CO2’s 15μ photons can warm Earth’s surface.
Like Gordon, you have no clue about the science. You both just like to attack Skeptics, as you clog the blog.
Clint R has long ago reached reached his bird brain boiling point.
Gordon,
A pressure cooker cooks faster because the water and steam inside the pressure cooker is hotter, due to the higher pressure.
Near the peak of Mt Everest the boiling point of water is lower due to the lower pressure.
Same as the demonstrations of ice causing water to boil by cooling the saturated system of water and water vapor causing the pressure to drop.
bob, please stop trolling.
clint…”Heres Norman teaching Gordon! The blind leading the blind”.
***
Clint continues to mindlessly slag me after I stuck up for him the other day. Someone posted that Clint eats sh*t sandwiches and I took objection to such propaganda, pointing out that Clint doesn’t like bread.
Gordon verifies his 10 year-old maturity level.
(He also pretends he’s an engineer!)
Clint has a meltdown as he grasps at straws. Clint should know better than to take on a student of science and tends to trip over his ego rather than scientifically debate an issue.
It is getting sirius
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/american-lawyer-panama-pulls-gun-climate-protesters-blocking/
Yes, it is!
The Panama Canal is currently experiencing extreme drought and it is seeing its lowest water levels in history.
The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) cut Booking slots to 25 per day starting Nov. 3 from an already reduced 31 per day and will gradually reduce those further over the next three months to 18 slots from Feb. 1, increasing shipping costs.
In recent months, the ACP has imposed various passage restrictions to conserve scarce water, including cutting vessel draft and daily passage authorizations.
The existing restrictions have resulted in long delays, with tens of vessels waiting to transit the canal.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration stressed that delays at the canal have pushed shipping rates higher elsewhere by decreasing the globally available number of vessels.
It also said delays for some gas transporters were at record highs in Panama, pushing up the cost of shipping liquefied gas from the U.S.
As sea levels rise, they also fall.
Sounds like cult “science” to me….
So you are also ignorant about how the Panama Canal lock system works.
I’m not surprised!
Wrong Ark. I just understand that everything you see is “proof” of your cult beliefs.
Science and reality aren’t on your side. So you have to survive on false accusations.
I’m not surprised!
We get it, anything and everything is caused by CO2, today we learn the Panama Canal stops functioning when CO2 reachez 400 ppm.
Here’s a short summary:
You are blinded by ignorance!
Wow, you two are ιdιοts!
You don’t even know how the Eighth Wonder of the World operates!
Ark, you conveniently avoid reality.
Everything you see is “proof” of your cult nonsense. You don’t realize that. All you have are your false beliefs. That ain’t science.
Accept reality, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
You think the Panama Canal is a sea level canal.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Speaking of holes in the ground…
I never said that, Ark. You’re just throwing crap against the wall because your cult beliefs have NOTHING.
Embrace reality and science. Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
Sounds like your Autism is running in high gear today, then.
Embrace reality: The canal locks operate by gravity flow of water from Gatun, Alajuela, and Miraflores lakes, which are fed by the Chagres and other rivers.
Again Ark, my issue is NOT about the Canal facts you find. It is about your tendency to believe every negative event is due to your CO2 false science.
Just as you had to search for some reality about how the Canal works, here’s some more reality about your false beliefs:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
No, I didn’t “search for some reality about how the Canal works.”
We learned that in grade school. We also learned that the British and the French failed in their attempts to build the canal before good old Yankee Engineering tackled the problem.
Yes Ark, I often notice that your cult operates at the grade school level.
Thanks for the confirmation.
You’re welcome, you mook.
Arkady obviously doesn’t know much about the Panama Canal.
1st it is non-modoki el ninos that have the most impact on rainfall in panama.
and in this recent era modoki el ninos have been the usual.
the current el nino is a non-modoki el nino explaining low rainfall totals.
the non-modoki el nino of 1997 also led to reductions in ship transits.
as to record low water levels in the canal one must understand that the lock system controls how much water goes down stream in two directions from a panama lake, Gatun Lake, that supplies the water for the locks. Gatun Lake is a man-made lake designed for the purpose of supplying year round water to the canal and was completed a few years after the first canal transit.
so now the canal level is down at least in part due to greatly increasing lock size length and width in the panamax project completed in 2016. thus each opening of the new locks allows more than twice the water through with each opening.
old locks had a surface area of 110ft by 1050ft. new locks have a surface area of 180ft by 1400ft.
I don’t know what point it is that you’re trying to make.
Is the Panama Canal drying up or not?
“Is the Panama Canal drying up or not?”
If we had an ice free arctic sea ice in the summer China could go that way, instead.
So, CO2 has failed to warm the world, enough.
Probably due to some kind of math problem.
Here’s a real world math problem for you.
Eagle Bulk, which typically routes its grain cargoes out of the U.S. Gulf to China and Asia via the Panama Canal at a rate of $ 12,400 per day, is now routing through the Suez at a fixed rate of $ 32,400 per day and an additional 10 days travel time.
What color are the ships?
Pink?
Who is paying more for grain?
Two people get shot to death in Panama and Ark uses it as an opportunity to proselytize on alleged reduced sea levels.
Are you sirius?
Dilbert analysis
https://youtu.be/jTUtHgE3Pn4?t=1703
And don’t call me Shirley!
[the debbil made me do it]
I can fly the plane and land it
Still getting ur science from a cartoonist? Not advisable.
Nate,
I agree. The Skeptical Science site is the brainchild of a failed cartoonist, isnt it?
Well he sure as heck bit like a cod on an anchovy over the photon cartoon learn by pictures educational tool to the extent he thinks they are little massless particles.
No
Let’s recap.
[Me] The Panama Canal is currently experiencing extreme drought and it is seeing its lowest water levels in history.
[Clint R] As sea levels rise, they also fall.
[Me] You think the Panama Canal is a sea level canal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
[Clint R] I never said that, Ark.
Conclusion: a bird has a bigger brain than Clint R…
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/88pZNj-DK40?feature=share
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556972
A problem with global warming cargo cult, is they want their leaders
to fly around in private jets, but other people should be stopped from flying in private jets.
And they don’t know we living in Ice Age, and very wrongly assume the world is warmer then it’s ever been.
The world is as cold as it’s ever been, and the world will get even cold as continue towards the next coldest time in glaciation periods.
Since coldest Earth has ever been was about 20,000 years and ago and there is roughly 100,000 year cycle, the coldest will likely take another 80,000 years, but there will lots of less than coldest times in Earth, before long time of about 80,000 years, it could quite a bit colder in few centuries or 1000 years.
But it not warm now. The average ocean temperature air is about 17 C and average land temperature is about 10 C giving average global surface temperature of about 15 C.
But about half ocean area is around 12 C, and 12 C is not a warm air temperature. And land near tropics can be warm, India average is about 25 C, it has large population with land area about 1/3 of China. India’s population is still growing, China’s population falling. China average temperature is about 8 C, which a cold air temperature. China has a lot coal, but burning thru it quite fast.
The largest countries in the world have average temperature well below freezing, and have a very small population relative to their land area. Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream, but still it only has average temperature of about 9 C.
It seems if blocked the Gulf Stream from warming Europe, Europe could get to air temperature similar to Canada and Russia.
And without all lost heat, the rest of world could remain warmer.
And European seem to want to be a lot colder than 9 C.
Quote
Clint R says:
November 9, 2023 at 8:12 AM
As sea levels rise, they also fall.
Sounds like cult science to me.
Quote
At least birds have brains.
Ken,
Maybe you don’t realise that the IPCC stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Climate is just the statistics of past weather observations – of course it’s unpredictable!
You seem to be trying to say something without stating what it is – probably because you don’t know what it is you are trying to say!
Here’s something to start you off – describe the role of the GHE in the surface cooling at night. You can’t even do that, can you? No wonder you babble on about droughts!
Tell me something about CO2 and its magical heat producing properties. Yes, I’m laughing at you.
Carry on.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sze940wx7PE
Ken,
So you can’t tell me anything about the magical properties of CO2, then?
Colour me unsurprised!
I should add that, that other mook Eben, seems to be on the Clint R–>Bird spectrum too.
Add another mook, Bill Hunter, to the Clint R –>Bird brain spectrum.
arkady unable to carry a science argument resorts to ad hominems as his only argument.
Well, he said you were on the bird brain spectrum,
not that your argument was wrong because you are on the bird brain spectrum.
Well, that piece of information free garbage really showed off your immense intellect, didn’t it?
Bird brain, indeed.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet? Maybe you could try the internet.
Accept reality – there is no GHE, the surface has cooled since it was molten, as it does every night – or even when a cloud passes in front of the Sun.
Maybe SkyDragon cultists are saying that the GHE is really another name for sunlight?
i acknowledged that the low water levels in the panama canal was a man made situation. he just didn’t want any facts distracting from his personal interests so lacking any kind of argument he decided his best course of action was attacking the messenger. he probably learned that from you bob.
i probably neglected to provide a link to the effects in the canal with a previous non-modoki el nino.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/04/08/el-nino-taking-its-toll-on-panama-canal/c5001f5b-3cfa-4313-908a-1bb64bfdacff/
A,
Are you trying to insinuate that droughts are due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Only a bird brained SkyDragon cultist would attempt to associate weather with CO2!
Tell me that you are not quite that silly, please!
U.S. Air Force X-37B spaceplane to launch on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket
The seventh mission of the X-37B, designated USSF-52, is projected to launch Dec. 7 from Kennedy Space Center
Sandra Erwin November 8, 2023
https://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-to-launch-on-a-spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket/
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
–THE NEW SPACE RACE: U.S. Air Force X-37B spaceplane to launch on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
Posted at 9:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
“The X-37B will launch on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket for the first time. ”
…
“SpaceX was awarded a $130 million contract in June 2018 to launch USSF-52. The mission was originally scheduled to launch in 2021 and has been delayed by payload and range availability.
The most recent X-37B mission, OTV-6, launched in May 2020 on a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5, and landed in November 2022 after setting a new endurance record, spending 908 days on orbit.
…
The Air Force for a decade kept the X-37B in a cloak of secrecy, but the Space Force is now showcasing it.”
So, what does Atlas 5 lift to LEO? Wiki: “8,21018,850 kg ”
And Falcon heavy? Wiki: 63.8 t (141,000 lb)
I guess it’s going to recover, the three of it’s first stages, but it still seems a bit of overkill, unless it’s carrying a lot more payload or something.
248 years and counting.
IT’S THE MARINE CORPS BIRTHDAY TODAY. I BETTER NOT HEAR YOU HAVEN’T HUGGED A MARINE!
https://youtu.be/tYWuBtKA78A
The Marines proved themselves during WW II in hell holes like Guadalcanal and their selfless attacks on well-defended Pacific islands. They don’t need to be advertising and glamourizing modern Marines who have essentially done nothing in comparison.
Same goes for the much vaunted Green Berets and Navy Seals. They put the latter through mind-boggling indoctrination fitness/training sessions and most of the fitness gained is gone a month after graduation. In places like Afghanistan they proved in some cases that all the training went for naught when they were out-foxed by natives hiding in hills.
The true grit of the US forces were the Marines who fought in the Pacific and the regular army who went ashore on D-day to battle impossible odds and who fought their way through Italy and Europe to finish the job. Those are the people they should be honouring, not a motley crew of modern soldiers who have never seen any real action.
You should listen because Robertson is a hard bitten combat vet who survived Vimy Ridge.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sze940wx7PE
nah, probably not.
Never even seen a marine.
You could be in their scope, and you don’t see them.
Really? In Australia?
Apparently:
https://www.marforpac.marines.mil/MRFDarwin/
And three died:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISagVoHkGOs
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
The “33K” nonsense comes from the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere. The mythical sphere is receiving the same average solar energy as real Earth, after albedo, of 960 W/m^2. We are not told if the mythical imaginary sphere is hollow or solid, or if it is spinning like Earth or always has the same side facing Sun. It’s all a mystery.
But in a steady-state condition the mythical sphere is believed to be emitting 240 W/m^2. So, using the S/B Law, the emission temperature can be calculated:
S = σT^4
T^4 = S/σ
T = [240*(10^8/5.67)]^0.25
T = 255K
Then, the mythical 255K is compared to Earth’s average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, as believed by the cult, is due to the GHE.
(You may sometimes see the difference as 33K, or 33 °C, since Kelvins are the same as degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit, the difference would be 59.4 °F.)
The claim is then that Earth is 33K hotter than it’s “supposed to be”. Their math is correct, but their calculation is NOT linked to reality. Earth is NOT a mythical imaginary blackbody sphere. A large bullfrog can weigh 0.5 pounds. If you multiply 0.5 by a large enough number, say 2X10^25, that would make the bullfrog about the size of planet Earth. The math is correct, but the calculation is NOT linked to reality.
Earth is “supposed to be” the temperature it is, 288K. Comparing it to a mythical imaginary object ain’t science.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sze940wx7PE
Clint R
You lack of understanding of the 33 K is not the fault of science. You are just ignorant and can’t process data very well. You are very far from science and your post is not evidence. It is a bunch of blabbing and fapping of lips. Not much intelligent content.
You are attacking what you can’t understand. I think it is a frustration based upon inability to think. Your simple mind cannot understand complex ideas so you attack them. That is why you are stuck on ball-on-string analogies.
Anyway you make up a bunch of BS but do not include actual measured values. The Energy emitted from the Earth system (to space) is measured by satellites. They average it out to around 240 W/m^2 and yes scientists do include the Inverse Square Law in their calculations. They calculate (from the measured values from the satellite) what the energy would be at around 10 KM above the Earth. I have linked you to this in the past.
So you have 240 W/m^2 IR emitted to space but you have an average surface temperature of 288 K. The emitted IR would be from a black-body at 255. The surface is a near black body and has an average temperature of 288 K. The 33 K is much more than some imaginary Earth. The Imaginary Earth is just a simplification (which you cannot understand) where the total amount of solar energy reaching the Earth is spread out evenly over all square meters of surface. Then a balance between incoming and outgoing can be seen. The Earth surface is warmer because the GHE acts a radiant barrier. The surface is emitting an average of around 390 W/m^2 and the TOA is emitting around 240 W/m^2. It has been explained to you many times. No one can be faulted for attempting to educate you in science. No one can help you cannot learn or accept real science but pervert it and twist it with your cultish behavior. Sorry you are not well educated.
TOA is 200K Norman. That doesn’t math up with the bogus 240 W/m^2.
Maybe the satellites were in a square orbit….
grammie clone, Perhaps you are confusing the Tropopause with the TOA. The Top of the Atmosphere refers to measurements above the atmosphere, as in outside the Earth.
Actually child “TOA” is defined as 100 km above the surface. The tropopause is much closer to surface.
Let’s see if you can learn something.
Clint R
The actual reference value used for Outgoing longwave radiation is 20 Kilometers above the surface. It is not counted at 100 for the reference level used to get data.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/cmip5-data/Tech-Note_rlut_CERES-EBAF_L3B_Ed2-6r_20121101.pdf
The link also shows that the global average of the data for all sky condition is close to 240 W/m^2 at TOA (which is 20 km in this case).
Links you can’t understand don’t help you Norman.
You should know that by now.
grammie clone, as Norman’s link pointed out, the radiant flux measurements are recorded by the CERES instruments, which were on the AQUA and TERRA satellites. Those satellites orbit at ~705 km, much higher than your 100 km altitude. There are no satellites measuring fluxes operating at 100 km (or lower), since the aerodynamic drag forcing would de-orbit them rather quickly.
The comment about a 20 km level refers to the effective radiating level for model studies.
Yes Swanson child, it’s all modeling. The 240 W/m^2 at 20 km is bogus.
Poor Norman just found another link he can’t understand.
Clint R
Your opinion that things are “Bogus” is noted. You can make all your claims all day and clog this blog with your unsupported opinions. Won’t change that you don’t know anything and can’t understand the links I offer. You can falsely claim I do not understand them. Another false opinion of yours with zero supporting evidecne.
You are a cult figure who believe that all their opinion on things are correct and everyone else (including experiments and measured values) are wrong. Why do you think so? You never say you just call things bogus, perversions of science and so on. No evidence for anything every.
You are a the poster who adopts NO EVIDENCE, NO PROBLEM. You think science is your opinion and what you claim is fact.
You and Trump have a very similar personality. Arrogant, rude, childish to the max, never wrong, make up whatever, and whatever you say is the unquestioned truth.
Anyway you do not understand what real science is and you never will. You do understand cults. Your posts are cultish nonsense that you make up and believe to be factual with NO EVIDENCE.
Thanks for the additional evidence of your immaturity and ignorance, Norman.
I never get tired of being proven right.
Clint R
Once again you attempt to make your unsupported opinions into facts by stating them.
You believe (for some reason) you are proven right about something. Not sure what that would be as you are not able to articulate it. Just a generic meaningless statement.
It is clear you are the ignorant immature poster. Rather than see yourself as the culprit you state it is the other person.
You have lots of opinions. Very short on evidence or fact. It won’t change. You are not able to supply evidence for any of your claims. It has not stopped you from pretending you know things.
Norman, I suppose you will be clogging the blog the rest of the day with your usual ignorant and immature nonsense because you have nothing else going in your life. (But don’t forget to include your childish anal fetishes.)
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
“You [Clintella] are very far from science and your post is not evidence. It is a bunch of blabbing and fapping of lips. Not much intelligent content”.
***
I agree with you there Norman, but the point of the dispute over the 33C figure is that it is based on theorized values. No one actually measured a base value for an Earth with no oceans and no atmosphere. And no one has proved that any warming due to the oceans and atmosphere is due to a greenhouse effect, whatever that means.
Norman says: (my comments in parens)
You lack of understanding of the 33 K is not the fault of science. You are just ignorant and cant process data very well. You are very far from science and your post is not evidence. It is a bunch of blabbing and fapping of lips. Not much intelligent content.
The Energy emitted from the Earth system (to space) is measured by satellites. They average it out to around 240 W/m^2 They calculate (from the measured values from the satellite) what the energy would be at around 10 KM above the Earth.
So you have 240 W/m^2 IR emitted to space but you have an average surface temperature of 288 K. (probably somewhat less considering we are rather severely lacking in mountaintop, tundra, and ice sheet weather stations. . .not to speak of uhi data pollution.
and without considering that the estimate is that 30% of light is reflected from the sun. using the Stefan-Boltzmann emissivity parameter 240w/m2 equates to a temperature of 278.5K. not the 255k you go on below quoting from sources that are not providing any support for that figure.)
The emitted IR would be from a black-body at 255. The surface is a near black body (no its not! first, how reflectivity is divided up between the atmosphere and surface isn’t readily apparent. additionally there is a wide range of opinions on this with advocate scientists throwing out black body numbers after waving their hands over the controversy and proclaiming what you just proclaimed that it is ”close”) and has an average temperature of 288 K (yes advocate scientists proclaim this as close as well). The 33 K is much more than some imaginary Earth. The Imaginary Earth is just a simplification (i think somebody here inserted an ad hominem about how somebody ”which you cannot understand”) where the total amount of solar energy reaching the Earth is spread out evenly over all square meters of surface. Then a balance between incoming and outgoing can be seen. (well perhaps since this roy prepared report is surrounded by reports of uhi error in your assumptions maybe you should be a bit more skeptical about the numbers you are reporting as ”close”. after all all this is in a discussion of the horrible risks of a few tenths of one degree climate change) The Earth surface is warmer because the GHE acts a radiant barrier(lol!, that is kind of is dependent on weather you are talking about the surface or the near surface atmosphere that our weather stations measure. so are you talking about the surface or are you talking about the radiant barrier?) . The surface is emitting an average of around 390 W/m^2 (it might if we actually measured it and the surface were a blackbody. but neither is true) and the TOA is emitting around 240 W/m^2. It has been explained to you many times. No one can be faulted for attempting to educate you in science. No one can help you cannot learn or accept real science but pervert it and twist it with your cultish behavior. Sorry you are not well educated.(my oh my the atmosphere is literally dripping with inculcation on very imprecise blackbody assumptions and assumptions about stuff not even measured. its hard to imagine this getting a passing grade in the school i went to. . . .which today in the school i went to it might even earn an A+. . .sad!)
=)
Bill Hunter
You do seem to have an intellect and a desire to learn the Truth (this is the goal of science, to attempt, best it can, to figure out the Truth of what causes observed phenomena).
The Earth’s surface does radiate close to a black-body in the IR band. I believe they have worked out the emissivity to around 0.96 or so. It does reflect 30% of incoming solar but that would not change its black-body approximation in the IR band. It absorbs and emits somewhere around 96% of the IR band.
Here is a chart of some IR emissivity.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
You can see water, sand and dirt are all very good emitters of IR (which means they also absorb well in the band, what they can emit they can also absorb).
Bill Hunter
THIS “using the Stefan-Boltzmann emissivity parameter 240w/m2 equates to a temperature of 278.5K. not the 255k you go on below quoting from sources that are not providing any support for that figure.)”
I am confused by what you are trying to state. Are you suggesting that because the Earth reflects around 30% visible light you would use that to calculate its temperature with an emissivity of 0.7?
If so that is not correct use of Stephen-Boltzmann.
The incoming solar would not be used to determine the temperature of an emitting surface. You would measure the outgoing IR and use the emissivity of the surface, with the Earth around 0.96 to get the correct temperature.
The SB equation without an emissivity parameter returns 255K. A blackbody will emit 240w/me at 255K
But with a .7 emissivity factor which applies to earth since it reflects 30% of the light and only absorbs 70% the planet has to be 278.5K. Run the calculations if you must. If you don’t know the equation say so and I will provide if for you.
Norman,
If the average temperature of the surface is 288 K, then that is what it is – no more, no less.
Why do you think it should be something else? Don’t you want to accept reality?
Maybe you are so dim that you believe that a piece of highly polished brass with an emissivity of 0.03 cannot be the same temperature as a similar sized piece of graphite with an emissivity of 0.96!
Go on, tell me that objects of different emissivity cannot possibly have the same temperature – if you have the guts! That’s the problem with SkyDragon physics – you have to be pretty thick to deny reality.
Bill, where do you get the idea that albedo tells you emissivity?
Do you think high albedo surfaces like snow, ice, sand, white paint, PVC, that reflect visible light very well, also have low IR emissivity?
That would be incorrect.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
The cult “science” is very confusing because it’s based on bogus concepts.
The easiest way to understand this “imaginary sphere” nonsense is to separate bogus from real:
BOGUS — 240 W/m^2, 255K, and 340 W/m*2
REAL — 288K
The bogus values have NO relation to Earth’s reality. 240 W/m^2 and 255K are from the imaginary sphere. The 340 W/m^2 is the Solar Constant divided by 4. Flux can not be simply divided.
Absorbivity equals emissivity at equilibriumF. Thus for non-transparent objects albedo is the inverse of emissivity. And by SB Greybody equation P = eσAT4.
https://materion.com/-/media/files/alloy/newsletters/technical-tidbits/issue-no-114-thermal-emissivity-and-radiative-heat-transfer.pdf
and also here input 279 into temperature box, set emissivity to .7 and calculate.
Nate,
If the average temperature of the surface is 288 K, then that is what it is no more, no less.
Why do you think it should be something else? Dont you want to accept reality?
Maybe you are so dim that you believe that a piece of highly polished brass with an emissivity of 0.03 cannot be the same temperature as a similar sized piece of graphite with an emissivity of 0.96!
Go on, tell me that objects of different emissivity cannot possibly have the same temperature if you have the guts! Thats the problem with SkyDragon physics you have to be pretty thick to deny reality.
Nate says:
Bill, where do you get the idea that albedo tells you emissivity?
Do you think high albedo surfaces like snow, ice, sand, white paint, PVC, that reflect visible light very well, also have low IR emissivity?
That would be incorrect.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
———————————
”The accuracy of the following figures is almost impossible to guarantee as the emissivity of a surface will not only alter with regard to texture and colour but also with its actual temperature at the time of measurement. We would recommend, in the first instance, comparing measurements, found with an accurate surface probe or wire probe, and then the Infrared thermometer can be adjusted to match the correct emissivity and used for subsequent measurements.
No responsibility can be assumed by ThermoWorks for the accuracy or otherwise of the following figures.”
When Bill gets a basic science fact wrong, as he does here, we have learned to expect him to double down, triple down etc on his error.
“Absorbivity equals emissivity at equilibrium.”
Indeed so, but only at the same wavelength!
Visible light reflecting strongly off of snow, or white paint, or PVC, is at a very very different wavelength from IR light, which is not reflected strongly off of snow, white paint, or PVC, and in fact is abs.orbed very well by these surfaces.
yes i am aware of that nate. but i don’t see the science community agw advocacy corp actually providing any details. instead they assume earth has a 1.0 ir emissivity and that solar emissivity is .7 in order to maximize their grrenhouse effect size up to 33degrees.
but we know nothing has a 1.0 emissivity and reflect cloud ir according to a source i provided in this comment section shows a wide range of cloud ir reflectivity.
also it works both directions. japan engineers working with common materials: ”The Public Works Research Institute in Japan has experimented with paints with such pigments applied to conventional asphalt surfaces. They made a road that reflects 86% of infrared light, which helps keep the surface cool, yet reflects just 23% of visible light, to keep down glare.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/16/white-paint-carbon-emissions-climate#:~:text=In%20technical%20terms%2C%20the%20percentage,an%20albedo%20of%200.5%2D0.9.
“yes i am aware of that nate.”
It is quite obvious to everyone that you were NOT aware of it, Bill.
“Absorbivity equals emissivity at equilibrium. Thus for non-transparent objects albedo is the inverse of emissivity.”
This statement was plainly wrong.
“but i dont see the science community agw advocacy corp actually providing any details.”
Norman already gave you those details.
“Here is a chart of some IR emissivity.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
You can see water, sand and dirt are all very good emitters of IR (which means they also absorb well in the band, what they can emit they can also absorb).”
Did you bothered to look?
Nate says:
Norman already gave you those details.
Here is a chart of some IR emissivity.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
You can see water, sand and dirt are all very good emitters of IR (which means they also absorb well in the band, what they can emit they can also absorb).
Did you bothered to look?
———————
Nate you said emissivity varies by frequency of the light and I agreed.
I don’t see any of this being compared by frequency of a particular light nor do I see it being measured as a mixed bag re: our world.
Are you stepping back on what is required? It requires a blackbody to emit 390w/m2. You acknowledge that to be correct yet the public is regaled with a 33k greenhouse per Kiehl/Trenberth on the back of blackbody emissions for the surface and greybody calculations for absorbed solar.
Do you have a comprehensive source that covers those massive omissions? Or are you just winging it off Kiehl/Trenberth?
You made assertions (emissivity of Earth = 0.7), that were wrong, because you were ignorant of the basic facts, and unaware of your ignorance.
Then you tried to claim you were aware, when clearly you were not.
Then you try to blame others for not informing you better..
Why can’t YOU get yourself informed? And why not before posting?
Nate says:
”You made assertions (emissivity of Earth = 0.7), that were wrong, because you were ignorant of the basic facts, and unaware of your ignorance.”
I made no such assertion Nate. I said SB greybody equations say that.
If you have something to offer that says different and is based on science by all means post it.
Here go here and put in the .7 emissivity and 279.6K and you will see a return of 342.5w/m2 which times 4 equals the solar constant of 1370w/m2.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
“Here go here and put in the .7 emissivity and 279.6K and you will see a return of 342.5w/m2 which times 4 equals the solar constant of 1370w/m2.”
No, once again, this is wrong!
“If you have something to offer that says different and is based on science by all means post it.”
Did that. Were you drunk for the whole discussion or what?
You made assertions (emissivity of Earth = 0.7) that were wrong”
“I made no such assertion Nate. I said SB greybody equations say that.”
False. Here is YOU making exactly the assertion:
“But with a .7 emissivity factor which applies to earth”
Very little of what you post can be believed.
Nate says:
” ”If you have something to offer that says different and is based on science by all means post it.”
Did that. Were you drunk for the whole discussion or what?”
————————-
Back to the place once again where I ask Nate to provide a link and he tells me to go look for it on my own.
Nate says:
You made assertions (emissivity of Earth = 0.7) that were wrong
I made no such assertion Nate. I said SB greybody equations say that.
False. Here is YOU making exactly the assertion:
—————
You are insane, I just said I didn’t assert it I said again Stefan Boltzmann equations come up with that number using their greybody equations. Meanwhile the way your number was divined was by Kiehl and Trenberth simply making the following claim:
”The emissivity of the low and midlevel clouds is assumed
to be 1” while citing no source they believe cloud tops to have an IR emissivity of a blackbody. Can you help out Trenberth the salivating climate activist to find a source for that ridiculous statement? Yes he is being honest there. He named it as an assumption. Thus he doesn’t need a source. But assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with science.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/78/2/1520-0477_1997_078_0197_eagmeb_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
“Can you help out Trenberth the salivating climate activist to find a source for that ridiculous statement?”
Bill needs the help, not Kevin. The source is Earth Radiation Budget Experiment see ref. 1.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Reason # 1 – Papa ooma mow mow, ooma mow mow
Reason # 2 – Well a don’t you know about the bird?
Reason # 3 – Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
Reason # 4 – A well a bird, bird, b-bird’s the word.
Reason # 5 – A well a ooma mow mow.
https://youtu.be/uV1N2G4gMqA
A,
Getting desperate that you don’t seem to be having much influence?
Resorting to gibberish, hoping that someone might pay you some attention?
[derisive snort]
Instead of claiming a questionable knowledge about UAH’s Lower Stratosphere (LS) and above all about any allegedly strong influence of HTE on it due to the injection of 150 Gt water vapor, the HTE tr0hll rather should have a look at a comparison of LS to LT anomalies in UAH 6.0:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U-cK13E0O3_XQfWPuDfw8MvlQds1GdEl/view
Even the HTE tr0hll has been informed that as opposed to SO2 injections, those containing water vapor cool the LS layer; correspondingly, the LT layer experiences a warming as opposed to cooling as observed after SO2 dominated eruptions like Mt St Helens, El Chichon and Pinatubo.
However, the graph above shows for the period succeeding the eruption (Jan 2022) no significant temperature decrease in LS which could have generated a corresponding peak in LT as recently observed.
Bindi, if you’re serious about learning about the HTE, you need to learn the basics. If you remember when this subject first came up I asked you what was the wind direction inside the Polar Vortex. You didn’t have a clue.
I have invited you to explain the basics, as you see them, but you are a coward. Instead, you fake an understanding of basic science.
binny..a 0.2 warming would hardly show up on your graph. The effect of increased WV in the troposphere, however, would not show up on it either.
Bindidon says:
”Even the HTE tr0hll has been informed that as opposed to SO2 injections, those containing water vapor cool the LS layer;”
Well this theory hasn’t been established. We know the 2022 HTE event injected a great deal of water vapor into the stratosphere and no cooling of the stratosphere occurred.
As Dr. Feynman says if experiment doesn’t produce the effect your theory is just wrong.
The theory I see being discussed by scientists is that SO2 from HTE may not have been observed in the plume because of the conversion of it into other chemical compounds from the combination of heat and water before becoming an atmospheric plume. Its those other compounds such as sulfuric acid that destroys ozone. And when ozone is destroyed that creates LT warming as per the United Nations Environmental Program scientists.
So before you get your panties all twisted up keep in mind the discussion is only on going with some scientists chomping at the bit to get running on it. We will have to see if our science funding masters will want to fund a formal study on the matter.
“As Dr. Feynman says if experiment doesnt produce the effect your theory is just wrong.”
OMG
Nate,
Is this a SkyDragon cultist response indicating that you have nothing useful to say?
Don’t blame me because you can’t even describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality. Maybe you need to convert to a religion which acknowledges that their god is invisible and unknowable.
Obviously Nate got his panties all twisted up despite the cautionary notices.
A bit of old news, but regarding God:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Why I am now a Christian.
https://instapundit.com/
….
– To understand why I became an atheist 20 years ago, you first need to understand the kind of Muslim I had been. I was a teenager when the Muslim Brotherhood penetrated my community in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1985. I dont think I had even understood religious practice before the coming of the Brotherhood. I had endured the rituals of ablutions, prayers and fasting as tedious and pointless.
The preachers of the Muslim Brotherhood changed this. They articulated a direction: the straight path. A purpose: to work towards admission into Allahs paradise after death. A method: the Prophets instruction manual of dos and donts the halal and the haram. As a detailed supplement to the Quran, the hadeeth spelled out how to put into practice the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, God and the devil.
Read the whole thing.
Posted at 10:14 am by Ed Driscoll
https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/
Indeed OMG.
Because elsewhere, Bill was denying that science theories could be falsified by experiment, and as Feynman and others point out, this feature makes science different from religion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556751
Nate,
You can’t even describe the GHE, you fraud!
I notice you can’t actually back up your silly assertion about another commenter, just adopting Witless Willard’s practice of providing irrelevant links, trying to get people to waste time.
What’s the matter – been caught out, and trying to scuttle away? You’ll have to try harder, otherwise even the doltish SkyDragon cultists will start hiding their heads in shame at your efforts.
Nate says:
”Indeed OMG.
Because elsewhere, Bill was denying that science theories could be falsified by experiment, and as Feynman and others point out, this feature makes science different from religion.”
the theory is that co2 will warm the surface by 3c with each doubling. where are the physical blueprints that state that and why do cherry picked climate models (e.g. they ignore any models that don’t have co2 as the driving cause of our claimed ghe of 33 degrees) themselves have a range from 1.5c to 12c per doubling?
what a experiment can do is reject a specific theory with full details of how the warming occurs within known physics. that has never been detailed.
folks have tried to imagine what the details are. Woods, Pratt, S&O among others and all those details have been proven false. but even you haven’t given any details of why those experiments failed to produce the theorized effect.
so proving that co2 doubling will not warm the surface by 3C is the equivalent of trying to use science that God does not exist.
clint has attacked me several times now for no reason whatsoever, and I am a skeptic. He must have sore kahoonas from sitting either side of the fence. His latest…
“Like Gordon, you [Ken] have no clue about the science. You both just like to attack Skeptics, as you clog the blog”.
Ken is definitely a skeptic and he backed the Canadian trucker convoy while opposing other assaults on democracy and science, yet the frustrated clintella strikes out at both of us in a juvenile snit simply because we opined and acted in a manner of which clintella disapproved.
Who is this twit anyway? He attacks both skeptics and alarmists equally basing his arguments on no recognizable science. He has been banned once, for attacking Roy, and he has hidden behind several nyms. A complete and utter waste of space.
C’mon, Bordo.
Pupman’s meltdown isn’t worth the drama-queening.
Gordon, it’s not my fault you couldn’t make it through engineering school.
But, I do enjoy your childish whining.
Hello Gordon,
“and he backed the Canadian trucker convoy while opposing other assaults on democracy”
The police state tactics used to disperse the convoy was an assault on democracy, as was the mandatory vaccination protocols..
We will NOT comply..
Lunar Mysteries Unraveled: Topographic Connection to Swirls Discovered
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lunar_Mysteries_Unraveled_Topographic_Connection_to_Swirls_Discovered_999.html
— This investigation builds upon the earlier work of Domingue et al. (2022, 2023), which examined the Mare Ingenii swirl. Their findings prompted a closer look at the Reiner Gamma swirl, an iconic lunar feature. “Finding a relationship with topography in one swirl location could be an anomaly, but uncovering it in two distinctly separate regions points to a pattern that cannot be dismissed,” Weirich stated.–
why are we going to Mars?
Musk gives reasons, but he is wrong.
We going to Mars because it’s US policy to go to Mars,
US government established NASA to explore Space, NASA has wanted explore Mars for decades but fairly recently US government decided to first explore the lunar polar region and then start a Mars crewed mission program to explore Mars.
The reason we are exploring the Moon is to determine if there is mineable water in the polar regions of the Moon, and to prepare to start Mars crew missions to Mars.
The reason we exploring Mars, is because Mars could be a habitable planet, and it’s surface is easiest surface to land people, assuming the thin Mars atmosphere can be used to land people on Mars- which hasn’t been demonstrated, yet. We have landed small robot payloads, up to 1 ton on Mars, but 2 tons or more have not been done. Without using atmosphere {Moon lacks it} we have land crew on the Moon and then safely returned them to Earth. To get crew off Mars, we probably probably need to make rocket fuel on the Mars surface.
Using Starship to land crew on Mars, is only current and reasonable pathway to land crew on Mars. But Starship needs to refuel in Orbit, to crew to Mars and anything which can be refuel in orbit could also get to crew to Mars. Or LEO is halfway to anywhere. And if can refuel in Earth orbit, one can refuel in lunar or Mars orbit.
So the first step to Mars is refueling in orbit, and Blue Origin also is going to refuel in orbit, but New Glenn rocket has not had test launch yet, but possible within months, or before end of 2024.
Anyhow, the reason we getting Starship and New Glenn rocket, now, is due to NASA’s crewed program to explore lunar polar region- and then explore Mars.
But we have not explored the Moon to determine if there is mineable water and have not determined if Mars is actually a habitable planet.
Now, if NASA had instead focused on Venus, rather than Mars, and US govt decided to explore lunar poles and then explored Venus, I doubt
Musk would thinking settlements on Mars in the near term.
Would it been wise for NASA to focus first on Venus?
There no doubt in my mind NASA should be focused on operations involving Venus orbit. And Venus orbit is the “proper” hub of this solar system. And it solves many problems related to mining space rocks.
So, at present, Venus orbit, needs attention, but could/should we have explored the planet of Venus, first?
The main problem with Venus is it’s similar to Earth, it has large gravity hole and leaving it, is much harder than leaving Mars.
But this same like gravity hole gives a Earth like gravity, and is only other planet that does this. And to explore the planet Venus, doesn’t require artificial gravity station.
In theory the Starship can get to Mars in 6 months, getting to Venus in less than 6 month is not a “theory” but getting Venus in 2 months with Starship is similar to the theory getting to Mars in 6 months- it might be able to be done. So getting to Venus from Earth is quicker than getting to Mars.
Now, for Venus settlements in the Venus sky, like Mars, needs mineable water. And acid clouds can be mined to get water, and mining acid clouds can give you rocket fuel.
With Mars, if there is mineable water, you can export the Mars water to Venus orbit. And you do this with mass drivers {so it’s cheap enough}. Exporting water from Venus sky to Venus orbit, seems quite problematical.
And or but if the Moon has a lot of mineable water, a million tons of water mined per year for decades of time, defining a lot of water, it could use mass drivers to cheaply get water to Venus orbit.
But one could just focus on exploration, as that what NASA does, could NASA have cheap enough crew exploration of Venus. And aspect of that is first doing the robotic exploration. Or we spent tens of billions of dollar doing Mars robotic exploration, before we go to this point of sending crew to Mars.
So could have spent less than 10 billion dollar exploring Venus before getting to point putting crew in the skies of Venus?
One thing could do with robotic missions to Venus is determining how much acid clouds there are in regards to how mineable the clouds are.
How many trillions of tons of mineable Venus clouds are in the Venus atmosphere? Is there better locations to do such mining- polar vs equatorial, for instance. And one could send robotic mission into Venus atmosphere as demonstration of various ways it could be mined.
There also possibility the life exists in the Venus atmosphere. They are current planned missions which are trying determine this.
It seems with crew missions they could very long duration stays in the Venus atmosphere. Wiki:
“As crewed ships sent to Venus would be able to compensate for differences in temperature to a certain extent, anywhere from about 50 to 54 km or so above the surface would be the easiest altitude in which to base an exploration or colony, where the temperature would be in the crucial “liquid water” range of 273 K (0 C) to 323 K (50 C) and the air pressure the same as habitable regions of Earth.As CO2 is heavier than air, the colony’s air (nitrogen and oxygen) could keep the structure floating at that altitude like a dirigible. ”
So you sending [balloon} airship to Venus. And one use hydrogen or helium balloons as launch platform to get into orbit.
It seem you bring a lot cargo from earth. Crew could live earth air, and large massive stuff can floated with lighter gases and the lighter gas balloons can park at higher elevation as place to get into orbit. So launch from higher elevations and land from orbit at lower elevations.
But as said, first you do robotic missions. Mars robotic surface mission were limited to a ton or less. And with Venus it seems one could “land” a lot more mass.
Space Shuttle could land 25 tons on Earth, it wouldn’t work on Venus, if flies like a brick and hard to get beyond LEO, but Shuttle with a balloon {roughly speaking] would work. But it might be closer to dreamchaser or US military space plane. But heavier payloads and/or crew is similar to landing on Earth. But in present time, Starship could land as much or more into Venus atmosphere- assuming it works, and we have clue within a couple of weeks.
Christos Vournas asked this question:
“Does human body at 36,6 oC = 310K, does human body emit the blackbody’s
524 W/m^2 ???”
If assume the person has a surface area of 1.4 m^2, emissivity of 1.0, skin surface temperature of 33C (306.15K), and is in a room at 20C (293.15K).
Then, Emission=(5.6703×10^-8)*(1)*(1.4)*(306.15^4 – 293.15^4) = 111 W or ~2300 kcal/day.
This figure is approximately equal to the basal metabolic rate.
A,
In answer to Christos’ question, 111 W divided by 1.4 m2 would be about 80 W/m2.
Is this 80 W/m2 relevant to anything at all? I ask because some SkyDragon cultists seem to think that W/m2 bears some relationship to temperature, or energy balance, or something unstated and very cryptic.
“Back radiation” is commonly proposed to be around 320 W/m2, or four times that which you have calculated is emitted by the human body, at 33 C. You are not claiming that back radiation has a temperature four times that of the human body, are you?
I’d go so far as to say at night time, it would be hard to find a place where the atmosphere was above 33 C – and you say that this temperature only results in about 80 W/m2! How can less dense air emit four times the radiation than a human body, but yet apparently be colder?
Very mysterious. Do you think this might be due to the GHE which you cannot actually describe?
[laughing slightly at inconsistency]
swenson…”Is this 80 W/m2 relevant to anything at all? I ask because some SkyDragon cultists seem to think that W/m2 bears some relationship to temperature, or energy balance, or something unstated and very cryptic”.
***
I have a heating blanket that is rated at 80W and it’s about a metre square. Mind you, it radiates heat both ways but used as indicated the heat transfer would be conduction and convection. The conduction/convection ingredient is almost totally ignored by the energy budget propaganda.
Stating radiation in w/m^2, especially is relation to heat loss via radiation, is meaningless. That’s especially true as you pointed out with back-radiation being rated higher than incoming solar, by a large amount.
Let’s face it, climate alarm is based on serious pseudo-science.
Current ENSO = Coolin imminent
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
Eben is again confused about the data, and the meaning of ‘imminent’.
Nate,
Precisely what is he confused about, and are you putting yourself forward as a confusion arbiter?
You don’t actually say much, do you?
What’s up, Nate, are you scared that someone might quote you, and demonstrate your level of mental acuity?
Go on, say something definite. Man up – don’t beat around the bush. Claim that you can describe the GHE. How hard can it be? Only a gutless worm would bother uttering the lie that they had “described” the GHE previously, when a quick search would show that he certainly hadn’t on any site recorded on the internet!
Oh wait – maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you would. SkyDragon cultists have difficulty accepting reality, don’t they?
Mike Flynn,
I claim that you can describe the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
C”mon you strange Willardesque fantasist, man up!
Stupid links which just make you look like you are suffering from a severe mental impairment (probably correctly), don’t increase your intelligence- or your credibility.
Are you taking an incorrect dose of psychotropic medication, or are you just trapped in a bizarre fantasy world which is totally detached from reality?
I suggest that if you appeal to authority, you might appeal to someone who believes in the GHE, rather than someone who doesn’t – like Mike Flynn. Go on, quote his non-existent “description”. Can’t do it, can you, dummy?
Jeez, what a nutter you are!
Keep it up.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Cmon you strange Willardesque fantasist, man up!
Stupid links which just make you look like you are suffering from a severe mental impairment (probably correctly), dont increase your intelligence- or your credibility.
Are you taking an incorrect dose of psychotropic medication, or are you just trapped in a bizarre fantasy world which is totally detached from reality?
I suggest that if you appeal to authority, you might appeal to someone who believes in the GHE, rather than someone who doesnt like Mike Flynn. Go on, quote his non-existent description. Cant do it, can you, dummy?
Jeez, what a nutter you are!
Keep it up.
You already said that, Mike.
Cmon you strange Willardesque fantasist, man up!
Stupid links which just make you look like you are suffering from a severe mental impairment (probably correctly), dont increase your intelligence- or your credibility.
Are you taking an incorrect dose of psychotropic medication, or are you just trapped in a bizarre fantasy world which is totally detached from reality?
I suggest that if you appeal to authority, you might appeal to someone who believes in the GHE, rather than someone who doesnt like Mike Flynn. Go on, quote his non-existent description. Cant do it, can you, dummy?
Jeez, what a nutter you are! You even keep telling me what I already know.
Keep it up.
I wonder where good, ole Mike Flynn is today.
Right here, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558099
Cmon you strange Willardesque fantasist, man up!
Stupid links which just make you look like you are suffering from a severe mental impairment (probably correctly), dont increase your intelligence- or your credibility.
Are you taking an incorrect dose of psychotropic medication, or are you just trapped in a bizarre fantasy world which is totally detached from reality?
I suggest that if you appeal to authority, you might appeal to someone who believes in the GHE, rather than someone who doesnt like Mike Flynn. Go on, quote his non-existent description. Cant do it, can you, dummy?
Jeez, what a nutter you are!
Keep it up.
Right here, Mike:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cmon you strange Willardesque fantasist, man up!
Stupid links which just make you look like you are suffering from a severe mental impairment (probably correctly), dont increase your intelligence- or your credibility.
Are you taking an incorrect dose of psychotropic medication, or are you just trapped in a bizarre fantasy world which is totally detached from reality?
I suggest that if you appeal to authority, you might appeal to someone who believes in the GHE, rather than someone who doesnt like Mike Flynn. Go on, quote his non-existent description. Cant do it, can you, dummy?
Jeez, what a nutter you are!
Keep it up.
Hey, Mike –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Before internet there was short wave radio
https://youtu.be/vjWlYw8XINI
That was live streamed 3 weeks ago.
And sunspot numbers have changed a lot in last 3 weeks.
Solar wind
speed: 440.8 km/sec
density: 1.97 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 93
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.55×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
It seems we might spotless day, as most of sun is spotless with all the spots being 3 or 4 days from going to farside. And I don’t spots coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 516.4 km/sec
density: 10.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 85
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.55×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
It’s a countdown to spotless, in few days all spots near going to the farside, will go.
But even if Nov doesn’t have spotless day or two, it seem likely the Nov month will have low number and go thru the drawn curved line.
It seems we are in a solar grand min.
Solar wind
speed: 414.6 km/sec
density: 16.14 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 78
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.34×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
Spot number 3486 appeared/grew a bit past mid point of nearside, perhaps thwarting spotless day, maybe. It could grow bigger quickly or fade smaller quickly. And I don’t see any spot coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 429.1 km/sec
density: 4.22 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 85
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 134 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.21×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
I still don’t see spots coming from farside, but another
spot number appeared close to 3486 but closer to going farside, and
it’s 3487. And spots are 3483, 3484, and 3485. Or 5 spot numbers.
With 3483 and 3484 leaving to farside, within a day, and in two days
3485 will have left the nearside.
3486 didn’t grow much {yet} and I would guess it’s not going to fade away before it gets to farside.
Therefore, not likely to get a spotless day within 4 days, then probably something will come from farside, or more spots appear on nearside, but also daily spot number probably going remain low for a week or more {because most of nearside is blank}.
But for some reason got the neutron of -5.0% which sort of indicates
the sun is more active, than it appears. Or seems we should have spots coming from the farside, soon.
I do see a faint area near farside, which might grow into a spot.
And it’s southern hemisphere.
And forecast by pros:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
13 November – 09 December 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels with a
chance for moderate levels (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) on 13-15 Nov and
again on 19 Nov-09 Dec. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So, kind of agreeing with me, but they pick 19 Nov as something happening, so in 5 to 6 days there expecting significant spot coming from farside?? I tend think rare for spots lasting 5 or 6 days {lately} and the spots are seen somehow, or they are coming back??
Solar wind
speed: 379.0 km/sec
density: 2.35 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 86
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.20×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
Did get a small spot from farside and in northern
hemisphere, giving 6 spot number, only moderately size
one is 3486 which seems will easily remain moderately strong until leaves the nearside.
Solar wind
speed: 405.3 km/sec
density: 3.36 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 41
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.20×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
They haven’t changed picture of sun yet,
it could take couple hours. How do I guess it
get from 86 to 41 ?
It when from 6 numbered spots to 4 or 3 numbered spots.
I thought 2 would have left yesterday, and they didn’t get far
enough, so may 1 was added leaving, making it 3 numbered spots
are left on nearside. Or 3488 being small, faded. Or 3487 continued to fade and disappeared, and 3488 grew a bit more.
Anyhow did any new spots come from farside, so I can see them, but they not numbered, yet.
Ocean Cooling underway
https://i.postimg.cc/MGYpSmrQ/nino1-2-oct2023-plume-ecmwf.png
Wow … a region comprising 0.3% of the world’s oceans, specifically an ENSO region, is projected to cool from an El Nino, and you interpreted this as a general “ocean cooling”.
A projection of cooling that will come during the Spring, is cooling that is neither ‘underway’ nor ‘imminent’.
Again, Eben is confused about the meaning of ordinary words. Almost as much as he is about IR absor.ption and photons.
General equatorial Pacific cooling projected for Spring, as usual after an El Nino.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Yes indeed thats normal. But the current plume projects continued cooling from MJJ to JJA. There never has been an El Nino develop in the following winter when there is Nino 3.4 cooling in the first season of summer (JJA). But don’t take that to the bank as there is no skill of these models to project beyond the spring predictability barrier.
ark…”Reason # 1 Papa ooma mow mow, ooma mow mow”
***
Ark doesn’t even know how the song goes.
Papa oo mow mow
Papa oo mow mow
Nor does the ignoramus-in-chief:
” Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow ”
No wonder.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/13/people-who-build-wind-turbines-at-sea-do-not-care-if-whales-live-or-die-monsters
NOAA ENSO November 2023 Update: This Winter’s El Nino is Officially a Strong Event.
Additionally, the 2023 El Nino features warmer than average ocean water near the equator like past events, but also across much of the rest of the planet, unlike past events.
https://imgur.com/a/8CqJdYv
All I can find from NOAA is: “indicative” of a strong event.
It won’t be officially strong until the ONI exceeds 1.5 for the third consecutive month, and we have had only one so far.
currently it appears it will reach strong status but the prognosticating international panel has topping out as one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record. 1.5 to 1.6. since a weak el nino is .5 to 1.0; a moderate; 1.0 to 1.5; the strong category is more than twice the other categories 1.5 to 2.6 suggesting this el nino is really forecast to be moderate.
Who is this “prognosticating international panel”.
Be specific.
the IRI here: https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
The mean of the dynamical models hits a maximum of +2.00.
How does that qualify as “one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record”?
Antonin Qwerty says:
The mean of the dynamical models hits a maximum of +2.00.
How does that qualify as one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record?
—————-
the dynamical models are not the prognosticating international panel.
that line would be would be the thick blue line labeled CPC CONSOL which is the forecast that is the opinion of international experts after considering everything including the models. this is an el nino like 1997 so far which had a quick death. dynamical models which have similarities to co2 models, also dynamic in nature and using atmosphere data, tend to run hot just like the ipcc climate models. the statistical models may not be able to adequately distinguish between modoki and non-modoki el ninos so since modoki el ninos have dominated for the past 20 years that might be why the experts are favoring a quick death of this el nino.
The Climate Prediction Center is a part of NOAA’s NATIONAL Weather Service. It is NOT an “international panel”.
That is only correct in terms of the location of the IRI/CPC headquarters.
Models from throughout the world are used in the various forecasts. This is a Columbia University project funded by the US.
The CPC Consol is the most up to date and does not include all the models as some models are not run every month and others aren’t in until later in the month. So when you see the CPC CONSOL deviating outside of the mean of the plume of all models of the previous month its an indicator of corrections to come.
The CPC CONSOL models currently give a 55% chance of a strong El Nino and a 35% chance of an El Nino that hits 2.0.
Thus the CPC CONSOL center prediction has a top season at 1.6. But that is only a 50/50 bet if you believe the CONSOL predictions.
To make money in Las Vegas if you are ”The House” you need better than 50/50 odds at the tables and offer enough to keep enough people coming to give you their money. People good at it make a ton and people not so good go bankrupt. . .even with the odds in your favor despite how disconcerting that is to your viewpoint.
As I said, it becomes official when there are three consecutive three-month overlapping periods of +1.5+.
“Meeting the threshold” does not mean official.
Suit yourself.
Arkady (formerly Tyson McGuffin), please stop trolling.
Related…
IN BRIEF
Suella Braverman has been sacked as UK home secretary by the prime minister Rishi Sunak. She’s the person who’s been saying “the house is on fire.”
Former prime minister David Cameron has been appointed as foreign secretary.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson is preparing for his new role as a TV presenter.
Moral: If you live in a glass house, you shouldn’t walk around naked.
And if the greenhouse is on fire?
Starship’s Second Test Launch May Happen This Week, And The Stakes Are High
If Starship fails again, the next Moon landing is likely to be postponed.
https://www.iflscience.com/starships-second-test-launch-may-happen-this-week-and-the-stakes-are-high-71529
“Based on Musk’s declarations at the time, some have speculated that Musks “childish obsession” with 420, a number associated with smoking cannabis, was the reason the launch was pushed forward to April 20. Musk also stated that the second test was going to take place by June, but the consequences of the first test took much longer to deal with than originally anticipated.
Starship is not the only element still up in the air when it comes to the human return to the Moon, but it is a crucial one. Without success in the upcoming test, Artemis III will suffer major delays.”
There is many ways it could fail, the test is largely about when it will fail. If arrives at the ocean and crashes- very successful.
The main thing is there a lot of Starships ready to fly, and how long before SpaceX, can launch another Starship.
If we get another launch this year, that would be good. But for Starship to land on Moon, requires re-fueling in orbit- something never done before- and has a potential of delay.
If anyone said they make a fuel depot orbit within 6 months, the normal response would be laughter. NASA wanted decades to do it.
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
Reason #1 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
Reason #2 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557312
The cult has no scientific response.
Three more discussions to go. And, then what? ANOTHER 5 reasons why the GHE Is bogus!
Yup, 10 reasons the GHE is bogus. That’s why this is so much fun.
Stay tuned.
How many of those “reasons” does Dr Spencer agree with?
No one agrees with ‘reasons’ from Clint R; there isn’t any ‘reason’ involved.
Ken,
Presumably you believe that you can describe the GHE in some way that agrees with reality.
Of course, you can’t. How sad is that?
Pretty sad.
A,
Why don’t you ask him? Too scared, or just lazy?
Ant and Ken, you really need to respond with some science. Otherwise folks will know you’re nothing more than immature tr0lls.
Making unfounded claims is not science.
THAT is why your cult’s “33K” nonsense is NOT science.
Clint R just hasn’t read & understood that the earthen ~33K is now well founded in science by measurement with thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer using the real Earth not an imaginary sphere. That fact causes Clint to be this blog’s continuous laughing stock.
Brain-dead4, the bogus “33K” compares real Earth to an imaginary sphere. It can NOT be measured.
How does that make any sense?
It doesn’t. That’s why you have to make up crap that only cult children will swallow.
… using the real Earth not an imaginary sphere.
Ball 4 suggests that by comparing the real earth to the real earth he has observed a 33 degree greenhouse effect. LMAO!!
Clint
Still haven’t seen you challenge it with science, only bald assertions.
the problem is the estimate that because radiation from toa of 240w/m2 corresponds to a blackbody temperature of 255k the ghe must be 33k.
but its almost certainly wrong as per SB the temperature of a greybody with an emissivity of .7 emitting 240w/m2 would have a temperature of about 278.5 k. that would be a ghe of 9.5k. big difference.
nate countered with an acknowledgement that emissivity varies by frequency. but thats tantamount to acknowledging that 33k is a bogus figure as clouds, snow, water, ice all reflect ir as well as visible light. but nate while knowing thats true can’t bring himself to contradict his daddy.
Yes, Bill 2:01 pm, the earthen ~33K GHE really is observed by thermometers and radiometers so “comparing the real earth to the real earth” results. Good to read Clint’s fake imaginary sphere comparison does give Bill something at which to laugh.
Bill 12:10 pm, the global earthen emissivity of “clouds, snow, (ocean, lake, river) water”, ice, and land has been measured at ~0.97. This can be rounded to 1.0 and get the same 33K GHE answer analytically to compare to the observed GHE of 33K.
Bill can also keep the 0.97 emissivity and and add in the balance of LW reflectivity, LW transmissivity (totaling 0.03), and still arrive at the natural 33K GHE as observed. Nature just does all that for Bill.
Ball4 thats just pure nonsense!
Ball4’s 2:47 PM comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just observing that the Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K proves absolutely nothing about the role of GHGs. The whole argument is meant to be that without GHGs, the temperature of the surface would be 255 K. That then has to be a comparison between a hypothetical Earth and the real Earth. Not a comparison between the real Earth and the real Earth!
DREMT, neither measurement is hypothetical “comparing the real earth to the real earth” results as Bill writes.
That’s in no way a response to the argument I just made, Ball4.
… oh, and DREMT gets this right per measurement: 288K – 255K = 33K.
Sure…and, that’s essentially meaningless, as far as the GHE is concerned. The GHE is not the difference between the temperature of the Earth as measured from space, and the surface temperature. The GHE is (supposedly) the difference between the temperature at the Earth’s surface without GHGs (hypothetical Earth) and the temperature at the Earth’s surface with GHGs (real Earth).
“The GHE is (supposedly) the difference between the temperature at the Earths surface without GHGs (hypothetical Earth) and the temperature at the Earths surface with GHGs (real Earth).”
Well, everyone knows that CO2 doubling is small warming effect.
And idea of anything more than 1 C from doubling of CO2 levels is related “somehow” increasing global water vapor. And increase in water vapor has higher amount which warms the global surface temperature.
And no one is arguing that water vapor is not the major greenhouse gas, and CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas {in comparison}.
But anyhow, all of CO2 in atmosphere is a lot less warming effect compared all water vapor in our atmosphere.
I would less about 10 C or less for both these greenhouse gases at their current levels. And obviously. water vapor is most of it.
Clint R
Finally you say something true.
YOU: “The cult has no scientific response.”
Correct, I have given you good science responses. You rejected them with a meaningless response that is clearly something a cult minded person would use “a link you don’t understand”.
So you are quite correct your cult (of maybe one, that would be you) has no scientific response. Just mindless droning of a cult brain (you).
How’s the anal fixation therapy going, Norman?
Clint R
You are one very strange person. Your cult mentality comes through again. You reject science and then insult. You are strange. 90% of your post are insulting some poster. Then you whine and cry when it comes back to to. Grow up little man.
It’s called “reality”, Norman.
The more you try to fight it, the more you lose.
Reality always wins.
The wise man will reject the scientists and read the science. But our AGW mavens around here only read a curated version. . .like instead of reading the entire body of IPCC assessment reports they confine their opinions to the Summary for Policymakers curated by the policy makers. Dr Curry has frequently commented on that being a big problem. And of course the entire process is surrounded by sycophants ignoring that the Emperor has no clothes in order to win the favor of the Emperor.
Clint R
It is true you do not accept reality. In reality you are a complete failure. In your limited thinking ability you perceive you are this genius. But you are not able to support anything and you make up ideas that ARE NOT scientific in any way.
I am thinking you do not understand what science is.
In fact I don’t think you understand the word “Cult” or science. you are confused by the meaning of each. Your posts are certainly cultish. Mostly just insults and belittling other posters to boost you fragile ego. In reality your are insecure and know you are ignorant of science. You could not pass any college physics course with your current understanding of science and no one would consider you ideas intelligent. Your arrogant insults would not sit well with professors who have studied science their whole lives and some who have done lots of real science research (you know things like collecting evidence, setting up experiments, things you do not understand).
If you are willing to stop posting for 30 days I will take the time to educate you on what science is and why it is not a cult and why you are cultish and not scientific. Do you agree? I am here to help you.
Sorry to disappoint you Norman but the two physics classes I did take I got an A in. Beyond that I have worked in the fields of electricity, electronics, passive solar energy, and building construction where I modified structures using simple engineering calculations I learned in architectural classes. I don’t profess to be a physicist but I know enough to see BS when BS is presented. Not coming to any conclusions that leads to questions. Questions you obviously can’t answer and won’t answer to support any of the BS you just spewed.
Norman,
Richard Feynman wrote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesnt teach it; experience teaches it.”, and I agree.
When you say “I have given you good science responses”, you are just blathering. Your word salad is meaningless – obfuscation of a particularly pointless form.
Maybe you could describe the GHE in a way which reflects reality. Just a description of a phenomenon – no “science” required. You can’t even do that, can you? Nor can any of your SkyDragon ilk.
[laughing at igno$#8204;rant peabrain]
To the Ignorati, like Swenson, basic science sounds like ‘word salad’.
And with their lack of ability to understand it, they feel empowered to reject it.
this coming from the guy that doesn’t know the difference between OPR and SIR.
Still waiting for DREMT or Bill to show why TMDNS is OPR.
So far, nothing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558784
“I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not physical reality.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
DREMT is confused between OPR and SIR. You need to discuss it with him.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556559
"this coming from the guy that doesn’t know the difference between OPR and SIR."
He’s not the brightest, Bill.
Exactly, Nate.
Exactly Nate, what? What’s he got himself confused about, this time?
DREMT bizarrely thinks that pretending not to read my posts is an effective way to rebut my posts. Obviously it isn’t.
…Nate, what? What’s he got himself confused about, this time?
This coming from a guy who gets confused about TCCTOTM.
Good to see you acknowledge that you get confused about TCCTOTM. Nobody else does.
GGGA.
Incorrect.
Whenever you’re ready Clint … How many of those reasons does Dr Spencer agree with?
A,
Why don’t you ask Dr Spencer yourself? Scared? Lazy?
Why bother asking Clint? What possible reason would he have to respond?
Go on, scuttle away like a cockroach.
Waste some time trying to find a description of the GHE which agrees with reality.
I don’t have to.
He’s already indicated in countless posts here that he doesn’t agree with any of it.
But of course you already knew that.
Ant, because you can’t understand, and can’t learn, you believe others are the same.
That’s just a symptom of being a child in a cult
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Whenever youre ready Clint How many of those reasons does Dr Spencer agree with?”
Obviously you would be surprised of the answer. Roy has answered them all. Two he acknowledges a probability of but has always disputed the quantity by an important factor.
Thanks for confirming that Clint is wrong.
Well I think what it means is Roy agrees more with Clint than with you.
Since the first three are dependent upon believing climate sensitivity in #4 is 3.0 instead of less than 1.0 as Roy found in his work that makes Clint right in 3 out of five where you are zero for 5 and for the other two Clint is closer to be right than you.
So its amazing Antonin that you were able to find a scientist that doesn’t agree 100% with Clint but disagrees with you by 100%.
Why didn’t you pick Michael Mann and you could have swept the sweepstakes instead of losing so badly?
Bill, in reality Dr. Spencer’s observational & analytical work in UHI effect and climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 ppm (and several previous experiments) makes Clint R 4:12 pm wrong on all 5 reasons with even 5 more Clint faulty reasons at which to laugh coming up.
ball4 thats just pure nonsense.
AQ and Ball4,
Your bizarre sly appeal to authority is just silly.
As Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”. I agree with him, in the sense that, as Feynman also said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
To date, nobody, not one “expert”, has actually managed to describe the GHE in any way which accords with reality. Neither of you have got the guts to even say that the GHE results in warming, for starters.
Go on, tell everyone it does!
Wimps, the both of you. Pathetic posers.
None of Clint’s 5 reasons agree with experiment so yes, Dr. Feynman had that right in that Clint is thus wrong on all 5 counts and more counts laughably awaited.
Ball4, you dimwit, you wrote –
“None of Clints 5 reasons agree with experiment so yes, Dr. Feynman had that right in that Clint is thus wrong on all 5 counts and more counts laughably awaited.”
Reasons? Experiments?
You can’t even describe the GHE! That’s because it doesn’t exist. Your SkyDragon cult has brainwashed you into believing in something you can’t even describe!
That’s why you are reduced to babbling about non-existent experiments in support of something that you can’t describe, and mysterious “counts”. Are you quite mad, or do you suffer from some other form of mental perturbation?
You are not making much sense, you know.
what is absolutely guaranteed is Ball4 has no idea what the experiment he claims did all that is. His daddy told him and failed to leave a web address for the experiment.
No Bill, Dr Spencer disagrees with Clint on all 5 counts.
Produce your evidence. I am not going to believe you.
A,
Well, that gotcha didn’t work too well, did it?
Better luck next time.
Clint R says:
”Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:”
Reason #1 The bogus CO2 forcing equation
There is no ”forcing equation” except for the 3rd grader radiation model that has been proven to be bogus and is no longer published. Instead we are regaled by a logic that CO2 will decrease the cooling the atmosphere, yet without greenhouse gases there would be no cooling of the atmosphere. Nobody has ventured a logic that greenhouse gases start out cooling the atmosphere and sometime when they become more prevalent they switch directions and start warming it.
Reason #2 The bogus 33K
the 33K is bogus on the the fact its based on the assumption that all material would cool at its blackbody temperature. Thus the claim is being made the surface is a blackbody, that deception is lengthed by claiming the radiation from a 288k surface has to be 390w/m2. The fact is though that we really don’t know. Atsumu Ohmura, Hans Gilgen 1993 estimated the emissivity of the surface at .84. That means at 288k the surface actually emits only about 327w/mw, not 390w/m2. Even Kiehl Trenberth as a .94 emissivity which results in an emission of 367w/m2. These figures actually surround one fourth of the solar constant of up to 1373w/m2 or as low as 1362w/m2.
Uncertainty abounds throughout the science and what we get are from the science institutions that profit handsomely in this crisis figures that are maximized to their greatest extent. . .as anybody who has worked with numbers on litigation support knows to be routine.
Reason #3 The bogus EEI
This is the biggest joke. Not a single figure that goes into calculating this is known to an accuracy any where near the resulting number.
Reason #4 The bogus CO2 causes surface warming
Well who knows? As I pointed out above we expect something to start out doing one thing and some undetermined level it switches direction with the deception maintained on a theory that involves a solid radiating surface that we don’t even measure the temperature of.
Reason #5 The bogus CO2 insulates Earth
Insulation is possible, if you adopt some of premises thrown about by skeptics that are completely different than the figures used in the 3rd grader radiation model. Also producing insulation in a freely expanding gas via radiation has never ever been demonstrated.
So if anybody believes any of those effects above (to the quantity when quantity is specified) you are simply a member of the ignorant masses.
Bill still refers to a 3rd grader model when science has moved on, so #1 remains incorrect. DREMT now agrees with observed 288-255=33K for good reason so #2 remains incorrect. EEI is now known with 95% confidence so #3 remains wrong. Prof. Tyndall long ago published experiments showing #4 is wrong. #5 is not even wrong.
All despite Bill’s best efforts to the contrary. Study up Bill, there are references you have yet to read published after your link to Kevin’s early work.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1559217
If you know its moved on no doubt you can provide a link to the new climate forcing equation and its supporting documentation. . . right?
Oh you say Trenberth changed the 33k greenhouse effect. If not he hasn’t budged. Happy though that you see the absurdity of Trenberth 97. thats a good start.
Electricity from renewables is a good thing.
100% electricity from renewables is a mistake.
Electricity storage batteries is a good thing.
100 % electricity storage is a mistake.
Saving fossil fuels for future generations is a good thing.
Cheap electricity is a good thing.
Poverty is a very bad thing.
And, CO2 does not cause Global Warming.
Everything should be well balanced.
CO2 does not cause Global Warming.
And there is not any +33C Global Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earths surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You say some things that are true, and some things that are new. Unfortunately, the two do not intersect.
Arkady,
“You say some things that are true, and some things that are new. Unfortunately, the two do not intersect.”
–
I don’t understand which things are new?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your “+33C Global Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earth’s surface” has now been measured by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer. You are just behind in your atm. science studies.
In your dreamz
Brain-dead4, the bogus “33K” compares real Earth to an imaginary sphere.
How does that make any sense?
It doesn’t. That’s why you have to make up crap that only cult children will swallow.
Christos, your “+33C Global Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earth’s surface” has now been measured by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer observing the real earth surfaces, not Clint R’s imaginary sphere.
None of the cult will challenge Ball4’s obvious perversion of reality.
No surprise there….
Clint R says:
”Brain-dead4, the bogus 33K compares real Earth to an imaginary sphere.”
Even worse than that this imaginary sphere has no atmosphere and is a blackbody and they give the blackbody temperature of the surface.
they do that because they don’t know:
1) what the mean temperature of the actual earth’s greybody surface should be with or without an atmosphere or with or without greenhouse gases because they don’t systematically measure the temperature of the surface.
2) they only have a rough guestimate of what the near surface atmosphere temperature because the surface record is non-random, follows inconsistent standards, and ignores errors resulting from that inconsistency. . . unless of course they can call recent temperatures too cold and historic temperatures too warm.
3) satellites largely cure the non-random sampling and give a decent idea of what relative warming is but gives us no idea of the actual magnitude of the GHE at the surface as it doesn’t cure any of the problems with #1
Personally I believe there is a greenhouse effect of some cause, but I recognize that the sum of the problems itemized above seems to leave open the possibility there is no greenhouse effect.
Ball4 says:
Christos, your +33C Global Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earths surface has now been measured by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer observing the real earth surfaces, not Clint Rs imaginary sphere.
————————————-
Ball4 claims that the blackbody earth without an atmosphere actually exists somewhere and has been measured and that it is an appropriate standard of reference for what the earth’s temperature would be without greenhouse gases and with an atmosphere with oxygen and nitrogen and what the temperature of the surface would be for a greybody with the complexity of surfaces and colors would be.
Shoot Nate was saying here that the temperature would vary due to emissivity by individual frequency by texture, by material, etc. and old gullible Ball4 thinks its comparable to a blackbody without an atmosphere while possessing in his skull zero facts that non-politicized science would demand.
Bill now claims that a blackbody earth without an atmosphere actually exists somewhere else which is not the case.
Measurements for the ~33K earthen GHE are actually made continuously, multi-annually by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer both observing the actual, real Earth system not Clint R’s laughable imaginary sphere.
Ball4 is off with the fairies again.
“Measurements for the ~33K earthen GHE are actually made continuously, multi-annually by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer both observing the actual, real Earth system . . . ”
He can’t actually produce these “measurements”, just like he can’t produce a description of the GHE which reflects reality!
Oh dear, none of the “thousands of times” he claims to have described the GHE seem to have made it to the internet – or anywhere else! Maybe the contents of his fantasy don’t translate to reality too well.
What a strange lad he is!
Swenson imagines so many things that he must be commenting from Clint’s imaginary sphere.
Ball4 is off with the fairies again.
“Measurements for the ~33K earthen GHE are actually made continuously, multi-annually by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer both observing the actual, real Earth system . . . ”
He cant actually produce these “measurements”, just like he cant produce a description of the GHE which reflects reality!
Oh dear, none of the “thousands of times” he claims to have described the GHE seem to have made it to the internet or anywhere else! Maybe the contents of his fantasy don’t translate to reality too well.
What a strange lad he is!
… he must be commenting from Clint’s imaginary sphere.
Ball4 is off with the fairies again.
“Measurements for the ~33K earthen GHE are actually made continuously, multi-annually by thermometer and calibrated, precision radiometer both observing the actual, real Earth system . . . ”
He cant actually produce these “measurements”, just like he cant produce a description of the GHE which reflects reality!
Oh dear, none of the “thousands of times” he claims to have described the GHE seem to have made it to the internet or anywhere else! Maybe the contents of his fantasy don’t translate to reality too well.
What a strange lad he is! Obsessed with some sort of “imaginary sphere”.
People are free to value his opinions. Some no doubt will.
Christos Vournas wrote:
“I dont understand which things are new?”
I will address the elephant in the room thusly:
The 255K is the brightness temperature of Earth as seen from outer space. It is not a theoretical temperature, but a measure of the radiation emitted by Earth into space, and it serves as a reference for understanding Earth’s heat emission in the context of remote sensing and atmospheric science.
You ignore the fact that the surface temperature of Earth can differ significantly from this brightness temperature. The reason for this disparity lies in the fact that the Earth’s radiative emission does not originate from its surface, as you might think. Instead, it primarily emanates from higher layers in the atmosphere. This emission is a result of various factors, including the composition of the atmosphere and the presence of greenhouse gases, which aβsorβ and re-emit radiation.
Wrong Ark.
The 255K is a calculated value from a fictitious, imaginary sphere. It has NOTHING to do with Earth.
It is NOT an actual measurement. You have drank the same kool-aid as Ball4 and Norman, who are still searching for their imaginary “real 255K surface”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Laughably, Clint R still comments that his imaginary sphere exists.
Sorry Ball4, but the imaginary sphere comes from your cult.
Let’s see if you can respond in 8 minutes, like you did before. You’re such a good tr0ll.
No Clint, science only measures real objects, not your laughable imaginary sphere.
A,
You wrote –
“The 255K is the brightness temperature of Earth as seen from outer space. It is not a theoretical temperature, but a measure of the radiation emitted by Earth into space, and it serves as a reference for understanding Earths heat emission in the context of remote sensing and atmospheric science.”
Nonsense. There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total “radiation from the Earth”.
Here’s what NASA says –
“It all begins with the Sun. The global-mean solar illumination of the Earth has been determined to be about 340 W/m2 of which about 100 W/m2 is reflected back to space. Hence, the Earth absorbs a global annual-mean 240 W/m2 of solar energy. This amount of energy is just sufficient to support a global-mean temperature of 255 K.”
More nonsense. The assumption is that the Earth, consisting of more than 99% of its mass hot enough to glow, has no surface temperature! Rather like figuring that a bowl of boiling water subjected to sunlight couldn’t possible be above freezing!
This donkey would no doubt refuse to accept that the Earth’s surface could ever be molten – the cunning calculations “prove” that it could only be 255 K!
You agree, no doubt.
Swenson
YOU: “Nonsense. There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total radiation from the Earth.
Are you sure you are correct with this statement? Not sure what you base it upon. Humans have made satellites that orbit the Earth in ways that can cover the entire sphere and have calibrated instruments on board that are able to measure a quantity of IR they receive from the Earth system.
Here is one of those instruments that you say cannot measure the total radiation from the Earth.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AIRS_OLR.png
You can find many examples on the web if you do some research instead of just making statements about things you know nothing about.
You almost sound as lame as Clint R who just makes endless unsupported statements and then he thinks he explains them with some vague example of ice cream stores.
“Are you sure you are correct with this statement?”
Absolutely. You are probably dim enough to link to some bizarre claim from NASA or NOAA, misrepresenting their ability to measure “total radiation” from anything at all, to some impossible level of precision!
You don’t even believe what you are saying. Search the internet as you may, you are reduced to saying ” . . . able to measure a quantity of IR . . .”. A quantity? IR?
Anybody with just slightly more intelligence than you can look up radiometry for themselves.
You are simply full of it – maybe you substitute some facts for the maunderings of your strange mind.
Carry on.
Norman resorts to his usual tricks. He links to something he can’t understand. He doesn’t have a clue about how that useless graphic was generated. Even Swanson knows it is nothing more than computer modeling.
Norman says:
”Swenson
YOU: Nonsense. There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total radiation from the Earth.
Are you sure you are correct with this statement? Not sure what you base it upon.”
You take Swenson too literally Norman.
So when I see Swenson say that I think in terms of the conclusions drawn from the data input that results in conclusions about EEI and the actual absolute temperatures. And he is right about that. Accuracy of measurement is always a factor depending upon what you think you are measuring. Nobody really gives a sh-itt about how much warmer the moon is because of earth shine.
Interestingly, Lord Rosse measured the surface temperature of the Moon in the 19th century, after John Tyndall was unable to do so, after many attempts.
Rosse’s equipment was fairly primitive, but his observations of temperatures of more than 100 C turned out not too badly. He was hampered by a lack of knowledge of radiative physics, as well as the reflective power of the lunar surface, and could not say whether the temperature was purely due to reflected external sunshine and earthshine, or like the Earth, external sunshine on top of the surface heat emanating from a mostly glowingly hot orb.
The days of the enthusiastic amateur “natural philosopher” are largely gone. Pity.
Clint R is right. 255K is theoretical calculated value of what average earth surface temperature would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is no such measurement.
Ken, you are just way, way behind in your atm. science studies.
Study up on the NIMBUS package wherein in a 1969 report used those instrumental measurements to find “global planetary albedo…between 29 and 31%” along with measurements finding “the mean planetary (brightness) temperature ranged between 254K and 255K”, again from measurement. Those values have since been remeasured, verified, & improved continually by follow-on science in updated CERES instruments, look for those on your own.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1559217
Yep Ball4 bounced of the backstop and ended up in left field.
And of course Ball4 forgets to mention that the ”brightness temperature” above TOA is the brightness temperature only for a blackbody which none exists in the universe.
You want the ”greybody brightness temperature” and the entire climate grift wants to avoid talking about that like the plague.
Bill, no forgetting, blackbody radiation exists in the universe & NIMBUS measured the actual Earth which also exists in the universe so really is measured as your greybody.
…and, it’s completely irrelevant as far as the GHE goes.
“You are probably dim enough to link to some bizarre claim from NASA or NOAA, misrepresenting their ability to measure total radiation from anything at all, to some impossible level of precision!”
Well at least with them we have their publications we can read that describe their methods, that have been vetted by many experts, but not by you, an anonymous blog commenter with no expertise in this subject, who has a habit of declaring what he believes science cannot do, as if it is a fact. Even whne they have already done it!
There is no way to verify your declarations of what science can or cannot do..
…it’s completely irrelevant as far as the GHE goes.
As DREMT continues his favorite method of ‘debate’, argument by assertion.
…completely irrelevant as far as the GHE goes.
A declaration is all you did. Telling somebody they can go read something doesn’t result in verification.
You seem to believe verification is either what your daddy told you or what it is you want to believe from what you read.
Got news for you bub! That’s not how a professional does it. And when they can’t do it the right way they do what Dr. Curry has been doing for years after realizing she had got sucked into something that hadn’t been verified despite declarations it had been. She talks about the uncertainty. Auditors do the same after fully examining the evidence. Steve McIntyre has done that.
All Swenson did here was to claim, without a shred of evidence, that ‘science can’t do that’, when in fact they do that.
It is his shtick.
Naturally science deniers stick up for each other.
But skeptics who are scientists, such as Roy Spencer, agree that what the CERES satellite is observing, the TOA energy fluxes, is extremely useful, and crucial to understanding the causes of GW.
“A declaration is all you did. Telling somebody they can go read something doesnt result in verification.”
When tro.lls blurt out wild unsupported assertions, why is it my job to whack-o-mole them all?
It is more than sufficient just to point out that the other side has real evidence that anyone can go read. Even you, Bill.
…irrelevant as far as the GHE goes.
There is a lot of science Nate the problem is we are not even attempting to measure the stuff the science is based on. The biggest con is ”surface” the theory warms the solid surface but we don’t measure the solid surface and we know that temperatures vary between the Stevenson screens we do use and the real surface.
Same deal with estimating the 33K greenhouse effect we use blackbody calculations when we know we are dealing with greybody’s. And you complain when I use a greybody calculation as if the blackbody calculation was a better choice when we know its a worse choice.
the entire issue boils down to there being a greenhouse effect using grey body calculations. The only problem with it is the greenhouse effect is too small to scare anybody. . .and you call that science. Sorry to inform you its irresponsible advocacy. Disinformation that enriches the richer half of society by punishing the poorer half.
Lots of pontification, but nothing helpful.
” we use blackbody calculations when we know we are dealing with greybodys.”
Nope. Climate science uses grey bodies. The real emissivity of Earth is used.
Yet another unsupported assertion.
…as far as the GHE goes.
Nate says:
Lots of pontification, but nothing helpful.
we use blackbody calculations when we know we are dealing with greybodys.
Nope. Climate science uses grey bodies. The real emissivity of Earth is used.
——————————–
Nate in here again spreading BS. Lets see:
Here is the Trenberth energy budget with 238.5 watts/m2 outgoing radiation.
Here is the spectral calculator that shows that radiation corresponds to a blackbody temperature of 254.7K. Now they tell us that the surface of the earth would be 255K if we had no GHG.
But even Nate has acknowledged that surface has an emissivity of around .96 which would produce only 229w/m2 which happens to be the high end of the scale, of course, promoted by activists.
But Trenberth and NCAR promotes a 99.5 emissivity surface rate.
And when you include scientists willing to challenge the self interest of their institutions the range of surface emissivity goes to about .89-.94 emissivity.
And that doesn’t even consider what the world would be like if it had no atmosphere. There would be no snow for example. And when you consider water there would be no ice or oceans.
Its all a fairy tale to deceive the children of the world like Greta Thunberg. And even adults are deceived by it. . .many because they have a self interest (related business or employment, ladder climbing or sales); but many other adults because they never grew up and are as gullible as children. . .like Nate.
255 K, AFAIK is simply the effective radiative temperature assigned to Earth, based on its emitted flux to space, as if it were a blackbody. It is what you would get measuring the Earth with an IR thermometer.
The ACTUAL emissivity of Earth must be used to calculate its ACTUAL surface emitted flux, which is much higher than its ACTUAL flux emitted to space, requiring a GHE.
Yes its a blackbody temperature of the surface of the earth exposed to 240w/m2. But the surface of the earth without greenhouse gases would be exposed to 342w/m2, not 240w/m2 and the blackbody temperature of that is about 279K. That makes the GHE about 9k not 33K. At any rate Stefan Boltzmann equations with an emissivity factor of .7 and an exposure to 342w/m2 comes up with 279K also.
So bottom line the 33k GHE is just pure BS without additional justification that shows Stefan Boltzmann equations don’t apply.
“But the surface of the earth without greenhouse gases would be exposed to 342w/m2, not 240w/m2”
How do you arrive at that?
“and the blackbody temperature of that is about 279K.”
How’s that?
The Earth’s albedo is 0.3. So the abs.orbed solar is 340*0.7
= 238 W/m^2.
FYI, the Earth’s clear sky albedo is 0.15. So if there were NO clouds at all, the Earth would reflect 15% of sunlight. Then it’s absorbed solar would be 340*0.85 = 289 W/m^2.
In that case to get 289 W/m^2 emitted from the surface straight to space, with emissivity 0.95, would mean sigma*0.95*T^4 = 289 W/m^2. Which would mean a surface temperature of 271 K.
That is a lot colder than the current Earth surface temperature of 288 K!
That would cause massive glaciation. Which would as a feedback increase the albedo well over 0.15, and thus less sunlight would be abs.orbed, and the Earth would cool further. Eventually becoming, most likely, an iceball Earth.
There are simulation papers showing exactly that happens when just CO2 is removed.
Once again, this discussion started with you claiming that GHG result in a cooler Earth.
Obviously wrong.
Nate says:
”That would cause massive glaciation. Which would as a feedback increase the albedo well over 0.15, and thus less sunlight would be abs.orbed, and the Earth would cool further. Eventually becoming, most likely, an iceball Earth.”
Without water vapor? You indeed are a sucker. One thing I will agree with is without greenhouse gases there would not be any glaciation and that glaciation does increase the albedo of the planet. . . but the default science on the increase in albedo is it has no effect on temperature.
Sure you run around noting that the surface of the earth might be selective in the frequencies it reflects and thus selective in the frequencies it emits making Stefan Boltzmann equations incorrect for the surface of the earth.
But I have never seen a methodical study showing that to be the case. Thus I am sticking with Stefan Boltzmann as I know I have to pay an arm and a leg for the rare minerals they have to put in a can of paint to make it do partly what you think all surface molecules do wholly (i.e. wholly select between shortwave and longwave as to what they reflect). All that is just pure BS from the activists that masquerade as scientists. Having a degree in science doesn’t make you a scientist. What makes you a scientist is adhering to the scientific method by 100% or at least making every effort to.
Endless moving of goal posts.
Once again, this discussion started with you claiming that GHG result in a cooler Earth.
Obviously wrong.
So my work in this thread is done.
“but the default science on the increase in albedo is it has no effect on temperature.”
Where do you get this crap from?
Is black asphalt in the sun hotter than white concrete, or not?
Yes but thats only in the warming phase. White pavement gets hot a lot slower than black pavement. but itheats to the same equilibrium temperature (i.e. Stefan Boltzmann temperature corresponding to the solar flux)
The white pavement also cools slower than the black pavement.
Further the SB temperature that corresponds to the solar flux on the white pavement is the same as the black pavement.
a great example is the sand on the beach. Go to the beach around 10am on a clear summer day. If barefoot you will hot foot it over the asphalt and find some relief when you get to the sand as the sand has an albedo of 35%. But leave the beach around 3 pm and you will be hot footing it over the sand and find some relief when you get to the asphalt. But I suppose you suffer from NDD.
Ocean Cooling
https://i.postimg.cc/Z5y20Sjd/sst-Outlooks-iod-hr.png
Again you take 2% of the world’s oceans and refer to it as “the ocean”. Not forgetting it is only the ocean surface. Misrepresentation is certainly your forte.
A,
And the other 98%?
Go on, predict the future.
I suppose you think that the oceans are heated from above by CO2, or something similarly bizarre.
Have you found a description of the GHE which agrees with reality yet? Of course you haven’t – I’m having a laugh at your expense, that’s all.
Keep trying.
Twerpy triggered
Chances are the Sun will cross the red line thin month
https://i.postimg.cc/rpjL20kJ/EISNcurrent.png
Yeah, and it not going reach Oct’s sunspot number, in this cycle is my guess.
Or as I see it, that is according to Valentina Zharkova’s scientific
prediction, which I think has been correct so far.
But I guessed we would have a spotless day in Nov, maybe couple- and haven’t got one yet. But I guess we “should” have them in next few months.
If go thru curved line this month, I am guessing Dec will dead cat bounce, or it will go sideways, but my guess the trend is down for next 6 months.
Solar wind
speed: 379.0 km/sec
density: 3.28 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 41
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.20×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
They haven’t updated for today, yet. They show 4 sunspot numbers
elsewhere they showing 2 sunspot number, and 1 sunspot number leaving soon, which would leave 1 sunspot number {3486}.
Maybe they are in shock.
Not too long ago they said the sunspots would come roaring back
and getting higher sunspot number than so far in the cycle.
NOAA was also saying this, and I thought they were way off.
Or their original predict wasn’t too far off, and they recently “corrected it”, in the wrong direction.
3486 has stopped me from getting a spotless day, but it’s out of here in couple days. I saw no spots coming from farside.
“and they recently corrected it, in the wrong direction”
They changed the maximum higher instead just fixing the timing
Solar wind
speed: 382.6 km/sec
density: 2.04 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 28
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 118 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.20×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
48-hr change: +1.2%
So, 3486 and 3487. And unnumbered spot coming from farside, southern hemisphere- which moderate to large. And 3487 goes and couple days
3486 goes to farside. And since most nearside is blank, we going low sunspot numbers for week, but no spotless days- unless new spot fades.
SpaceX is going to attempt the second test launch of Starship next Friday.
Well, it launched and had hot fire separation. And seems it could have another launch pretty soon- and might not be called a test launch.
Or the first rocket launch of Starship with maybe some payload launched or maybe not, maybe it will be a third test launch, but question how soon? Within a month??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ZwElJpTTs
SpaceX Starship Launch 2 (IFT2) Explained!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmiI_up0G2Y
Marcus seems to think both stages were given a self destruct.
I tend to think they were trigger happy. They wanted to test the self destruct system, but ideally after testing the new hot fire separation.
Anyways Marcus showed images which indicated a fair amount of tiles came off. I don’t know what or how much of problem that is- other than it seems a constant issue.
So, it seems the flip around of first stage, and whether second stage can re-enter, seems to main thing for the third test launch.
Though I think it could be possible to focus more on the lunar program- or delay reusability and start on refueling in orbit. Or an expendable rocket could be refueled in orbit and second stage which lands crew on the Moon, doesn’t re-entry Earth atmosphere- it’s not reusable second stage {no tiles and not stainless steel hull}.
Having all 33 engine working on first stage was pretty important, now can they do it, 99% of the time. They might want to see if they do it, twice in a row. And if they do it before the end of 2023, that would require a fair amount of luck.
SpaceX’s Starship should be ready to fly again before Christmas, Elon Musk says
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-third-flight-readiness-four-weeks
And the pad is in good shape, also.
The best I hope for was 3 launches before the end of year.
And could have 10 launches in 2024, but I think SpaceX had more launches [falcon and starship] in 2023 than I thought we would get, so maybe more than 10 starship and more than 120 other rocket launches, which is INSANE. But Musk wants thousands of launches per year. I think more than 100 starship a year would require launching Starships from the ocean. And if going to launch Starships from ocean you probably going to launch Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavies from the ocean.
A falcon 9 would easy to launch from what I call, a pipelauncher.
You could also probably use pipelauncher to launch a Starship.
But to test a pipelauncher {and need a small one} falcon-9 would be easier. Though pipelauncher would probably be more useful for the New Glenn rocket. Not it’s not launching yet and pipelauncher works with high launch rate, not sure Bezos gets the need for high launch rate.
He didn’t vaguely apply to suborbital {New Shepard}.
Actually I think a pipelauncher could work a lot better for suborbital launches.
Anyways, I think if going to launch from the ocean, you going need cheap floating breakwaters.
Forget the Doomsday Clock. We need a Genesis Clock.
How close are we to the Dawn of a new age of abundance and opportunity rather than the Midnight of our existence? ☀
https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/forget-the-doomsday-clock-we-need
linked from https://instapundit.com/
The list:
— How close are we to achieving artificial general intelligence?
How close are we to extending the average human lifespan to 120?
Do we have self-sustaining colonies off planet?
Do we have a cancer vaccine and a cure for Alzheimers?
Can we deflect a large asteroid or comet headed toward Earth?
Is carbon in the atmosphere declining?
Is commercial nuclear fusion both technologically and economically viable?
Is less than 1 percent of the worlds population undernourished with a caloric intake below minimum energy requirements?
Are we bringing back extinct species like the Woolly mammoth?
Is even the poorest nation no poorer than the average economy in 2000?
Is even the least free nation as free as the average nation in 2000?
Is productivity growth among rich nations at least 50 percent higher than its postwar average?–
A pretty good list. I will add:
When do we stop paying taxes?
And we pick your govt and it sort of pays us- gives you stuff you want.
One thing I want is locker, which ship stuff whatever I want- I pay to ship it {and it’s cheap} but the locker is free. And locker has other freebies. You get mail for free, but cost some small amount to send it to me- and I don’t get junk mail, though if accept some or all junk mail, I get paid to get junk mail.
“When do we stop paying taxes?”
When zombies run amok.
For Bill Hunter, who claims that the Climate Prediction Centre is more accurate than the dynamical model average.
Here are the predictions made for the last three years in September for the greatest strength of the coming La Nina:
2020-21
CPC -1.8
Model Average -1.5
Actual Minimum -1.2
2021-22
CPC -1.6
Model Average -0.9
Actual Minimum -1.0
2022-23
CPC -1.5
Model Average -1.1
Actual Minimum -0.9
But the topic is El Ninos. Why are you talking about La Ninas? Nobody is predicting a La Nina.
Further what you really need to look at isn’t one month. The difference between CPC Consol is timing. What did the dynamics show for September and October (not stats plus dynamics) I don’t think the stat models run hot its the dynamic models. So are you paying attention or just throwing stuff at the all in hopes something sticks. The analysis of this stuff isn’t a single look. Good analysis looks at the data from as many angles as possible. . . and good conclusions don’t arise from finding whatever it is that makes the case for your political leanings.
So now you’re claiming that they are more accurate for El Ninos and not for La Ninas, is that right? And why would that be?
Both CPC and the model average had the same timing to within a month for all three years.
You haven’t shown ANY justification for your claims … just the same type of bald assertion that is Clint’s bread and butter. Why can’t you show some kind of analysis to justify your claim? Answer: You’ve never done one.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I went back and looked at the model runs in Sept 2021 and the stat model group had a prediction for max La Nina around -.6, the dynamic group about -.7or.8 and the CPCCONSOL group the same as the dynamic group. In the end the LA Nina nadir was -1.0. Are you talking about an individual CPC model?
Please link to that.
A,
Maybe you could answer his query first? Of course not, SkyDragon cultist just keep sliding and ducking.
Does your GHE explain cooling? Does it even claim that CO2 make thermometers hotter?
You don’t seem to be certain of anything do you? Cat got your tongue, SkyDragon?
Yes you first Qwerty. Obviously if you even have a link it must be a single model. Embarrassed to post it?
also understand that the expert panel uses expertise in weighting certain models that have shown consistent bias or skill. Back when the plotted individual model runs against actuals for each individual was online one could spot those pretty easily. Since they haven’t put those up on line over the last few years, I suppose maybe only insiders get to look at that now. . .though its possible they just moved them off the main site or sort of buried it in a corner I haven’t found.
And keep in mind that ENSO is affected by climate phenomena like multi-decadal ocean oscillations that throw the statistical models off like a climate feedback thats statistical rather than physical. Its not the case that the statistical baselines aren’t fluctuating as well. Natural climate phenomena comes in all lengths of time to the dismay of Gore, Jones, Mann, and Trenberth.
Why me first? You’re the one who made the original claim without data to support it. I am merely challenging it. Embarrassed to post it?
good now we all know that besides being a dipsh-it you are a liar on top of that.
And if you wonder what I am talking about you need to go back and read what has been said.
I never said CPC CONSOL was better. And it isn’t the Climate Prediction Center which is a department or whatever of the NWS.
CPC (Climate Prediction Center) has lots of activities. Discussion reports, models they run, and people they consult. Among the consultants are outside academics both domestic and foreign, civil service employees, and perhaps others.
Among their collaborators is the IRI at Columbia University. https://iri.columbia.edu/
This lab works on many projects including ENSO forecasts and working with foreign entities that run ENSO models.
This is the weekly update from CPC.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
On roughly page 24 is a graph of various models run to help aid CPC in their predictions.
If you want to know what CPC CONSOL is this page tells you something: https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/enso/enso-prediction-models/
CPC CONSOL is a prognosticating panel who looks at all the models and determines probability based upon their expertise.
so what comes out early in the month is the official forecast of probabilities show in a table on the pdf linked above (page 23).
The plume of models with the CPC CONSOL modifications used to make the previous month’s predictions is on page 24.
This week ending today the probability table is more up to date than the model plume on page 24.
Next week the model plume will be updated with more recent model runs (most of which if not all were available to the experts this week to make their table)
Here is a caution on the middle of the month update prepared by IRI: A caution regarding the model-based ENSO plume predictions released mid-month, is that factors such as known specific model biases and recent changes in the tropical Pacific that the models may have missed, are not considered. This approach is purely objective. Those issues are taken into account in the official outlooks, which are generated and issued early in the month by CPC, and which will include some human judgment in combination with the model guidance.
So you didn’t see me saying human judgment was better than the models. You can form your own opinion about that. The models have the El Nino warming a bit more, the experts think its already topped out (for a seasonal average) at 1.53.
Now its your turn to provide you source myself being polite enough to humor your request even though you provided information on specific predictions before I did. . .just to show I don’t act like a baby like you do and accuse people of making claims they never made.
Ant spouts: “…just the same type of bald assertion that is Clint’s bread and butter.”
Poor Ant is unable to find anything wrong with my statements, so he has to resort to false accusations. The cult members all behave the same.
And, I’m always in their empty heads!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Ant should be ignored. He just dislikes and discriminates against anybody that doesn’t have an obedient Spock mindmeld with the celebrities he reveres. Like Nate he can’t even provide the physics of how his theory works.
A couple of useful articles on the relative merits of dynamical and statistical ENSO forecasting.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/how-good-have-enso-forecasts-been-lately
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/5/6/826/5123734
“Methodologically, there are two kinds of models used for ENSO predictions. The first are the statistical models, which use historical data to construct the evolution of ENSO, typically represented by the Niño3 (90–150°W, 5N–5°S) or Niño3.4 (120–170°W, 5N–5°S) SST anomaly index. The statistical models include linear statistical and non-linear statistical models. The former is constructed using linear methods such as multiple linear regression, canonical correlation and Markov chain and so on [14,15], whereas the latter is constructed mainly using neural network and other machine learning methods [16]. Both made success in ENSO prediction and some are still in operation. However, the development and application of statistical models have been significantly reduced due to their lacking both physical basis and the room for skill improvement.
The second kind of models are the coupled models, which have become the main tools for studying ENSO mechanisms, simulation and prediction. Since the first coupled ENSO model was developed [17,18], various types of coupled models have been designed and used for ENSO simulation and prediction. These coupled models include simple models [19], intermediate coupled models [18], hybrid coupled models [20,21] and fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) [2,4,5]. Currently, more than 20 models with different degrees of complexity are routinely used to make real-time forecasts of ENSO. The skillful ENSO predictions can now be made at least 6 months and longer ahead [5]. There have been several excellent review papers about the progress and current status of ENSO coupled models [2–5] and readers are referred to these for further information.”
Yes it might be a good idea to have some diversity in climate models as well. ENSO models are trying to monitor weather events of a typical 5 years cycle and aren’t there yet. Minimal climate length cycles appear to be somewhere between 60 and 80 years if you try to glean that from the industrial age temperature record.
Astrometeorologists have tried to connect that to orbital cycles of the planets with limited success, understandable considering the length of these cycles and the lack of standardization of monitoring anything older than about 63 years right now.
“Minimal climate length cycles appear to be somewhere between 60 and 80 years if you try to glean that from the industrial age temperature record.”
Great. Which global temperature records do you think are good enough?
I ask because ‘skeptics’ tend to trash them. Your comment here infers that you think one or more of them are sound.
So which should we rely on for these cycles?
Leftism is a Euphemism for Narcissism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQlF-SG0_eY
Is it a mental illness, cult, or….
Ah, an 80 minute youtube video.
You think anyone not already in lockstep with your remarks is going to bother?
if you pat the point you think is salient, right click on the bar underneath the video, and choose “Copy video URL at current time,” the video will start playing from that point from the link.
You can tell your audience that the video will star at the time stamp, and then they might bother to watch, instead of seeing it’s going to take up to 80 minutes to understand your point.
“if you pat…”
if you pause the video at….
Well, my comments did fit certain part of video {near the end} but I post video because I liked the video in general rather than some specific point.
But the idea that it is mental illness is a curious idea. I normally think public education is done wrong. Or I agree with what most people have to say about it, but I mainly thought it as mostly as a huge waste of the children’s time, or so not much, creating mental illness.
But brainwashing in general might cause mental illness. Or causing children to want to commit suicide- which one can count as serious mental illness.
Depending on the country, the left still favour reason a bit more than the right (they are the party of the Arts, after all). And they also balance personal liberty with community responsibility a bit better. The US is a prime example, with the right dominated by Christian evangelism and personal liberty at the expense of the common good. Where personal liberty interferes with Christian dogma, dogma wins (cf reproductive rights).
It’s similar in Australia (except the abortion issue). The obvious criticisms of the left are a rigid moral righteousness around progressive values and weakness on personal responsibility (though left and right could easily both be criticised in different shades for that).
Lengthy criticisms of the left are almost entirely engineered by out and out conservatives. You would do well to get a compare and contrast essay.
barry, your politics are as confused as your “science”.
Maybe you should try cooking, or gardening….
Climate science denial is a symptom of deep seated childhood trauma, that keeps victims frozen at an early stage of development. The most likely suspect is botched toilet training, but different types of traumas can get you “stuck” at various stages along the way.
Exhibit A: “There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total ‘radiation from the Earth'”.
Heal thyself: https://youtu.be/DAKJJYC-Ss8
The Ice Age has been going on for millions of years and will continue
for millions of years. During this time, it’s optimistic to imagine a 15 C air temperature is warm.
Humans have existed only during this ice age. Given that the issue relates to humans, referring to a period outside our experience is irrelevant except where it helps to explain what is happening now.
A,
What about the Australian BOM declaring that all official temperatures prior to 1910 are unreliable?
Does that affect any analysis you might do, or are the BOM climate experts wrong?
Does this affect the description of the GHE which you haven’t got, and can’t provide?
Maybe you could try pretending to be intelligent and knowledgeable. You just appear to be an average empty-headed non-thinking gullible SkyDragon cultist, at present.
Good for a laugh, anyway.
“What about the Australian BOM declaring that all official temperatures prior to 1910 are unreliable?”
What about you stop lying?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/temp_timeseries.shtml
barry, you dummy, you know your link does not even refer to pre – 1910 temperatures.
Here’s a start –
“Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations, prior to that date, were exposed in non-standard shelters, some of which give readings which are several degrees warmer or cooler than those measured according to post-1910 standards.”
Keep at it, and you’ll find I’m right. I don’t want to make it too easy for you – even though you seem incapable of finding anything relevant for yourself.
Toodle pip.
It’s in the very first sentence. Are you blind?
Whereas this: “Australian BOM declaring that all official temperatures prior to 1910 are unreliable”
Is a lie.
Just to put your lie to bed:
“The 1910 starting date for the ACORN-SAT dataset has been maintained in version 2. This reflects the fact that the Stevenson screen (the standard screen for housing thermometers) was only adopted as a national standard following the creation of the Bureau of Meteorology as a federal organisation in 1908 (Nicholls et al., 1996); whilst the Stevenson screen was in widespread use by 1895 in Queensland, South Australia, and at the few sites operating in the Northern Territory and Tasmania, the standard was not widely adopted in New South Wales and Victoria until 1906-1908. In Western Australia, there is very little temperature data of any kind outside Perth prior to 1907. All ACORN-SAT data are drawn from Stevenson screens…”
You can still get pre 1910 data from a number of stations at the BoM. (eg, Adelaide) So NO, not ALL temperature data was unreliable prior to 1910, and BoM certainly never said such a thing. That’s YOUR invention. Liar.
Oh well, off you go then.
Disregard the BOM stating “Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution . . . “.
In other words, use at your own peril. Not supported officially.
You can believe that the heat wave of 1895-96 is to be disregarded, or you can believe it extremely cautiously (whatever that means). You certainly can’t say what’s believable and what’s not, can you?
Donkey.
BoM: “data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution”
Is not the same as
Swenson: “Australian BOM declaring that all official temperatures prior to 1910 are unreliable”
Your words. Your lie. Now proven when BoM is quoted above distinguishing between reliable and unreliable temperature recordings prior to 1910.
You exaggerated. When exposed, you should have just accepted it and we’d have moved on.
But you dug in your heels and made a mess of your integrity.
Keep going. I’m here for it.
barry,
According to the BOM, there are no national records prior to 1910, anyway.
The BOM wrote “since national records began in 1910. ”
Make of that what you will.
There’s no need for me to “make of that what you will.” The data sets are well-explained, all in the public domain.
We could just look upthread and see a quote from BoM saying that data is sparse and less reliable prior to 1910. Or you could look up the history of the BoM, and note that it wasn’t until 1910 that the methodology for weather stations’ temperature measurement across Australia wasn’t standardised until 1910.
Keep going. You’re flailing brilliantly.
All one needs to know is its been proven that surface weather stations still aren’t standardized not even in the US much less the rest of the world.
Human and polar bears -and monkeys- have not had a long existence.
The rest of life have existed with a much warmer global climate temperatures. Mammals and the penguins can live in very cold conditions.
Humans want their homes warmer than 15 C.
As I said, I am interested only in humans. I have no interest in polar bears.
A,
The human population is increasing. It’s only the SkyDragon cultists like you who want to stop Nature on its tracks by exterminating human life.
That’s what removing CO2 from the atmosphere would achieve. Maybe you could alleviate Michael Mann’s lack of knowledge, and say what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is?
Only joking – no SkyDragon cultist would commit himself to anything, would he?
Please point out where I or any climate scientist have suggested that we should remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, or even go lower than pre-industrial levels. No more wild unsupported assertions.
A reason human population has increased is related to higher food production due to higher levels of global CO2.
But global human is now at the brink of collapse which has nothing to do with food production. Nor do I think it has to do, much, with China’s one child program, nor even the massive amount murdering of babies in the womb.
Do you have evidence for that first sentence, or did you just make it up?
Further, what do you see as the positive of an exploding population?
A,
SkyDragon cultists never commit themselves to anything. You are a fine example.
Maybe you could alleviate Michael Manns lack of knowledge, and say what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is?
What a slimy dodger you are!
–Antonin Qwerty says:
November 17, 2023 at 4:38 AM
Do you have evidence for that first sentence, or did you just make it up?
Antonin Qwerty says:
November 17, 2023 at 4:39 AM
Further, what do you see as the positive of an exploding population?–
It was once claimed we couldn’t feed a human population of 8 billion- it’s now not considered a problem.
Some parts of world, populations decreasing, others places it continues to increase.
I assume you are not referring to current global population as “exploding” but rather you correctly guess that I think we should want exploding human population- if we can manage it.
I have given various reasons, but simple answer is, that if we become a spacefaring civilization we are currently, underpopulated.
A,
Another meaningless link. There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the bandwidth of light – from frequencies approaching zero, to those approaching infinity.
You can’t actually find any, can you?
I can’t be bothered looking at your pointless video. How do I know it’s pointless? Because you are too gutless to even describe its contents!
Shades of Willard!
Ark, that video contains the major mistakes in the GHE nonsense.
Everything from believing CO2 “heats the planet” to confusing flux with energy.
Thanks for another good example of the cult’s agenda.
Clint, no, you are wrong, the sun warms the planet! Added CO2 enables the sun to warm the lower atm. while equally cooling the upper atm. regions.
Thanks for the laugh with another good example of Clint’s entertainment.
Further to the point Ark, can you state Earth’s “energy balance”? It’s okay to use your cult’s erroneous flux. I just want to see if you know what it is, since you support “climate science” and oppose “climate science deniers”.
Let’s see if you can support your cults “energy balance” nonsense. Or do you deny it?
Ant, Ball4, Ent, barry, bdgwx, Norman, Nate, bob, Swanson, and all other cultists are allowed to contribute. I bet NONE can present a viable “energy balance”.
Prove me wrong.
The sun’s SW energy absorbed by the planet system earth’s LW energy emitted by the planet system = 0 voila! A viable “energy balance”. Clint is proved wrong.
Clint R can look up NIMBUS et. al. for the instrumentally measured amounts, if interested. Currently, the EEI is known statistically to 95% confidence in certain lengthy periods.
Just add in the energy balance minus sign.
Child Ball4 fails, as usual.
Anyone else want to try? I’ve seen bdgwx claim an “imbalance” of about 1.6 W/m^2. But, we need to see the “in/out” figures. For example, does he claim 240 (in) – 238.4 (out) = 1.6?
Let’s see the cult’s [known to be bogus] figures. What do they actually believe are the “imbalance” figures?
(Links to things they don’t understand don’t count.)
Clint R laughably fails to understand the earthen 1LOT as usual. Great entertainment from Clint as blog’s reigning laughing stock.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4’s reply essentially states an analysis of the accuracy of the base figures isn’t needed. All Ball4 needs is for his daddy to tell what is so.
The Madison DX Club’ Solar Cycle 25 Update – Presented by Carl, K9LA
https://youtu.be/AG4qUuW1XdY
Watching with some satisfaction Trump’s former ‘stop the steal’ lawyers admit in court that he was told over and over by his WH advisors that he lost the election, that these lawyers didn’t have actual evidence, and that Trump ignored the advice of his inner circle and was determined to push the election fraud idea no matter what.
I mean, this was all clear to non-partisans at the time. I’m curious to see if the true believers let go of their false beliefs as these revelations continue to emerge.
Go get some therapy
https://postimg.cc/zHTMd2vb
He’s the Republican front runner. It would be great for America if he could be forgotten about. For many non-Americans he is great entertainment. And so is the crazies-dominated Republican party.
I really do feel sorry for the US with him still in contention and the damage he’s done, the extreme polarisation and madness, but it’s also fascinating to watch the disaster unfold.
Yeah, it would be better to watch from a distance..
barry says:
”I really do feel sorry for the US with him still in contention and the damage hes done, the extreme polarisation and madness, but its also fascinating to watch the disaster unfold.”
I guess Barry never grew up and learned it takes two to tango.
And all the horrible things? Like what? Record economy, record male black employment? Which was it you didn’t like?
Record growth of National Debt. Not a record economy.
Taxes went down for corporations, up for middle income people. Near wreckage of NATO. Embrace of dictators.
Corporations technically don’t have income. Only their stockholders do. Corporate taxes are like a flat tax where a poor person who owns stock pays the same tax rate as a rich person.
And your definition of ”middle income people” isn’t a median income. . . right? And you forget to add it was mostly people, who had really high state taxes whose taxes went up. Other than that it was some upward adjustment to the high bracket tax rates.
And NATO is healthy and has been aggressive in looking to expand.
Embrace of dictators? LMAO! Trump understands that you get further with honey rather than vinegar. . .and vinegar is what they got when they misbehaved. They didn’t get a ton of military aid when misbehaving. And he understood that wars of exporting democracy only profits the MIC. they make enough profit with the US being the strongest military in the world.
Technically Gill omits to mention:
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0512/how-large-corporations-get-around-paying-less-in-taxes.aspx
thats not surprising at all Willard since my 401K also diminished in value over those years.
One cannot say they are making a profit when they are actually losing money. You are just ticked off because they can deduct business expenses and since you aren’t in business you can’t as you don’t have any business expenses.
And as far as the tax avoidance strategies mentioned by your link, accelerated depreciation and offshoring of profits are concerned maybe you should look at a little more closely.
First accelerated depreciation simply recognizes that things depreciate faster than straight line depreciation when they are new vs when they are old.
The main reason for that is the asset needs more maintenance when old. Eventually most assets get so old they must be discarded and a new one purchased or built. Thats because if you continue with the old asset the cost of maintaining the old one is going to exceed the cost of a new one. Does that make any sense to you?
The other one they mentioned is the offshoring of profits is of great concern because it also encourages the loss of US jobs making the less well off poorer.
Trump is the only President in recent history to go after that. You should vote for Trump if that is your concern. Obviously the big international corporate stockholders have been voting democrat for a reason, especially with Trump running. Did you vote against Trump for the same reason?
“And NATO is healthy”
Currently Healthy. Not so w Putin’s buddy Trump in charge, trying hard to weaken NATO.
> One cannot say they are making a profit when they are actually losing money.
They actually can, Gill, and you should know it better than anyone else, at least if you really were an auditor or something.
Let’s hope you’re not losing money since the 2000’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
So the non-accountant is going to tell the certified accountant what is so.
Fact is you are wrong. Corporations pay taxes in accordance with what law calls taxable income. The primary differences that matter between taxable income and actual income are almost all timing differences. IRS rules establish rules to collect as much tax as they can over time as soon as they can. Sometimes the tax law is set up to encourage investment such as with accelerated depreciation, but its just a timing difference as its not a gift.
Depreciation, amortization, depletion, goodwill all the stuff nutty liberals whine about are real expenses. Instead of letting the corporation say deduct the cost of a truck the year they buy it is because they demand you capitalize the truck as an asset and depreciate it over time. Thus your tax deduction is delayed. If a private person buys a truck and uses it in his business he can deduct the business use of the truck only so the truck is only partly deductible if he uses the truck for personal use.
Ultimately all taxes end up being paid by individuals. taxing businesses only make a tiny bit of sense from the standpoint of collecting taxes earlier. So from that standpoint there should be some kind of tax or interest on delayed transfer to the individual. There are many ways to do that. One would be a wealth tax like property taxes where you pay a small amount each year on the assets you own.
State governments go after boats, homes, land etc in property taxes. But nobody gets taxed on the stocks they own so they can hold on to them have them grow and not pay taxes until they sell them. Income doesn’t pass through for some holdings and does for others. But individuals pay taxes on monies they get from businesses.
> tell the certified accountant
Where’s that certification, Gill?
Looking at the U.S. Corporate Profits & Tax Rate suffices to see that you’re saying stuff once again.
Whatever Willard. Continue to believe what you want.
bottom line is business taxes are a regressive tax. It hits the poor a lot harder than the rich.
IMO, business taxes are justified if your brain is so narrow that you can’t see that ‘income’ taxes does very little to close the wealth gap and it really doesn’t make much difference how you change them. If you want to close the wealth tax you have to tax wealth. Most states tax homes, autos, and boats but for most wealthy people thats only a small percentage of their wealth.
Keep in mind that ‘income taxes’ only tax how fast you can become wealthier.
Gill,
This is an Arby’s, and you’re just confused about gross profit and net income.
Willard what are you babbling about?
If you don’t know, Gill, then perhaps you should stick to preparing tax reports for your extended family.
Yeah par for the course you opining on stuff you don’t know shii-t at all about.
Gill is so big he could rewrite all of Investopedia.
His mind is an infinite Bloomberg terminal.
Apparently little willy has problems with complex issues. I said there was a problem with offshore tax shelters. But you have no idea that its your vote protecting them. You aren’t going to fix that loophole by voting for the corrupt politicians that protect those shelters contrary to the interests of the general public.
But apparently flew right over your head.
Apparently Gill has never invested in a public company in his life.
Willard continues to spout off his opinion about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about.
“So the non-accountant is going to tell the certified accountant what is so.”
Now you can perhaps understand what I mean when I point out that you are mansplaining physics to a physicist!
No I am not telling physicists about physics. I am asking questions as to how people arrived at the things they believe. And your response is that auditors shouldn’t be asking any questions.
Why?? Seems obvious after so long you have no answer to give.
You don’t ask, you tell. You do it constantly.
One example.
“Nate argues that since he believes a cannonball would not rotate in time with its trajectory instantaneously then the cannonball will be free to rotate at whatever speed it started out with forever.
But this is known by physics to not be true.”
But it is not knows by physics!
Well NASA agrees with me. Where is your source?
https://moon.nasa.gov/moon-in-motion/earth-and-tides/tidal-locking/#:~:text=You've%20only%20ever%20seen,but%20always%20facing%20%E2%80%95%20its%20partner.
Moon is now a cannonball?
You are not a physics expert, regularly get it wrong, yet continue to mansplain it to someone who is expert.
But think that when someone does it to YOU, that is reprehensible.
Nate I am not the guy that brought up nor defended Newton’s Cannonball as an allegory for the moon vs Tesla so long ago.
As I said backpedaling is now the dance step fad for all you spinners.
No backpedaling. Just your current favorite ad-hom.
Bill,
The madness includes one party in the US being willing to trash democracy and even the constitution. The Republicans have defended the January 6 attack on the vote certification process, which successfully halted it. Republican members of congress have even lauded the perpetrators, gone to visit those convicted in prison, and whitewashed what happened that day. Trump himself said that the constitution could be terminated to prevent the election going to Biden – and no Republican spoke against it. Rather, Republicans, with few exceptions, have fully embraced Trump and his authoritarian push.
There are two distinct realities in the US. Not just political realities, I mean two versions of what the facts are. A significant majority of Republicans think the 2020 election was stolen from D Trump, for example. Virtually no Dems do. An outrageously large number of Republicans believe it is correct to call the Democrats socialists. The response to mass shootings is so very different. In one reality it’s just a tragic normality that requires prayer, in the other, it is a tragically growing problem that requires policy reform.
Our general climate discussion here exemplifies two different realities. One one side we have accession to science and the scientific method, fallible but ultimately self-correcting, and the other reality views the climate research community as self-serving data fudgers. There is almost no cross-over here.
In much of the Western/developed world there is a range of opinion across parties. Much less so in the US (though the GOP is now fracturing between the Trumpers and the rest). In much of the rest of the world there are more than 2 parties. Perhaps the US has the most binary party system in the world.
It used to be that there was crossover between the two parties. Bipartisanship was a fairly normal occurrence. Now, if someone names their stance on a particular hot political topic, you can with much more certainty predict their stance on the rest.
The media has certainly played a big hand in the dumbing down of political discourse, which leads to these separate views of reality. Fox led the way on heavily partisan ‘news’ reporting, but the other MSM news services have adopted the same heavy bias. If you switch between MSNBC and Fox you will see very different takes on current affairs all the time. Before cable and the proliferation of digital media, you’d get similar stories on current affairs, with some different nuances. Now you get endless editorialising on the news from the anchors and their guests, and between news services the same story is reported significantly differently.
All this is bad for democracy. It reduces civic discourse to a football match, and the rhetorical impetus is to garner outrage. Thus, when lefties call for gun reform after a school shooting the right is goaded into thinking the 2nd Amendment right will be completely stripped, and the left is outraged into believing that the right don’t care about the lives of toddlers.
So, with the Trumpers and the generally enabling Republicans ready to trash democracy and the rule of law, and the political discourse reduced to a slug-fest, the US is not in peak shape at the moment. This is the polarisation and madness that I refer to. Recent reflections of this state of affairs are the stymying of government business with the record-breaking house speaker fiasco, the retaliatory nature of subjecting political rivals to impeachments, investigations and court cases, and the parlous compromise to fund the government.
And because I’ve lived in two democracies where these things aren’t happening, or at least to nowhere near these extremes, I know that it doesn’t have to be like this, and that it is far better if it isn’t like this.
barry, your haughty pontificating is negated by your own perversion of reality. You avoid the science. For example, where’s a valid response to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1559933
barry says:
”Bill,
The madness includes one party in the US being willing to trash democracy and even the constitution. The Republicans have defended the January 6 attack on the vote certification process, which successfully halted it. Republican members of congress have even lauded the perpetrators, gone to visit those convicted in prison, and whitewashed what happened that day.”
=========================
LOL! Boy you are sucker. The January 6 protests didn’t stop anything. The cowards ran away. The people that got into the capitol to voice their opinions didn’t harm anybody. The whole affair has been overblown. The reaction to it is what is totally out of line. The capitol didn’t get burned, the only people shot were protestors. The whole affair was similar to the Kent State protests against the Vietnam war where the people being harmed were the protestors.
My opinion is some criminal behavior was committed by a certain small number of people at the protest. But nothing dramatic occurred like burning the danged buildings down or igniting automobiles. Yes a few windows got smashed and a few people suffered minor injuries when people started pushing back at each other.
Democrats have defended protests that caused far more damage just in the same year.
Same thing here. Folks who got convicted for encouraging people to go to the protest or entered the capitol without damaging anything or anybody at all are the only people who had their rights violated. Grow up and grow some balls and stop acting like a manipulated snowflake. You groveling and fretting all over the place in anguish is really embarrassing.
“There’s no question none that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on Planet Earth.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Party Leader of the Senate.
Yes, you are indeed a Trumper, Bill. There you go whitewashing January 6.
You’ve overlooked my answer to your posit that Trump had nothing to do with the Capitol building being stormed: that he had been saying the election would be rigged months before the election, that he invited his followers to come to the Capitol on January 6, that he told them there they needed to fight like hell to keep their democracy, and then told them to go up to the Capitol building and send a message to the Republican senators there (they chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” remember?).
For the first time in US history the certification of a presidential election was interrupted by a violent mob storming the Capitol building. Senators both left and right were hurried away while the mob called out their names, and bashed on locked doors to get to them. Several people died that day, including a “protestor” shot while smashing in and trying to climb through some inner glass windows.
If I’m a sucker, so are Republicans in Trump’s orbit and in congress. So are Republican judges that sent them to jail for what they did, including judges appointed by Trump. Mitch McConnell is a sucker. Liz Cheney is a sucker. Mike Pence is a sucker. They all blame Trump for it, too.
No, you are the sucker, Bill. You don’t see the danger here. The Republican party, led by D Trump, has made political violence more palatable for its base. And this state of affairs won’t change while followers like yourself take a partisan stance that laughs it off.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real enough, and it’s all on the right.
Sorry Barry but you believe with all your heart every canard the democrats come up with.
And Nate he is going to drag in the Uniparty canards as well.
“Right now, we are governed by a uniparty that Speaker McCarthy has fused with Joe Biden and Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
OMG, Bill is aligned with Matt Gaetz?
Well all you are proving is your understanding of politics equals your understanding of science.
At least I understand that the leader of the R party in the Senate is not a Lib-tard.
Perhaps you may recall that he was largely responsible for getting a conservative super-majority on SCOTUS, which aint hardly a Lib-tard dream.
Images of the insurrection in the eyes of the lib-tards in this comment section.
https://youtu.be/AeAKzcGz-lY?si=1M-8RBtBe1JGOEH3
“January 6 was an inside job, by the establishment”
Ugggh, Goebbels would have admired this video. It is pure propaganda.
Bill, are you really buying this crap?
Huh? You think its fake?
Well, Bill, Germans had no other sources to check the claims of the propaganda. What’s your excuse?
So you believe somebody staged this in the Capital. Brought in a filming crew and hired actors? If not they what is your basis of calling it propaganda?
Plenty of Republicans congress critters have decried the storming of the Capitol by the MAGA crowd. So did Bill Barr, as well as Mike Pence, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney. So have Trump’s administration staffers.
Apparently these folk are in on the big lib-tard lie, huh?
I flicked through your video. The host shows one bit of footage of people walking through the Capitol, being “led” by police, implying it was peaceful. Later shows video of the police chief being interviewed by Carlson saying his people got their asses handed to them (ie, beaten up). Contradicts the first footage. Also contradicts the plenty of footage of that day with people throwing things, breaking down barriers, beating up cops (you reckon the chief lied on Carlson?), smashing windows and doors, and in one case, getting shot for it. The guy with the ‘badge’, by the way, is holding a vape. He’s been identified. Kevin Lyons. He’s not FBI. He’s currently serving 51 months for storming the Capitol. He’s not part of some mythical FBI operation to stir up the crowd. Typical right-wing conspiracy theorising – take a blurry photo and make up some sh!t.
I didn’t realize how jacked in to the conspiracy theories you are, Bill. If that video is the kind of source you get your info from, that explains a lot. Thankfully, there are plenty of high-level Republicans who have a spine and are not deluded to keep the record straight.
Well I have seen a lot of pushing and windows smashing by hoodlums from both sides of the aisle over the years.
I don’t condone any of that.
But once inside we have the video of the right wingers who wanted to be heard.
Usually for the left wingers its to the loot the place.
Ah yes, the whataboutism of the perennially partisan.
So now you concede that it was a bloody riot, but only as a foil for indicting lefties.
Peurile.
There are plenty of sources for Bill to check and verify whether the video is being accurate, truthful, and comprehensive. There is no excuse for accepting its contents without applying skepticism.
There are plenty of sources for Bill to check and verify whether the video is being accurate, truthful, and comprehensive. There is no excuse for accepting its contents without applying skep.ticism.
“a lot of pushing and windows smashing by hoodlums from both sides”
Into the Capital? No.
To stop democracy? No
To stop the transfer of power? No.
This is whataboutism, and deep denial.
Nate insurrections start with ”armed” mobs. I suppose you think the qanon shaman carrying a flag with a spear point as a finial qualified the crowd as armed. What a joke!
Our brave elected officials simply ran away in panic without a single threat or act of violence on anybody inside the Capitol.
The interruption was from pure cowardice on the part of those who purport to lead us. Its beyond me why not one elected person had the guts to face the protestors. Goes to show the ilk of those we elect to represent us. Pretty shameful.
‘”Nate insurrections start with ‘armed’ mobs.
Nonsense. There is no such rule.
They were armed with enough to break through the lines of riot police and into the building, and attack the VP, senators and congressmen, if they had not been evacuated.
Nate says:
Nate insurrections start with armed mobs.
Nonsense. There is no such rule.
They were armed with enough to break through the lines of riot police and into the building, and attack the VP, senators and congressmen, if they had not been evacuated.
————————
I agree there is no ”rule”. But when there is no rule one goes by precedence. How many unarmed successful insurrections have there been? Can you name any?
And because somebody wants to come into the capitol to voice their protest what was the threat to the officials? I didn’t see any. I thought they all ran like cowards except for a few who hung back to try to slow down the people knocking on the door. Did they get attacked? . . . .noooooo!
“somebody wants to come into the capitol to voice their protest what was the threat to the officials? ”
Reality distortion alert.
good leaders actually pay attention to their constituents. The ones that run away have a good reason in their own mind to run away.
“The ones that run away have a good reason in their own mind to run away.”
The capital police hurriedly evacuated Congress and the VP Pence.
And wisely so after fighting with these guys and being unable to keep them from breaking thru their defensive barriers. And then being unable to keep them from breaking the Capital doors and windows, and then being unable to prevent them from breaking into the Senate chamber and Speaker’s office, which were vandalized.
Lacking direct access to the minds of these people, the police had every reason to believe they intended violence on the leaders of government.
Nate says:
”And wisely so after fighting with these guys and being unable to keep them from breaking thru their defensive barriers. And then being unable to keep them from breaking the Capital doors and windows, and then being unable to prevent them from breaking into the Senate chamber and Speakers office, which were vandalized.”
Hmmm the Capitol police that were fighting the agitators did prevent them from entering the Capitol. The people who entered the Capitol did so without fighting anybody. Yes there was some vandalization maybe even some graffiti. But there wasn’t any evidence of wishing to destroy the Capitol or Democracy. All they wanted was a redress of their grievances regarding a appropriate response to their belief the election had been rigged.
But as we have seen getting appropriate responses out of government is a very time consuming thing and governments don’t want to be bothered about it as long as its not affecting them personally.
So yes there was some misbehavior on the part of the rioters. Some broke windows, some fought to get into the Capitol through the tunnel. But most just walked in carrying their American flags. And many of those were unfairly punished. People assaulting others or destroying property deserve to get some jail time. But that wasn’t at all true for a vast majority of all the people who were at the Capitol that day.
What should have happened is that police officer who shot that woman should have been prosecuted for murder. There probably isn’t a rank and file policeman in America who doesn’t think that. But the government isn’t going to do that because its contrary to the narrative they are selling you even while its been a big part of their narrative about policemen over the years. Undoubtedly one of the most hypocritical non-actions in history. That woman posed no threat to that policeman or anybody else.
“Hmmm the Capitol police that were fighting the agitators did prevent them from entering the Capitol. The people who entered the Capitol did so without fighting anybody”
Bullshit!
Obviously you only get highly filtered news from Right-Wing-Propaganda-R-US.
actually it was the January 6 committee of Congress was the one filtering information. That’s an established fact. Not prosecuting that officer who shot the unarmed woman was another information filtering strategy employed.
Dilbert on climate modeling
https://youtu.be/XqOjCPFPHWo?t=670
Thanks, not interested in cartoon ‘science’.
One wonders why anybody is.
Scott has over a million followers, Today Elon Musk retweeted his tweet, how many do you have ???
Science is correct or not, and is unrelated to how many followers it has.
Elon Musk retweets neo-Nazi rants.
total BS. Libs simply can’t look themselves in the mirror.
Bill is triggered, but who knows why.
It does trigger me when people promote double standards. Either you are against racism or you are for it. The left never likes hearing about when they are or were for racism.
In fact nothing is more American than calling it out when you see it.
In a moral world you would not see the ”not in my backyard” sort of hypocrisy that a lot of left leaning organizations are supporting these days.
Fact is Oct 7, 2023 is Israel’s September 11, 2001. And it seems like its ONLY the left that flip flops back and forth about what the appropriate response should be and should have been.
Likewise, the Jewish Community has the same sorts of divides in their own community. If the ADL is being hypocritical they should be called out and it is total BS that doing so is racist.
[s] I was thinking maybe we should pass a law to require everybody on social media to accurately list their family/race victim credentials so that government censors can more easily decide who to crack down on for what they deem to be inappropriate postings. [/s]
Harvard/Exeter grad, former assistant state Atty Gen of Massachusetts with impeccable establishment credentials, heir to insurance fortune, dies in 2001 and leaves his enormous fortune to an array of Nazis and white supremacists he’d been funding for years. Boston Globe, 7 January 2001.
https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3kflen74i742z
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html
Wee Will Wanker generates irrelevant gibberish, yet again!
Anti-semitism? White people? Elon Musk?
The majority of the world’s population are not white, not Semites, and not Elon Musk.
What any of this diversionary nonsense has to do with the GHE is beyond me, and the majority of the world’s population.
Willard lives in a strange fantasy world, where people value his opinions! Strange, indeed.
Mike Flynn brays again, but about what?
Wee Will Wanker generates irrelevant gibberish, yet again!
Anti-semitism? White people? Elon Musk?
The majority of the worlds population are not white, not Semites, and not Elon Musk.
What any of this diversionary nonsense has to do with the GHE is beyond me, and the majority of the worlds population.
Willard lives in a strange fantasy world, where people value his opinions! Strange, indeed.
Mike Flynn brays again, but about what?
Wee Will Wanker generates irrelevant gibberish, yet again!
Anti-semitism? White people? Elon Musk?
The majority of the worlds population are not white, not Semites, and not Elon Musk.
What any of this diversionary nonsense has to do with the GHE is beyond me, and the majority of the worlds population.
Willard lives in a strange fantasy world, where people value his opinions! Strange, indeed.
?tahw tuoba tub ,niaga syarb nnylF ekiM
Careful Swenson. You might get accused of gaslighting and driving Willard insane.
Gill brays again, but about what?
Wee Will Wanker generates irrelevant gibberish, yet again!
Anti-semitism? White people? Elon Musk?
The majority of the worlds population are not white, not Semites, and not Elon Musk.
What any of this diversionary nonsense has to do with the GHE is beyond me, and the majority of the worlds population.
Willard lives in a strange fantasy world, where people value his opinions! Strange, indeed.
It would be difficult to drive Willard insane – he got there by himself.
Mike Flynn brays again, but what about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Down to the last spot
https://i.postimg.cc/rmZDwTLK/HMIIF-1024.jpg
What will you say when the solar maximum is past, the El Nino is done, and the warmer Earth continues?
that the LLIA recovery continues as diagrammed by award winning geophysicist dr. syun ichi akasofu.
The ‘LIA recovery’ is an all-purpose flimsy excuse.
There is no clear mechanism behind it, no predictions that can be tested, thus no way to falsify it.
When does the ‘recovery’ start or end? Apparently it stops in 1940, and restarts and accelerates after 1980. There is no predicted end.
Nate says:
”When does the recovery start or end? Apparently it stops in 1940, and restarts and accelerates after 1980. There is no predicted end.”
ROTFLMAO!!
As to the fluctuations that climate models also fail to duplicate in 1940?
Those are climate anomalies of a different nature than the LIA recovery and your theory equally.
How can you possibly be so dense?
The fact you don’t know that and published such a ridiculous ”what if” shows clearly how fu-kked up your take is.
.
So you roll on the floor laughing and toss ad-homs again when you have no answers.
Still offer no mechanism or testable predictions for the ‘LIA recovery’ theory.
Lacking those, it cannot be falsified. Thus it counts as religion.
You are right Nate. When it comes to predicting climate neither you or I have a clue about what we are talking about.
You just blew it big time when you asked about the 1940’s and assumed after that the LIA ended. Perhaps so but warming from pet CO2 emissions theory must have also ended using your reasoning ability.
I truly was rolling on the floor laughing over that.
Pfft. The 1940’s gets you out of having any real science?
Obviously Nate if you think the 1940’s signalled the end of the LIA recovery you know absolutely nothing about climate or the weather.
“you know absolutely nothing about climate”
You are sounding more like Clint. Who constantly says such things when he has no science answers.
Again: where is your theory, and what are its predictions that we can test? When does the ‘little ice age recovery’ start and end, and why?
Lacking any of that, it is just hot air.
Nate says:
”Again: where is your theory, and what are its predictions that we can test? When does the little ice age recovery start and end, and why?”
Its not my theory Nate. Its Dr. Akasofu’s. You will have to ask him.
From an audit standpoint the LIA recovery is certainly not complete as that should take thousands of years for the ocean to warm up. Of course the issue is what percentage of the warming from the LIA recovery has been achieved. Gee we actually need to know a lot more about natural climate change to know the answer to that. And without that we don’t know anything regarding anthropogenic change as you need to close your budgets before you tell the public how warm its going to get.
“Its not my theory Nate. Its Dr. Akasofus. You will have to ask him”
So you are promoting a theory, but don’t seem to much about it.
Well, well.
And yet you express certainty;
” the LIA recovery is certainly not complete as that should take thousands of years for the ocean to warm up”
that makes no sense to me. The LIA itself lasted, at most two or three centuries, but its recovery goes on for thousands of years?
Of course it can end Nate by some other change overriding it and changing the direction temperatures are going. If nothing else changes warming will continue on forever warming the ocean that last small fraction of a degree. As you should know the rate of warming declines as the difference in temperature gets smaller. But you are too limited in grey matter to know what that implies.
“Of course it can end Nate by some other change overriding it and changing the direction temperatures are going.”
What is ‘it’? What is the mechanism that provides endless warming unless another thing comes along to stop ‘it’?
Makes no sense whatsoever.
The LIA had a cause, a cooling mechanism, such as the Maunder minimum, or volcanic activity at various times. Once that cooling mechanism ends the Earth warms again to its original temperature relatively quickly.
No other change is required to make that happen.
Quick recovery from Maunder Minimum seen in Central England Temp record. Then stable temps for 200 y.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File:CET_1659_-_2014_using_Hadley_Centre_Data.png
Of that is approximately correct. climate is affected by many things. If you live on an island and solar wattage increases you are going to experience some immediate warming.
But UK climate is also greatly affected by ocean currents. The North Atlantic drift is believed to keep UK warm. But if this current weakens then you are going to get cooler water transporting from the north. I am familiar with the North Pacific drift current and the California current for the west coast that keeps California warm in the winter and relatively cool in the summer because these currents don’t change temperature very fast. For UK a lot of ice likely has to melt over long periods of time as we have been seeing in recent years. The last time this occurred was during the warming surge of the 1930’s. NOAA has long held to a theory of solar activity driving these changes and nothing has been learned changes that. So what we saw was a recovery from the Maunder Minimum that was a 60 year period of near zero solar spots. The LIA was a longer period of 600 to 700 years that had 3 such minimums during its reign. So you first have a recovery of the sun that had triggered a massive increase in ice (thus named Little Ice Age). The recovery though didn’t quickly warm the ocean that can take hundreds of years. Glacial ice actually continued to increase for 125 years or so after the MM recovery so scientists believe the LIA may have begun to recover when those glacial advances turned in a retreat in the middle of th 19th century. What followed was a glacial ice retreat faster than the ice retreat of the past 30 years. That is yet another piece of the LIA recovery in the form of record solar activity of the the group of solar cycles extending from cycle 17 through 23. One can call it something like a full solar recovery or a solar grand maximum. One can also consider it an extension of the LIA recovery as the ice core records show regular climate variation on an approximate scale of 800 years for a full cycle. I realize it has been politically popular to bury the history of NOAA work in this area but that doesn’t mean the LIA recovery doesn’t continue. To break it may require 7 relatively low solar cycles and we only have one in the bank today.
Solar wind
speed: 315.4 km/sec
density: 8.84 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Nov 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 26
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 120 sfu
“New sunspot AR3489 is crackling with C-class solar flares.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.84×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
3489 looks a bit old, maybe it fade soon and we will get spotless day or two.
Oh, I do see another spot which coming from farside and in northern hemisphere- so, not likely.
Solar wind
speed: 321.2 km/sec
density: 2.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 39
“New sunspot AR3490 is crackling with M-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 127 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.45×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.1% Low
The northern spot 3490 is hoard of spots which still coming from farside.
And I would guess will be given one or two more numbers.
Solar wind
speed: 338.9 km/sec
density: 8.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 51
“Sunspot complex AR3490-91 is crackling with M-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.85×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
The horde has come and added just one, the 91, though might add more spot numbers to it as come more onto nearside. I also see another spot in south hemisphere coming from farside. But nearside is mostly blank or nothing going to farside in week of time, though things could fade in more than a week of time, or something might pop up in vast blank part of nearside. But 2/3rd of Nov is past, it seems it have to get very wild and crazy to have Nov to have over 100 sunspots.
So we got 3 sunspot numbers and tomorrow will probably be 4 or more.
Solar wind
speed: 321.5 km/sec
density: 3.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 127
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.70×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Low
From 3 to 9 sunspot numbers.
Also a spot appeared nearside, which doesn’t have number, yet.
Just past middle of nearside- far away from the 9 sunspot numbered.
Solar wind
speed: 533.7 km/sec
density: 4.24 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 138
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.70×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
“Sunspot complex AR3490-91-92 poses a growing threat for M-class solar flares.”
That small spot [past mid point of nearside {all others- aren’t in middle, facing Earth. Grew much bigger and got the latest number, 3498. 3487 has disappeared, 3486 has faded a lot. Don’t see any from from farside. “AR3490-91-92” may be more of threat, if survive to when it’s more facing Earth. Though instead of fading it might grow a lot and be a greater threat when closer to facing Earth.
I still think could have spotless before Nov ends. And Nov will be a low spot number month. It won’t lower than I guessed, and definitely not higher than I guessed.
“3487 has disappeared, 3486 has faded a lot.”
I meant, 3497 and 3496.
While here, “Current Auroral Oval:” is into northern 48 states.
And got some coronal hole, biggest is near AR3490-91-92. It’s ahead of them.
[Swenson] “There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total ‘radiation from the Earth’. ”
[Me] Yes there is. Lοοky here: https://youtu.be/DAKJJYC-Ss8
[Swenson] “There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the bandwidth of light – from frequencies approaching zero, to those approaching infinity.”
[Me] Lοοky here again: https://imgur.com/a/rHHgQPP
Move the goal posts much?
That video makes a f00l of you Ark. Taking readings at altitude is NOT “measuring the total radiation from Earth”.
This is all related to the bogus “EEI”. I found were bdgwx had made the claim: “The 36m and 12m Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) from CERES holds steady at +1.5 W/m2 and +2.0 W/m2 respectively.”
So, consider only his 36 month value — +1.5 W/m^2. That is supposedly the difference between the incoming and outgoing flux. As in, Flux-in minus Flux-out = 1.5 W/m^2.
Your job, since you support this nonsense, is to provide the values for “Flux-in” and “Flux-out”.
Of course, you can’t. That’s Swenson’s point, you don’t know the values. That’s just one of the reasons the EEI is bogus.
Clint R can find the EEI values requested in the 1969 NIMBUS report as I mentioned earlier. Also, in subsequent reports with 95% confidence in EEI so Clint R is just unable to do the work on his own lacking the basic knowledge. Funny, and entertainingly true.
95% confidence means anything you want it to mean in academia. but in professions where liability is attached it means something entirely different.
Bill,
Yes. How many of these “95 percenters” would board an aircraft if the pilot assured them that he was 95% confident that the plane would not crash?
It’s all about as silly as NASA management’s confidence in their ludicrous possible failure rate calculations which Feynman pointed out in the Rogers commission hearings.
Just another example of “formulas” and “calculations” leading to unnecessary deaths.
Reality eventually wins.
Very few Swenson.
Thats why there is a big difference in how 95% confidence is arrived at between academia and the professions. The academic confidence level only runs with training wheels should their predictions not pan out.
I wonder what drew Swenson to become a participant at this site, which measures the global atmospheric temperature by satellite, using radiance from oxygen molecules. Seems he would think the whole UAH enterprise is a joke.
Swenson is a sociopath. His only purpose is to insult, manipulate, deceive, and generally antagonize others. He’s not very intelligent that one.
https://youtu.be/hdJG5WpswDo
A,
Did you attend the same mindreading classes as some of your fellow SkyDragon cultists? You’ve all been had. Mindreading doesn’t work, but you believe in it anyway. More fo$#8204;ol you.
Surely you aren’t so weak minded as to feel insulted, manipulated, deceived and generally antagonised, by anything I may have said, do you? Grow some backbone – take a spoonful of cement and harden up!
Facts don’t give a fig for your tender ego – nor for my rather tougher one.
The GHE doesn’t exist. There – feel as insulted, manipulated, deceived, and antagonised as you like. Do you also think you have been bullied, or gratuitously insulted?
Poor darling, run to someone who cares.
Off you go, now.
barry,
Are you trying to make a point? If you are trying to engineer Dr Spencer into banning me, you might have to rely on something other than convincing him of your mind-reading talents.
Temperature is indeed a measure of one aspect of a body’s radiation – it’s degree of hotness, if you will. Certain practical considerations need to be considered, however. For example, sparks from a grinder may exceed 2000 C, but you will have difficulty measuring them any consumer thermometer. How many watts per square meter are these molten particles of iron emitting, and how effective are they at boiling your kettle?
SkyDragon cultists don’t seem to appreciate the difference between temperature, heat, radiance, or be able to seperate fact from fantasy.
Go on, describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality. If you can’t, you are just another mindless and gullible cult member, aren’t you?
Banned? How dramatic of you.
If you think using satellite measurements of radiation can’t give you an average radiating temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, you obviously can’t accept that the same way of measuring gives the average temperature of the troposphere.
So I wonder how you came to reside on this website. Must be the excellent company here….
barry, you’re confused by the issue, as usual.
The EEI nonsense tries to compare different fluxes, then claims it is energy! The UAH temperatures are simply temperatures. One is nonsense, one is science.
I don’t expect you to understand.
The UAH temperatures are derived solely from atmospheric radiation measurements.
That’s correct barry. That’s science.
Your cult’s EEI is nonsense.
“The EEI nonsense tries to compare different fluxes, then claims it is energy!”
Radiative flux IS energy.
“The UAH temperatures are simply temperatures.”
The UAH temperatures are derived from measuring radiative flux.
You throw word salads together to try and win points. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
My point is simple. Swenson says that no instrument can measure the totality of Earth’s radiation, therefore the energy budgets are bogus.
No instrument can measure the entirety of Earth’s O2 radiance, therefore the UAH temperature record must also be bogus.
It’s the same principle for both. UAH is measuring one component, EEI is measuring two (ASR – OLR). Both are well-corroborated.
But because Swenson writes one off on the principle that you can’t measure all the radiation globally, and the same is true of the other, both must therefore be written off.
Barry, you wrote –
“No instrument can measure the entirety of Earths O2 radiance, therefore the UAH temperature record must also be bogus.”
You just made that up yourself, and pretended that you were quoting me. Not even a good attempt at digging yourself out of the hole you are in.
You are obviously not the brightest, thinking nobody would notice that you just make stuff up as you go along.
No matter, I let others decide what to think.
No instrument can measure the total energy received by the Earth, nor that emitted by the Earth. Anybody claiming otherwise is either a fraud or mentally disturbed.
barry says:
1) ”Radiative flux IS energy.”
Yes this is correct. Radiative flux is all the photons hitting the detector which is equal to emitted plus reflected.
2) ”The UAH temperatures are simply temperatures.”
Wrong, its flux not temperature.
3) ”The UAH temperatures are derived from measuring radiative flux.”
I haven’t seen any temperatures calculated by UAH. They calculate anomalies from changes in flux over time.
2) “The UAH temperatures are simply temperatures.”
Wrong, its flux not temperature.
Thanks for that. The quote is Clint’s.
I havent seen any temperatures calculated by UAH. They calculate anomalies from changes in flux over time.
Oh dear.
Absolute temperatures are calculated based on radiance from O2 molecules. These are then converted to anomalies.
Roy Spencer:
“I sometimes get asked, why don’t we post absolute temperatures, rather than anomalies from the seasonal cycle, for our satellite data?
The answer, of course, is that the seasonal cycle is so large that it obscures the departures from normal. So, we (and other climate researchers) do departures from the seasonal norms….
…. the data were originally in Kelvin, I subtracted 273.15 to convert to absolute deg. C.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
barry, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
What are the units of UAH values?
“C” stands for Celsius, which is TEMPERATURE.
If you don’t feel stoopid now, then you STILL don’t understand.
Not my problem
Wild Bill shoots from the hip again, and loses another toe!
He doesn’t take the time to learn who made what quote, and he didn’t understand the quote or the context. He needs to take more time before commenting because when he does, he’s hits the bullseye.
For both Wild Bill and barr: Flux is NOT energy. Pay attention to the units.
Clint R says:
”Wild Bill shoots from the hip again, and loses another toe!”
Not correct. I said I had never seen any temperatures provided. I didn’t say they didn’t obtain temperatures.
In any case they derive anomalies from changes in radiative flux. The internal process of how they do that and present it monthly isn’t something I am privy to.
“No instrument can measure the total energy received by the Earth, nor that emitted by the Earth.”
Why not? This is just an assertion without any argument or rationale.
Wild Bill shoots from the hip again and loses another toe!
(He’s not taking time to read and understand before commenting.)
1) “Radiative flux IS energy.”
Yes this is correct. Radiative flux is all the photons hitting the detector which is equal to emitted plus reflected.
No Wild Bill, flux is NOT energy. Flux units are “energy per time per area”.
2) “The UAH temperatures are simply temperatures.”
Wrong, it’s flux not temperature.
No Wild Bill, UAH reports temperature anomalies. The units are degrees C.
barry,
You wrote –
“If you think using satellite measurements of radiation cant give you an average radiating temperature of the Earths atmosphere, you obviously cant accept that the same way of measuring gives the average temperature of the troposphere.”
You need to demand a refund from your mind-reading academy. What do base your bizarre assertion on?
You could always try quoting my exact words sometime, and the demonstrating that I was in error, by providing facts to support your opinion.
Trying to avoid facts, and resorting to silly innuendo and supposition doesnt seem to be doing you much good. You’re such a gullible SkyDragon cultist that you probably believe in the existence of a GHE that nobody at all can describe! Tell me it ain’t so – that you either don’t believe, or that you can provide a description!
What a donkey you are.
“There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total ‘radiation from the Earth’.”
Nor is there an instrument capable of measuring the total radiation from atmospheric O2 molecules.
Which is how UAH global is derived.
I guess you didn’t know. Like Clint.
You’re the one that doesn’t know, barry.
Quit trying to confuse the issue, like a cult child.
barry,
You wrote –
“Nor is there an instrument capable of measuring the total radiation from atmospheric O2 molecules.”
I’ll take your word for it, as it supports what I said.
Thanks.
Thanks to your poor memory you have now endorsed what I first remarked on. Bravo.
barry,
You wrote
Nor is there an instrument capable of measuring the total radiation from atmospheric O2 molecules.
Ill take your word for it, as it supports what I said.
Thanks.
Which supports the notion that you think it’s impossible to derive global temperature as UAH does. Thanks for corroborating my supposition about you.
Barry you will need to provide a source of the temperatures that UAH derives as I have never seen any such data.
You can get a description of the underlying data from any number of Roy Spencer/John Christie’s publications, or from Roy’s several posts on how UAH temperature products are made.
If you want to see the underlying data itself, try emailing Roy.
barry says:
”You can get a description of the underlying data from any number of Roy Spencer/John Christies publications”
Let me guess. . . you don’t have a link to any of them. Am I right?
Let me guess, you have no real interest in the topic, eh Bill?
Well it doesn’t make any difference. One can calculate anomalies directly without calculating the absolute temperature simply by noting the difference in watts received and converting that difference to an anomaly.
As we apply all this to the surface the mean absolute temperature as posted by someone in here is several degrees below freezing and 20+ degrees below the estimated surface temperature. Further we know that the CO2 control theory mandates that warming in this region of the atmosphere to be greater than surface warming. So that makes UAH as overestimating surface warming.
“One can calculate anomalies directly without calculating the absolute temperature simply by noting the difference in watts received and converting that difference to an anomaly.”
Temperatures, not Watts, are converted to anomalies for the UAH product.
You’re talking straight out of your behind.
How about we shift the burden of proof, and you demonstrate with a link that what you are saying is so.
What’s that Bill? Some retort where you don’t cough up? Deflect back onto me? Well, of course. You are completely incurious about the issue, and only interested in butting chests.
Or you could surprise us…
Barry is getting upset.
As I predicted.
when using ir detectors watts make up the dataset.
Can’t remember what you said? I’ll help.
You said that you reckon UAH work out their anomalies directly from watts, not from absolute temps.
Remember?
And I’ve asked you to corroborate that.
I know you’re wrong. I’ve read the papers.
You haven’t.
So I challenged you to corroborate you view by referencing anything from UAH, and predicted you wouldn’t.
And my prediction came true.
You’re talking out of your behind. You’re waffling because you don’t have a shred of substantiation for your dumb-ass comment. You made it up. And it’s more important to you to feel like you’ve won the conversation than get to the bottom of the matter.
Look, you’re about flap your jaws again rather than provide a lick of anything substantive in 3… 2…
A,
There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the entire energy spectrum. Radiation from the Earth is not confined to specific frequencies, regardless of what some uninformed “experts” from NASA, NOAA or the IPCC might have you believe.
If you don’t accept that measuring radiation received by the Earth from external sources s theoretically infinite in its range of frequencies, bad luck for you. If you believe that the range of frequencies emitted by the Earth is restricted, you might specify the numerical limits of those frequency bandwidths, and the power emitted at each of those frequencies.
See? You can’t even do that, can you? Your SkyDragon fantasies don’t translate into reality too well.
Posting irrelevant links, won’t help.
You have no doubt trawled the internet looking for some facts to contradict me, but you can’t find a single thing, can you?
Just like the dim-witted Willard, who continuously appealed to the authority of Mike Flynn, who agrees with me!
You exhibit a similar intellectual level.
The entire earth, and everything on the earth are in a temperature range that constantly emits infrared radiation. The earth constantly glows infrared light.
The sun, due to its higher surface temperature, emits higher energy radiation in the infrared to visible to ultraviolet range.
This is all common knowledge.
A,
“This is all common knowledge.”
All matter in the universe above absolute zero emits IR radiation. Agreed.
You write “The sun, due to its higher surface temperature, . . . “. You have that a little back to front, as the higher surface temperature results from something you don’t seem to be able to explain.
As to “emits higher energy radiation in the infrared to visible to ultraviolet range.”, maybe you are gullible enough to accept NASA’s fairytales for children, and gullible adults. Even NOAA says –
“According to the UCAR COMET Program, about 43% of radiant energy from the sun is in the visible part of the spectrum. That is the total amount of the sun’s energy integrated over wavelengths between about 400-700nm. Roughly 49% of solar radiation is infrared between 700nm-1mm; about 7% is from ultra-violet between 100-400mm; less than 1% of solar radiation is emitted as x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves.”
You see the “x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves”? Look up the maximum theoretical frequency of gamma rays, and you find there is none. Detected high energy gamma rays have around 50 billion times the energy of x-rays – and high energy gamma rays are emitted by the sun – and all the stars of course. Bleat all you want about the impact – you have no clue, have you?
Go back to your maniacal laughter. Reality seems too difficult for you.
“…theoretically infinite in its range of frequencies…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
A,
If you dont accept that measuring radiation received by the Earth from external sources is theoretically infinite in its range of frequencies, bad luck for you.
Laughing like a loon won’t make inconvenient truth go away.
Try again. Toss a fact or two into the arena, if you can find any that support you.
Off you go now.
theoretically infinite in its range
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Arkady (formerly Tyson McGuffin), please stop trolling.
Laughing even more maniacally still won’t turn your fantasy into fact.
Go on, try to define the range of light (photon) frequencies numerically. Can’t do it, can you?
Oh well, you tried to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but just wound up looking like a goat.
Carry on.
Go on, keep moving the goal posts.
Laughing even more maniacally still wont turn your fantasy into fact.
Go on, try to define the range of light (photon) frequencies numerically. Cant do it, can you?
Oh well, you tried to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but just wound up looking like a goat.
Carry on.
Laughing even more maniacally still wont turn your fantasy into fact.
Go on, try to define the range of light (photon) frequencies numerically. Cant do it, can you?
Oh well, you tried to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but just wound up looking like a goat.
Carry on.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Spot the problem with this model:
https://youtu.be/A1uLyWr-XDU?si=W_KeoT3EeFm_mHbJ
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that you’ll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Mike Flynn,
Too chicken to own that you’re Mike Flynn?
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that youll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
This seems like an irrelevant comment from our most irrelevant commenter, Mike Flynn.
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that youll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Another irrelevant comment from our most irrelevant commenter, Mike Flynn.
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that you’ll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Was that another irrelevant comment from our most irrelevant commenter, Mike Flynn?
Indeed it was!
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that youll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Mike Flynn,
The link is from Gaslighting Graham’s pet guru.
Aren’t you supposed to be on cranks’ side?
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that you’ll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Saying “The link is from Gaslighting Grahams pet guru.” is meaningless. You refuse to describe the contents, so why should I waste time looking at an irrelevant link?
Are you losing it? Given up on the GHE, have you?
Hee-haw.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.”
Are you really that dumb?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that youll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Saying The link is from Gaslighting Grahams pet guru. is meaningless. You refuse to describe the contents, so why should I waste time looking at an irrelevant link?
Are you losing it? Given up on the GHE, have you?
Hee-haw.
Mike Flynn,
You copy-pasted –
“Wonky Wee Willy,
That seems to be an irrelevant link, not a model.
Too frightened that youll look like a dummy if you describe the contents of your link?
Saying The link is from Gaslighting Grahams pet guru. is meaningless. You refuse to describe the contents, so why should I waste time looking at an irrelevant link?
Are you losing it? Given up on the GHE, have you?
Hee-haw.”
Are you sure you’re alright?
A better, more straightforward video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
As a hint to astute readers, they might need to revisit the concept of tidal locking.
Wily Wee Willy,
Cryptic, very cryptic. Hoping that people will think you are wise and knowledgeable?
Your hopes may well be dashed.
Try describing the GHE in some way that accords with reality, if you want to appear credible.
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
All you need is a few acronyms and you’re good to go.
Cheers.
Wily Wee Willy,
Cryptic, very cryptic. Hoping that people will think you are wise and knowledgeable?
Your hopes may well be dashed.
Try describing the GHE in some way that accords with reality, if you want to appear credible.
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
Come, now.
You don’t know what FLOM stands for?
Wily Wee Willy,
Cryptic, very cryptic. Hoping that people will think you are wise and knowledgeable?
Your hopes may well be dashed.
Try describing the GHE in some way that accords with reality, if you want to appear credible.
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
You are in Australia, and you can see the Moon.
Bob is on the other side of the Earth, and he can see the Moon.
Why is that?
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You are in Australia, and you can see the Moon.” Really? I can’t, but maybe you can provide some special “moon-seeing” device which will allow me to see the Moon in bright sunlight when it is below the horizon.
Have you completely lost control? It is impossible for normal people to perceive the moon through the bulk of the Earth – as would be the case for two people on opposite sides of the Earth, in the plane of the Moon’s orbit.
Maybe you should stick to being unable to describe the GHE. That way, you will just demonstrate a lack of knowledge, rather than severe mental impairment resulting in detachment from reality.
What do you think?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote
You are in Australia, and you can see the Moon. Really? I cant, but maybe you can provide some special moon-seeing device which will allow me to see the Moon in bright sunlight when it is below the horizon.
Have you completely lost control? It is impossible for normal people to perceive the moon through the bulk of the Earth as would be the case for two people on opposite sides of the Earth, in the plane of the Moons orbit.
Maybe you should stick to being unable to describe the GHE. That way, you will just demonstrate a lack of knowledge, rather than severe mental impairment resulting in detachment from reality.
What do you think?”
What are you braying about?
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“You are in Australia, and you can see the Moon.” Really? I cant, but maybe you can provide some special “moon-seeing” device which will allow me to see the Moon in bright sunlight when it is below the horizon.
Have you completely lost control? It is impossible for normal people to perceive the moon through the bulk of the Earth as would be the case for two people on opposite sides of the Earth, in the plane of the Moons orbit.
Maybe you should stick to being unable to describe the GHE. That way, you will just demonstrate a lack of knowledge, rather than severe mental impairment resulting in detachment from reality.
What do you think?
Mike Flynn,
You repeated –
Woeful Wee Willy,
“You are in Australia, and you can see the Moon. Really? I cant”
You can’t?
See the Moon?
In Australia?
Are you sure you’re alright?
Willard, how dim are you trying to be ?
It’s difficult for mere mortals to see the Moon when it is below the horizon, and even harder when the Sun is shining brightly.
Reality doesnt impinge on your fantasy to any appreciable degree, does it?
Mike, Mike,
Aussies can see the Moon.
Cheers.
I can vouch from experience that the moon is visible in Australia.
All this because in the following video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
Little Willy apparently believes the motion of the Earth is somehow relevant to the model!
They could have placed the model Earth on some low friction washer so that it could spin independently of the motion of the arm, and it would change absolutely nothing about what is being demonstrated.
Some people really are thick.
Thank you, Barry.
Little Willy shlurps on another one.
The cult is unable to find “flux-in” and “flux-out” for their +1.5 W/m^2 difference.
The cult is also missing their “REAL 255K surface”, and any verification that fluxes simply add, along with a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
They sure are missing a lot. Maybe they should check “lost and found”….
For Swenson:
A,
Maybe you can present a fact or two, rather than irrelevant cliches?
I guess you think you think that someone values your opinion about something. Can you name them? No? Maybe you should try actually committing yourself to something – describing the GHE in some way that reflects fact, might be a start.
Only having a laugh at your expense, of course.
Carry on trying to convince somebody that you are wise and knowledgeable.
[more laughter ensued]
“Can you name them?”
Swenson.
You obviously hang on my every word.
The fact that you pay attention to everything I post, eagerly posting a response, indicates a high level of interest, admiration, or perhaps dependence on my opinions.
There is no doubt that you value and take to heart everything I say.
A,
Maybe you can present a fact or two, rather than irrelevant cliches?
I guess you think you think that someone values your opinion about something. Can you name them? No? Maybe you should try actually committing yourself to something describing the GHE in some way that reflects fact, might be a start.
Only having a laugh at your expense, of course.
Carry on trying to convince somebody that you are wise and knowledgeable.
[more laughter ensued]
Ball4 has made a SkyDragon cult breakthrough – or not.
He wrote –
“Clint, no, you are wrong, the sun warms the planet! Added CO2 enables the sun to warm the lower atm. while equally cooling the upper atm. regions.”
In Ball4’s world CO2 allows sunlight to create both warming and cooling, at the same time. This no doubt accounts for the indescribable GHE causing warming here, and cooling there. Floods, drought, heat waves, cold snaps, earthquakes, tsunamis, gonorrhoea and diarrhoea – all due to the magical effects of CO2 on sunlight!
Does it have the same effect on moonshine, as moonshine has on Ball4, I wonder? He either drinks too much of it, or exposes himself too much moonshine from the full moon.
Luckily, those who value Ball4’s opinions seem conspicuous by their absence.
I’ve learned not to waste much time with brain-dead Ball4. He’s about as dense as Norman, without the anal fixations. Both like to make claims they can’t support. Then they respond with something like “the evidence is out there”.
It’s like dealing with squirming kids.
“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region. It was not a true ice age of global extent. The term was introduced into scientific literature by Franois E. Matthes in 1939. The period has been conventionally defined as extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The LIA wasn’t a true Ice Age. But we have been in the Late Cenozoic
Ice Age for 33.9 million years.
Rather than call it an Ice Age {And Earth had 5 of them that know about] you also call it an Icehouse global climate.
An Icehouse global climate is defined by having an Ice Sheet in one of polar regions. And Antarctica has had ice sheet starting about 33.9 million years ago. Though it wasn’t a permanent Ice sheet for 33.9 million years, though we can say in last few million years it has been permanent and also in last couple million years the ice sheet of Greenland formed and has been permanent.
The other part definition of Icehouse global climate is having a cold ocean, or 33.9 million years ago the average temperature entire ocean became cold. And with this cold ocean, it allowed an Ice Sheet to first form in Antarctica.
Presently your ocean is much colder than it was 33.9 million year ago, the average temperature of entire ocean is roughly about 3.5 C.
Most of Earth’s history has had ocean a lot warmer than 3.5 C.
Most of the 33.9 million year, Late Cenozoic Ice Age, has had ocean warmer than 3.5 C.
In Last interglacial period, it has been guessed the average temperature of the Ocean was 4 C or more. And this was called “The Eemian (also called the last interglacial, Sangamonian Stage, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, penultimate interglacial,Valdivia or Riss-Wrm)”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
And sea level were thought to be 4-9 meter higher, than our present sea levels. And thought that a significant amount of Greenland ice sheet had melted, or roughly some of it, 4 meters and a lot more, 9 meter of sea level rise {or also some came from Antarctica ice sheet.
Back to LIA, it was called little ice age, because most of glaciers in the world were advancing for centuries, and around 1850, they started to retreat.
Swenson’s argument that “There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total ‘radiation from the Earth’ “ because “There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the bandwidth of light – from frequencies approaching zero, to those approaching infinity,” is fallacious.
A simple analogy effectively illustrates the fallacy in the argument.
Just as we can design clocks to measure time despite the abstract concept of time being infinite, we can build instruments to measure Earth’s electromagnetic emissions even though the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite.
The key lies in focusing on the specific range of interest and designing instruments tailored to capture and analyze the emissions within that range.
Both time measurement and electromagnetic emission measurement demonstrate that practical instruments can be developed to address specific aspects within seemingly infinite domains.
Arkady (formerly Tyson McGuffin), please stop tr0lling.
Pray tell what in my comment constitutes t r o l l i n g.
I’m not a real moderator. I’m just having a bit of fun. It upsets people when they don’t get to have the last word.
Fair enough.
I don’t care to have the last word. I much prefer to have the first word.
So, go on and do your worst.
I wrote neither the 6:46 AM comment, nor the 6:55 AM comment. That was the DREMT impersonator (who I’m guessing is Arkady).
I didn’t write the message. The DREMT impersonator did. You can tell when the DREMT impersonator writes the message, because he uses a "0" instead of an "o".
The DREMT impersonator (which is probably Arkady himself) makes a mockery of the entire system.
DREMT, the attempt to impersonate you shows how effective you are. Such nonsense is just a response to our bringing reality to the cult. They hate that.
Warning – The names have been changed to protect the stjupid
True Clint. They do hate reality. Especially Objective Physical Reality (OPR).
Hey, Pupman. Riddle me this:
Is the Earth always looking at the Moon from the same side?
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
Yeah DREMT, and because they’re so ignorant and immature they often don’t even know the reality. So when it’s explained to them, you can almost see the foam coming out of their mouths.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Hey, Willard. Riddle me this:
Why do you refuse to provide a description of the GHE which agrees with reality?
Are you gullible or simple?
DREMPT,
The SkyDragon cultists can’t cope with reality. They believe facts are born of consensus. They believe that temperature, or total energy, or something, is expressed in W/m2, and temperatures can therefore be meaningfully added – or maybe not? They never actually express their beliefs clearly, and so cannot be held to account.
They can’t describe the GHE, which is handy, because they can then claim the GHE causes heating, cooling, or both simultaneously!
A veritable herd of aimlessly shambling donkeys.
Reality is that the Moon shows its face to everyone on Earth, Pupman, and Moon Dragon Cranks can’t do nothing about it.
Wondering Wee Willy,
“Reality is that the Moon shows its face to everyone on Earth, “. Yes, that is readily observed, and tolerably well known.
Presumably, you had a reason for your silly comment, but the reason (if any) is obscure.
Maybe you could follow up by pointing out that the Sun rises in the morning.
Hee-haw!
Mike Flynn,
The fact that the Moon shows its face to everyone on Earth proves that it does not move like a ball on string.
If you do not know why this matters for Pupman and Gaslighting Graham, then perhaps you should sit this one out.
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote –
“The fact that the Moon shows its face to everyone on Earth proves that it does not move like a ball on string.” Why didn’t you just say that at the beginning?
Well, no, it shows precisely the opposite.
But you will try any silly diversion to avoid admitting that you won’t even commit yourself to whether the GHE is supposed to heat, cool, or do both simultaneously!
Next diversionary attempt?
Mike Flynn,
Gaslighting Graham mentioned Objective Reality.
In the only reality I know, the Moon is not transported by the Earth.
There’s a very simple reason why.
I’ll let you guess which one.
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote
“The fact that the Moon shows its face to everyone on Earth proves that it does not move like a ball on string.” Why didnt you just say that at the beginning?
Well, no, it shows precisely the opposite.
But you will try any silly diversion to avoid admitting that you wont even commit yourself to whether the GHE is supposed to heat, cool, or do both simultaneously!
Next diversionary attempt?
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, Mike.
Willard,
You wrote
“The fact that the Moon shows its face to everyone on Earth proves that it does not move like a ball on string.” Why didnt you just say that at the beginning?
Well, no, it shows precisely the opposite.
But you will try any silly diversion to avoid admitting that you wont even commit yourself to whether the GHE is supposed to heat, cool, or do both simultaneously!
Next diversionary attempt?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Well, no, it shows precisely the opposite.”
The opposite?
What are you braying about?
A,
You wrote –
“Pray tell what in my comment constitutes t r o l l i n g.”
That constitutes trolling. Unless you really were trying to increase your knowledge, but lack a proper command of the English language, of course.
Go on, provide some light relief, and provide some silly justification in your defence.
You could always claim mental impairment.
You can’t even commit yourself to saying that the GHE results in heating – or cooling! What’s left to you, except to try being diversionary?
Mike Flynn,
Go on. Try to increase your knowledge.
A,
You wrote
“Pray tell what in my comment constitutes t r o l l i n g.”
That constitutes trolling. Unless you really were trying to increase your knowledge, but lack a proper command of the English language, of course.
Go on, provide some light relief, and provide some silly justification in your defence.
You could always claim mental impairment.
You can’t even commit yourself to saying that the GHE results in heating or cooling! What’s left to you, except to try being diversionary?
A,
You wrote –
“Swensons argument that .There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total ‘radiation from the Earth’ ” because “There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the bandwidth of light from frequencies approaching zero, to those approaching infinity,” is fallacious.
You donkey, that’s not an argument, it’s a fact.
You have no doubt searched the internet, and discovered that I am correct. Gnash your teeth all you like, the facts won’t change.
In typical SkyDragon cult fashion, you lurch off into irrelevant analogies, hoping that nobody will notice that you are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that I am right – and you are wrong!
Keep waffling – you are a dill who can’t even describe the GHE which you seem to think exists! You won’t even commit yourself yourself to what this GHE is supposed to do!
Who would value the opinions of someone who can’t even state what they believe in?
ark…”Just as we can design clocks to measure time despite the abstract concept of time being infinite, we can build instruments to measure Earths electromagnetic emissions even though the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite”.
***
You missed the thrust of Swenson’s reply that ‘no instrument’ has the bandwidth to measure all EM frequencies. They don’t even have one to measure all IR frequencies simultaneously.
The instruments depends on a detector element and no known instrument has a detector that can measure across such a vast range of frequencies.
Even your comment about a clock measuring time is wrong. Clocks do not measure time, they generate it. A clock is a rotary machine that is synchronized to the Earth’s rotational period. Before clocks were synchronized internationally to Greenwich mean time, all clocks around the world read different times.
There is no such thing as infinite time for the simple reason that time has no existence independent from the human mind. Put another way, there is nothing called time to measure.
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote –
“If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?”
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Mike Flynn brays again.
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Mike Flynn brays again.
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Mike Flynn brays again.
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Hee haw.
Mike
Flynn
brays
again
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Hee haw.
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Hee haw.
Mike Flynn repeated twice what he repeated many times already.
Is he OK?
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Hee haw.
Are you OK, Mike?
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Hee haw.
Mike Flynn,
You do not understand why I mention objective reality, don’t you?
Earlier, wonky Wee Willy wrote
“If not, in which O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y that it does?”
His gibberish generator is faltering. Obviously needs adjustment.
Hee haw.
Then you wrote “You do not understand why I mention objective reality, dont you?”.
Your grasp of English grammar is faltering. Needing a refresher course, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
You do not understand why I mention objective reality, dont you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It is estimated that an overwhelming majority of goods, around 80 percent, are transported by ships. The volume of seaborne trade has been showing a growing trend since 1990. Between 1990 and 2021, the volume of cargo transported by ships more than doubled, from four to nearly 11 billion tons. Oct 27, 2023
What else has more the doubled between 1990 and 2021?
gb,
If the number of ships has doubled, maybe the heat they emit might have doubled? Would this show up on satellite heat sensors?
Particularly at night, of course.
NullSchoolEarth shows nitrous oxide tracks caused by shipping. Temperature tracks not showing; heat from ships is too insignificant.
Ken,
“heat from ships is too insignificant.” That would be like the IPCC declaring “Recent studies confirm that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the global temperature record are negligible . . .” In relation to the UHI, would it? The IPCC might have had a rethink since then.
I only suggested that doubling the number of ships might double the amount of heat they emit, and that this might be detectable by satellite heat sensors.
Feel free to fly off at a tangent.
Global population has more than doubled 1990 – 2021
Really? News to me. I thought 1990 population was around 5.3 billion, 2021 around 7.9 billion.
One of us is wrong, but whom?
Perhaps global population that imports and exports has doubled {or it reflects increase in global wealth [a decrease in global poverty]}.
How about global weight of people has doubled [they are on average, older].
wee willy…”You are in Australia, and you can see the Moon.
Bob is on the other side of the Earth, and he can see the Moon.
Why is that?”
***
Easy wee willy, but you don’t need all that to see the point.
You are standing at one end of an oval race track’s major axis and I am standing at the other end. We are both facing the track. A driver is a driving a car CCW using a North America car with the driving wheel on the left hand side.
As he drives past you he is on the inside of the track to you and as he drives past me at the other end of the track I see exactly the same side of the car as you. In fact, anyone standing along the perimeter of the track would see exactly the same side of the car.
The car has not rotated about its COG otherwise it would have spun out. The Moon orbits in exactly the same manner as the race car. No rotation, only curvilinear translation.
The mistake you and all spinners are making is falling for the illusion that the driver is rotating about some kind of local axis. He is not, his body cannot rotate because he is strapped into the car and sitting on a seat so it is impossible for him to rotate like that.
Cool story, Bordo. It misses two bits.
B1. According to other Moon Dragon Cranks, the “driver” is supposed to drag the Moon through the sky. How would that work if the Moon and the Earth aren’t perfectly synchronized?
B2. Your frame of reference makes the Earth the center of everything. Do you accept the consequences of this decision?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
B1? B2? What pretentious nonsense is this?
Presumably, Moon Dragon Cranks are the dribblings of your fetid imagination. What do you really mean, and why not say what you mean? You realise that it is no longer believed that celestial beings (Moon Dragon Cranks) are involved in the motion of the Moon. Gravity does the job, as explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
The idea that the Earth is the center of “everything”, which you expressed, does not seem to be shared – apart from the mentally afflicted. The Earth is at one focus of the Moon’s elliptical orbit, according to Sir Isaac Newton, but you are free to believe in Moon Dragon Cranks dragging the Moon along its orbit.
Are you quite mad, or just pretending?
Is all this an effort to disguise the fact that you can’t even say whether the GHE causes warming, cooling, or both simultaneously! How hard can it be to say what you believe?
Very, apparently. Reality doesn’t seem to be your friend.
Mike Flynn,
Presumably? Dribblings?
You obviously do not have the slightest idea what you’re braying about.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
B1? B2? What pretentious nonsense is this?
Presumably, Moon Dragon Cranks are the dribblings of your fetid imagination. What do you really mean, and why not say what you mean? You realise that it is no longer believed that celestial beings (Moon Dragon Cranks) are involved in the motion of the Moon. Gravity does the job, as explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
The idea that the Earth is the center of everything, which you expressed, does not seem to be shared apart from the mentally afflicted. The Earth is at one focus of the Moons elliptical orbit, according to Sir Isaac Newton, but you are free to believe in Moon Dragon Cranks dragging the Moon along its orbit.
Are you quite mad, or just pretending?
Is all this an effort to disguise the fact that you cant even say whether the GHE causes warming, cooling, or both simultaneously! How hard can it be to say what you believe?
Very, apparently. Reality doesnt seem to be your friend.
Mike,
You repeat your braying.
Why?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
B1? B2? What pretentious nonsense is this?
Presumably, Moon Dragon Cranks are the dribblings of your fetid imagination. What do you really mean, and why not say what you mean? You realise that it is no longer believed that celestial beings (Moon Dragon Cranks) are involved in the motion of the Moon. Gravity does the job, as explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
The idea that the Earth is the center of everything, which you expressed, does not seem to be shared apart from the mentally afflicted. The Earth is at one focus of the Moons elliptical orbit, according to Sir Isaac Newton, but you are free to believe in Moon Dragon Cranks dragging the Moon along its orbit.
Are you quite mad, or just pretending?
Is all this an effort to disguise the fact that you cant even say whether the GHE causes warming, cooling, or both simultaneously! How hard can it be to say what you believe?
Very, apparently. Reality doesnt seem to be your friend.
Are you OK, Mike Flynn?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
B1? B2? What pretentious nonsense is this?
Presumably, Moon Dragon Cranks are the dribblings of your fetid imagination. What do you really mean, and why not say what you mean? You realise that it is no longer believed that celestial beings (Moon Dragon Cranks) are involved in the motion of the Moon. Gravity does the job, as explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
The idea that the Earth is the center of everything, which you expressed, does not seem to be shared apart from the mentally afflicted. The Earth is at one focus of the Moons elliptical orbit, according to Sir Isaac Newton, but you are free to believe in Moon Dragon Cranks dragging the Moon along its orbit.
Are you quite mad, or just pretending?
Is all this an effort to disguise the fact that you cant even say whether the GHE causes warming, cooling, or both simultaneously! How hard can it be to say what you believe?
Very, apparently. Reality doesn’t seem to be your friend.
Mike Flynn,
Which part of
“the driver is supposed to drag the Moon through the sky. How would that work if the Moon and the Earth arent perfectly synchronized?”
you do not get?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Which “driver is supposed to drag the Moon through the sky.”?
Are you so gullible you believe that a “driver is supposed to drag the Moon through the sky.”?
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is sufficient to explain the Moon’s motion. You may choose to believe in “drivers” or “forcings” as you wish.
You can’t even commit yourself to whether the GHE is supposed to heat, cool, or do both simultaneously! Come on Willard, here’s your chance to educate the great unwashed (and defend your position, of course).
Are you up to the task?
“Are you so gullible you believe that a “driver is supposed to drag the Moon through the sky.”?”
Yes, apparently he is, Swenson. With the XY plotter equipment, which Little Willy (and all “Spinners”) supports, you would have to believe there is a big celestial “hand” moving the moon around in its orbit, since there is no connection between the object that is orbiting and the object being orbited with that equipment.
With the CSAItruth equipment (that the “Non-Spinners” support) there is a connection between the object that is orbiting and the object being orbited. Thus, gravity is represented.
Gaslighting Graham forgets to say that gravity is “represented” by tying the Moon to the same face of the Earth.
That does not represent how the actual Earth-Moon system behaves.
That does not represent how gravity works at all.
Some “representation” we got there!
“They could have placed the model Earth on some low friction washer so that it could spin independently of the motion of the arm, and it would change absolutely nothing about what is being demonstrated.
Some people really are thick.”
FIFGGFOHN:
“They could have placed the model Moon on some low friction washer so that it could spin independently of the motion of the arm, and it would change absolutely nothing about what is being demonstrated.
Some people really are thick.”
Ignoring Little Willy’s ridiculous diversion…
"That does not represent how gravity works at all"
It’s not perfect, but at least it’s something. The XY plotter equipment implies that there is no gravity at all, and the moon is just shunted around the Earth by some giant cosmic hand.
Of the two, the CSAItruth equipment is preferable.
“The XY plotter equipment implies that there is no gravity at all, and the moon is just shunted around the Earth by some giant cosmic hand.”
Nothing of the sort. It’s job is to reproduce the same motion as the Moon has, not to reproduce the same mechanism.
People seem to forget that these devices are all about showing the planetary motion on a table top.
https://www.signals.com/graphics/products/zoom/HBA216.jpg
Exactly, Nate.
Astute readers might wonder what “represents” gravity in Gaslighting Graham’s merry-go-round…
Little Willy, once again, has no response to my argument, and so tries to change the subject.
Gaslihgting Graham, once again, keeps gaslighting. The only models Moon Dragon cranks found so far “represent” mutual tidal lock. The Earth-Moon system isn’t in a mutual lock.
Besides, his allusion to a “low friction washer” hints at the correct representation:
Both the Moon and the Earth should have such a washer!
Little Willy – how many times, and in how many different ways, do I have to explain that the motion of the Earth is completely irrelevant to the CSAItruth model? Here’s another way – with the XY plotter equipment, there isn’t even a model Earth at all!
"Both the Moon and the Earth should have such a washer!"
Give the model moon on the XY plotter equipment such a washer, too. Then you’ve rendered two pieces of equipment essentially useless at replicating multiple types of movement.
With the way the equipment is currently, both require a motor to spin the moon. They’re comparable, in that way. That makes "spin" equal between the two. The difference, then, lies in "orbit".
Of course, "orbital motion" involves gravity. So, you need something linking the object being orbited to the object doing the orbiting. Thus, the CSAItruth equipment is preferable to the XY plotter equipment.
Now, you can dodge the argument another way.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther purports to demonstrate that the Moon *cannot* spin. To show that, he connects the Earth and the Moon together, and puts a motor on the Earth and on the Moon. As the Earth turns on itself, the Moon moves around the Earth. His argument is thus that the Moon *already* changes orientation as it orbits the Earth: if the motor on the Moon *also* turned the Moon, it would stop showing its same side to the Earth.
The argument falters when we observe that this external rotation contains both a displacement and a change of orientation. The contraption thus makes the displacement and the change of orientation interdependent.
There is absolutely no way that Gaslighting Graham can muddle the issue. He lost. He should grow up and move on.
“Of course, “orbital motion” involves gravity. ”
Which is not an attachment. When are these guys going to stop fantasizing that it is?
Thus cannonballs and planets and comets and asteroids spin every which way, and sometimes move away from and sometimes toward the source of gravity, while orbiting or passing through a gravitational field.
Nothing like what an attachment would allow.
,
"The argument falters when we observe that this external rotation contains both a displacement and a change of orientation"
Obviously, a rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) involves a change of orientation. So what? Just because you’re unable to get your head around how "spin" is then separate and independent from this, doesn’t mean that nobody else can.
You’re distracting from the fact that you cannot refute my argument. Again. In fact, you can’t even address the argument.
So I guess you lose. Again.
Gaslighting Graham keeps spinning an analytic truth:
Why does he need to add that parenthesis? Astute readers can see that he’s pulling the same trick as when he tries to redefine an orbit as an orbit without spin!
At least he silently concedes that he’s wrong about (4), for that analytic truth is incompatible with (4)!
Moreover change of orientation implies a rotation. That rotation can only be identified when we fix a frame of reference. So not only his (4) is wrong, but his (3) is wrong too!
Perhaps one day Gaslighting Graham will be able to work with analytical truths instead of silly word games, abstruse acronyms, and childish thought experiments.
I’m correct on my point 4). “Orbit” and “spin” are independent with both the XY plotter equipment and the CSAItruth equipment. The difference is in what “orbit” is, in either case.
I’m also correct on my point 3), as explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557174
Now, stop evading the argument.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again. The very idea that a rotation about an external axis involves a change of orientation makes orbit and spin depend on one another! The only way he can escape that conclusion is by redefining orbit and spin.
And what he calls his “argument” has already been countered many times already. If he can think of a low friction washer for the Earth, he certainly can think of a low friction washer for the Moon. Only by having a washer for the Earth and and a washer for the Moon would the CSA Truther’s contraption model orbit and spin in a truly independent way!
DREMT’s point 3) as linked remains, in part wrong, because reference frames as commented are useful, and necessary… because all motion is relative.
“Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again. The very idea that a rotation about an external axis involves a change of orientation makes orbit and spin depend on one another!”
False. You only think that because you cannot break this mental association you have with a change of orientation having to equal “spin”. The existence of the transformation “rotation about an external axis” destroys that notion, however.
“And what he calls his “argument” has already been countered many times already. If he can think of a low friction washer for the Earth, he certainly can think of a low friction washer for the Moon. Only by having a washer for the Earth and and a washer for the Moon would the CSA Truther’s contraption model orbit and spin in a truly independent way!”
False:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561328
I am just having to repeat myself over and over again, because you have no rebuttal to my argument. You can’t even address it. So all you do is distract and divert and repeat previously debunked claims and arguments in the hope that I will give up repeating myself.
“The difference is in what orbit is, in either case.”
Why do people assert, without any evidence, that ordinary words like ORBIT, SPIN and ORIENTATION change their definitions, with different equipment?
It shows that their entire line of argument is built on semantic gimmicks.
I see Nate commented again. I wonder if he will ever have the integrity to correct bobdroege on my point 2). Probably not.
Oh well. My points 1) – 4) remain correct, anyway, regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue. Always have been correct, always will be.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Geometry has no power over what the Moon does. Its orbit is not circular anyway. Therefore so much the worse for Moon Dragon cranks.
“Geometry has no power over what the Moon does.”
Indeed. And, that wasn’t what I was suggesting.
You’ve evaded the argument for so long now that I’m forced to assume you concede. Which means, you concede the entire debate.
Thanks.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
“And what he calls his “argument has already been countered many times already.”
It hasn’t, as your counter was countered:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561328
and you had no response except to change the subject.
So that’s another evasion.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Since he hasn’t countered my argument, I consider myself the winner of another exchange.
Success!
You’re welcome to consider yourself the victor…astute readers will know better.
Astute readers ought to have realized by now that if both the Moon and the Earth have a friction washer, neither will change orientation in the CSA Truther’s contraption.
…rendering the CSAItruth equipment useless at replicating different movements (combinations of "orbit" and "spin"). Just as if you placed a low-friction washer on the model moon in the XY plotter equipment.
Little Willy’s not the brightest.
“Of course, “orbital motion” involves gravity. So, you need something linking the object being orbited to the object doing the orbiting. Thus, the CSAItruth equipment is preferable to the XY plotter equipment.”
Again, when are these guys going to stop fantasizing that gravity acts like an arm is attached between the Earth and the Moon?
It’s like they lack the abstract thinking ability needed to imagine how gravity operates on planets DIFFERENTLY than the way Earthbound objects interact via contact with each other.
Gravity behaves quite differently from tabletop devices used to illustrate planetary motion.
But, sadly, they simply cannot wrap their mind around it.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
With a friction washer on the Moon and the Earth, the CSA Truther’s contraption could simulate the actual motion of the Moon the same way the NASA video does:
https://moon.nasa.gov/moon-in-motion/earth-and-tides/tidal-locking/
Besides, Gaslighting Graham still does not get that the plotter emulates general motion!
“With a friction washer on the Moon and the Earth, the CSA Truther’s contraption could simulate the actual motion of the Moon the same way the NASA video does:“
How would you get the moon to spin at the right speed and in the right direction? The “moon spin” motor would do nothing. It would be rendered ineffective by the low-friction washer.
Gaslighting Graham might be starting to think:
Has he forgotten that the CSA Truther had motors under each celestial body?
Has he asked the same question regarding the CSA Truther’s contraption?
Do astute readers notice when Gaslighting Graham dismiss details as irrelevant and when he finds them critical?
If only you’d continued reading to the next sentence:
"The “moon spin” motor would do nothing. It would be rendered ineffective by the low-friction washer."
Bill,
“Bob repeats the best scientific argument for the moon not rotating around the earth that he has been able to muster to date. [/s]”
That’s correct Bill, The Moon is revolving around the Earth, not rotating, learn and respect the difference.
bob posts in the wrong place.
Gaslighting Graham forgets that he himself declared:
“The discussion continued down-thread”
Continued. Past tense. As in, it’s done. We’re done. I don’t know why you keep responding, but we’re done. The discussion is at an end. All arguments have been made. No need to keep endlessly repeating ourselves. The readers will decide. Etc etc.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Now that Bob won another round, who could blame him?
Willard declares Bob the winner for bring forth a semantical argument as an answer to a science question.
Meanwhile the spinners haven’t found a single iota of scientific evidence for their conclusion that the moon spins independently of its orbit on its own axis.
Obvious trolling.
Gill confuses semantics with frames of reference, but then he’ll do whatever he can to please Daddy Gaslighting Graham.
Even more obvious trolling.
Willard says:
”Gill confuses semantics with frames of reference, but then hell do whatever he can to please Daddy Gaslighting Graham.”
Willard is doing his best to make the sciences a matter of perception as opposed to physical forces that control the moon’s motion.
But I suppose when you find yourself on the wrong side of a physics argument your best strategy is to use smoke and mirrors and claim that an observer’s frame of reference is what causes the moon to move.
Bishop Berkeley would be proud of you Willard.
Gill claims that he can do physics without any frame of reference.
Still more obvious trolling.
We are not the ones claiming we know the objective physical reality.
You guys are. And it is TMDNS.
But you still offer nothing substantive to support this BS claim.
Meanwhile astronomy, physics, and engineering find no use for TMDNS model, and instead apply the universal, physically motivated model in which TMDS.
You guys can keep screaming into the wind that TMDNS is better, but obviously you have not made the case.
So that’s really all there is to that.
…more obvious trolling.
Willard says:
Gill claims that he can do physics without any frame of reference.
————————–
I am just going by the fact that DREMT brought forth an actual working device demonstrating the point.
When you do the same you can bring up that topic again.
Willard says:
”Gill claims that he can do physics without any frame of reference.”
And on this point the answer is of course you can!
A frame of reference is essentially training wheels for students studying physics. You can take them off and pass them on to younger students after you pass through the apprenticeship level in experience.
Gill is so good at physics that he can tell rotations without identifying any axis of rotation.
He just feels them.
No wonder he can rotate a celestial body in an elliptical path!
that is just the way it appears to flat earthers.
The axis of rotation is in the middle of the ellipse its the focal points that are not. For the moon the axis of the earth serves as the rotational point. The path of the moon however is elliptical because of other forces and momentums of the moon and the angle of its path.
Use isometric transpositions to draw the ellipse and see the axis. All circles are ellipses of various shapes depending upon your perspective. Likewise since a circle is a special instance of an ellipse there is a perspective plane where any ellipse is a circle.
I learned this in 9th grade drafting back in the 1950’s. Where we were taught how to draw ellipses. Isometrics is something other than an exercise. In fact I did learn about isometric exercises until more than a decade later.
https://www.g-wlearning.com/cad/0619/ch04/data/supmat04a.pdf
Gill still drags a losing position:
That’s only true for special ellipses: circles.
LMAO!
Willard again confounds drawings and perspectives with the energies of motion. I guess its the fault of his teachers confounding the same dissimilar things.
Gill believes that geometry is about visual representation.
no i don’t.
Will November 2023 be the warmest November on record?
We’ve seen record global temperatures for each day so far in November, though by a slightly lower margin than over the past two months.
So, yes, it seems virtually certain at this point that we will experience the warmest November on record.
https://imgur.com/a/75eElX7
Queue the denials.
Now we’ve confirmed that Arkady both used to comment as Tyson McGuffin, and is the DREMT impersonator, I guess that makes him the Master of Sock Puppets. Which, according to Little Willy, means that every single word he says should be ignored, and/or dismissed out of hand. Bye bye badman, ooh bye bye…
Ark, predicting warmer temps for November isn’t much of a prediction. The residual warm air from the HTE is still here, as well as the El Niño, which has actually intensified slightly the last few days.
The combination of the two NATURAL effects is pushing up temps. If you believe it is CO2, then you haven’t been paying attention. To catch up, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
So you agree that EEI is the root cause:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1552307
WRONG Ark. You’re trying to misrepresent my words. Why can’t you people just face reality, instead of trying to pervert it?
But, let’s go with your distraction. What are the values for flux-in and flux-out that gives your cult’s EEI result of 1.5 W/m^2?
Do you know how to read this graph? https://imgur.com/a/uogtgSQ
It’s fine to say, “I don’t know” and admit that you don’t know how to read a graph.
Try this reference for help: https://i-base.info/ttfa/learning-resources/how-to-read-a-graph/
No Ark, links to things you don’t understand won’t work.
Your cult believes in the bogus EEI of 1.5 W/m^2, so where did that come from? It is supposed to be the difference between flux-in and flux-out, so what are the values for flux-in and flux-out.
Those values Clint R asks for were instrumentally measured by NIMBUS, Clint, and reported as far back as 1969. Don’t depend on others, Clint, learn to find the reports yourself using google string: nimbus satellite 255K 1969
The reason the cult can’t support their nonsense is because they know it’s bogus.
Clint R, more astute readers already understand Clint always comments his cult is bogus so Clint wont bother to read about the instrumental measurements that prove such over 50 years ago. Pity, and laughably entertaining.
The reason the cult can’t support their nonsense is because they know it’s bogus.
They’ve got NOTHING.
” It is supposed to be the difference between flux-in and flux-out, so what are the values for flux-in and flux-out.”
It is all on the graph I posted (https://imgur.com/a/uogtgSQ), including the location of the raw data I used to create the graph.
If you don’t know how to read a graph then that’s your problem, not mine.
“No Ark, links to things you dont understand wont work. “
If that isn’t a classical example of typical Clint R projection!
Not only does he not understand what my graph is telling him, he can’t even read it!
Okay Ark, if you want to stick with that nonsense, it’s fine with me. It clearly indicates you don’t know what you’re talking about.
1. You don’t even agree with barry (claims EEI is ASR – OLR) or Ball4 (claims another link he can’t understand).
2. Your link is nothing more that the calculations for an imaginary, mythical blackbody sphere. The only possible connection to REAL Earth is it may be using some value of T. But, that’s bogus because Earth does NOT have a uniform temperature and the S/B equation is non-linear.
3. Just as bad, your link calculates “flux” and calls it “energy”.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your cult has NOTHING.
The EEI is bogus. Thanks for making that point for me.
Sorry, Arkady, but according to the rules set down by Little Willy, all I have to do is point out that you are the Master of Sock Puppets, and that immediately means that your graph and the source are completely discredited. Looks like you wasted your time.
“Your link is nothing more that the calculations for an imaginary, mythical blackbody sphere.”
Setting the poor grammar aside… what on earth are you talking about?
My graph shows measured data from the CERES instrument.
Data: https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
Are you daft? Is that it?
P.s.: I’m working on a video on the EEI for a group of fifth graders. I’ll test on you when finished to gauge your reaction.
“I’m working on a video on the EEI for a group of fifth graders”
Yeah, sure you are, Arkady, just like Tyson McGuffin used to supposedly get his “interns” to work on his graphs and diagrams for him…you’re a compulsive liar.
But that’s NOT what your graph indicates. So, you’re changing up.
I see that all the time. Throw something against the wall. When it doesn’t stick, throw something else.
It still won’t stick! The EEI is bogus. Thanks for making that point for me.
One of the things the cult consistently gets wrong (and there are a lot of them) is confusing “flux” with “energy”. Ark does it on his graph. Even NASA does it.
So, let’s see if any of the cult idi0ts can answer a simple physics question:
An object is emitting 500 W/m^2. How much energy is it emitting?
“…confusing ‘flux’ with ‘energy’ “
You say the darnedest things!
A simple physics question for you:
When applying the divergence theorem to Maxwell’s equations, doesn’t the theorem assert that the total flux originating from a source is equal to the sum of the fluxes crossing a surface that bounds the source?
A,
You misunderstand.
Unless you can show otherwise, there are an infinite number of photons occupying every part of space, all travelling at the speed of light, and therefore every surface in the universe has infinite “flux” travelling through it.
You will need to be more specific – which source and which body are you talking about?
For example, totally submerging a block of ice in emitting 300 W/m2 in a bowl of hot soup which may be emitting 600 W/m2, does not result in the flux from the ice adding to the flux from the soup at the soup’s surface, and raising the temperature of the soup!
That would just be silly, wouldn’t it?
Rather than posing silly gotchas about things you don’t understand, give a practical example or two. Are you trying to support a GHE which you cannot describe? Are you trying to convince people that “back radiation” from a colder atmosphere can increase the temperature of a hotter surface?
That’s about as silly as claiming that putting ice in your soup will make it hotter! If you try to be devious, you just make a right dill of yourself. Others may think you are a genius, of course – up there with the fraudster, fake, scofflaw and deadbeat. Illustrious company?
Carry on.
Ark, you didn’t answer the physics question…for some reason….
An object is emitting 500 W/m^2. How much energy is it emitting?
“How much energy is it emitting?”
What is the area, in m^2, over which the flux of 500 W/m^2 is crossing?
BINGO!
You finally had to face reality, Ark. Flux is NOT the same as energy.
Your cult has been misleading you all this time. Will you keep swallowing their crap?
So, what’s the area?
A,
You wrote “So, whats the area?”.
Has the penny dropped?
Just take your cue from NASA and Trenberth – no areas specified. Climate scientists don’t need to consider reality – why should you?
Next thing, you’ll be asking what the temperature of the emitting object is!
Are you still certain that 300 W/m2 plus 300 W/m2 equals 600 W/m2?
[laughing as reality intrudes on cultist fantasyist]
A,
You wrote “So, whats the area?”.
Has the penny dropped?
Just take your cue from NASA and Trenberth – no areas specified. Climate scientists don’t need to consider reality – why should you?
Next thing, you’ll be asking what the temperature of the emitting object is!
Are you still certain that 300 W/m2 plus 300 W/m2 equals 600 W/m2?
[laughing as reality intrudes on cultist fantasist]
Apology for the typo.
ark…”What is the area, in m^2, over which the flux of 500 W/m^2 is crossing?”
***
Flux is not a thing that spreads out over an area, it is the estimated spread of energy over an area and is not a physical entity. Flux as defined by Newton is the instantaneous change of energy at an infinitesimal point. When summed over an area, it becomes the flux per unit area. In other words, it is the average amount of energy over an area.
Problem is, we have no idea what energy is. There is something, the strength of which is averaged over an area. If the flux represents a magnetic field from a magnet or electromagnet, the flux density tells us something about the strength of the field but there is no way to identify the flux itself. It is nothing more than a mathematical estimation of the relative field strength over an area.
You cannot measure flux, you can only measure the effect of the represented energy on a body. I find it a bit odd that flux is used mainly in relation to EM but not to a gravitational field. Then again, we know that EM is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to magnetic field yet we still don’t know what gravity is made off, even though it is considered to be field of some kind and it behaves much like EM with regard to dissipation with distance from the source.
And, no, gravity has nothing to do with time or space as depicted by Einstein with his space-time theory. There is definitely no such thing as time flux or space flux.
“Problem is, we have no idea what energy is.”
We can assume that ‘we’ means Gordon. And that’s it.
Scientists in general don’t have this problem.
Nate says:
” ”Problem is, we have no idea what energy is.”
We can assume that we means Gordon. And thats it.
Scientists in general dont have this problem.”
Albert Einstein said:
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Where is your evidence they do Nate?
Evidence? Bill wants evidence? Let’s see, for the textbook next part of the Bill & Gordon energy literacy test (in MKS), lift your keyboard (or small portable) from your waist to above your head here on earth surface. Roughly how much energy was required?
If Gordon or Bill estimated roughly on order of 10 joules (1 J=1 kg m^2/sec^2) without hesitation, you pass. If you looked for a ruler to measure the distance the thing was lifted, you missed the point.
Move on to power. No guessing here, when you lift the thing over your head in 1 second, you expend energy at the rate of on order about 10 watts (1 W=1 J/s).
Lift this thing again and estimate its weight in pounds (if you live in the United States) or its mass in kilograms. This should be easy. Approximately how many newtons (abbreviated as N) must you exert to hold the thing against the earthen force of gravity? If you estimated the mass in kilograms, you have an edge on this one.
If you estimated 10 N without pause, you not only are MKS literate, you have the right attitude to become a good scientist (starting from a low base!) because you rounded off your guess to an even number. If you estimated 13 N you might do well guessing weights at carnivals. If you estimated 13.25 N you cheated and weighed the thing.
Continuing, as Bill copies, atmospheric scientists often are concerned with energy & its flux which is energy transferred across a unit area per unit time. The MKS units of energy flux are J/s/m^2 or W/m^2.
To put this quantity in perspective, the flux of solar radiant energy at low earth orbit outside most of Earth’s atmosphere is about 1350 W/m^2. A typical household appliance (e.g., toaster, iron, hair drier) is rated at about 1000-1300 W. Thus, the power of incident solar radiation can be sufficient to operate one such appliance for each square meter illuminated during the orbit of a solar illumination measuring satellite.
Ball4 being the guy always slowing the class down spends a half hour telling us what energy is known to be capable of rather than what it is.
Now if Ball4 could actually catch up with the topic and tell us how energy is trapped in the atmosphere. A demonstration would be in order. And while he is at it he can explain why every attempted experiment fails to accomplish the objective.
Can we please stay relevant here?
“If you believe it is CO2” causing the recent monthly spikes in global temperatures…
Yet again the straw man from the ‘skeptics’. A spectacularly inane one, too.
AGW causes long-term warming, not monthly spikes.
You know this premise and are being disingenuous. Or you don’t know this premise and are astoundingly dim.
barry,
Is this AGW due to the GHE? If so, when did this GHE appear?
All a bit mysterious. Maybe you can explain.
barry, speaking of “disingenuous” and “astoundingly dim”, you haven’t been able to identify the values to support the bogus EEI.
ASR – OLR = 1.5 W/m^2
What are the values for ASR and OLR?
Here you go. Read ’em and weep.
https://imgur.com/a/uogtgSQ
Darn!
I keep forgetting Clint R never learned how to read a graph.
Oh well. His problem, not mine.
…and, if ASR is increasing over time, that can only be due to a reduction in cloud cover.
There you go throwing more science at the cult, DREMT.
They’re REALLY going to hate you now….
They’ll hate me so much they’ll probably list a bunch of other reasons for ASR increasing, none of which will be CO2…
FYI,
ASR can increase because of decreasing Earth albedo, which can decrease with loss of snow or ice cover.
And it can increase with a decrease in light-scattering aerosols from anthro pollution. For example, with the recent mandated reduction in aerosol emissions from shipping.
…and look what’s happening to the OLR over time…
Sure, OLR measured decreasing over the satellite era while ASR is measured increasing, net is measured increasing. Changes in clouds and added trace gases have added to that net increasing. Increasing trends correspond to increases in thermodynamic internal energy.
All with 95% confidence nature’s actual amounts are within the margin of error.
The graph shows that OLR is increasing over time.
DREMT has missed the sign convention: emitted thermal radiation is always defined as positive downwards (towards Earth surface). For example, the sign convention used is atm. radiates positively toward Earth thus negatively toward space.
No, Ball4. OLR is increasing over time. Just not as much as the ASR, which is why the imbalance has also increased over time.
DREMT, emitted thermal radiation anomaly in 2003 was measured negative, in 2020 emitted thermal radiation anomaly was more negative. The tend line is down (decreasing) at TOA.
At the surface, the sign convention is thus positive in OLR (increasing near surface temperature) which the graph shows & surface thermometers confirm along with UAH LT radiometers at higher altitudes in top post.
Ignore Ball4.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
“The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature”
And, yes, the imbalance measured at TOA has increased over the satellite era. Contributing trends to increasing the imbalance are attributed to among others: clouds, water vapor, trace gas ppm & solar irradiance.
DREMT, yes OLR from the surface correlates with increasing surface thermometer temperature but satellite radiometers measure emitted thermal radiation (ETR) from the whole earthen system. (Here thermal is short for ther-modynamic intern-al.)
ETR is defined positive downwards and is thus equal to -outgoing longwave radiation from the surface.
Without worrying about the sign convention, a better way to think about this is as DREMT has commented “Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K” is that the global calibrated satellite era observed 288K (thermometer) has increased a bit and the 255K (brightness) has decreased a bit meaning the difference has increased due to those attributed trend changes.
Ball4 has a complete meltdown. The reality remains that OLR has increased over time.
More specifically, the reality remains that surface OLR has increased over time measured by thermometer (288K) whereas emitted thermal radiation (ETR) from the earthen system has decreased over time measured by calibrated satellite era radiometer (255K).
OLR has increased over time.
… but not as measured from space radiometers.
What else do you imagine is measuring OLR, Ball4?
From the abstract of the paper linked to earlier:
“In this paper, decadal changes of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) as measured by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System from 2000 to 2018, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment from 1985 to 1998, and the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder from 1985 to 2018 are analysed. The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature.”
Here’s what they mean in context when they switch to surface temperature and away from OLR brightness temperature measured by satellite:
“The (surface) OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global (surface thermometer) temperature.”
The ETR is measured by satellite and has opposite sign convention to OLR from the surface. Again, ETR is defined positive downwards and is thus equal in direction to -outgoing longwave radiation from the surface.
What they mean is that OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.
No DREMT, space radiometers do not measure surface temperatures, only thermometers are used to measure near surface atm. temperatures. UAH measures LT temperature not surface temperature.
The paper in detail uniquely discusses global surface thermometer temperature change not brightness temperature change:
“linked to low surface temperatures”
“is the derivative of the OLR with respect to global surface temperature.”
“the Arctic, where the temperature rise is the highest.”
“the NASA GISS temperature
“GISS global surface temperature anomaly”
“the OLR which are correlated with surface temperature”
“where the surface temperature increase is stronger”
“the OLR measured by ERBE and by HIRS, as well as in the global temperature. This episode is discussed in detail in [16].” Ref. 16 uses global surface thermometer readings.
Just as well I was talking about OLR, and not surface temperatures, then.
What they mean is that OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.
No DREMT, the anomaly OLR at TOA also known as ETR (with different sign convention) has been decreasing over satellite era when the sign convention is used correctly & consistently to get the right answer for their NET measured at TOA: + ASR – ETR = + NET for example in 2020.
For another example, in about 2009 NET components were reversed: – ASR + ETR = + NET. Overall, ETR has been decreasing which means the system brightness temperature (~255K) has been decreasing a bit in the same era as I already noted. Their NET has been increasing a bit.
Keep responding for the rest of your life, Ball4. I will outlive you, have the last word, and you will have thus wasted your entire life. That last word will be:
What they mean is that OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.
… which measure decreasing radiation at TOA not increasing surface OLR.
OLR means “Outgoing Longwave Radiation”. The word “outgoing” is quite key here. That means it’s the longwave energy leaving the Earth system…i.e. outgoing.
OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.
You will respond, so I’ll lock this down to a “response from me every 24 hours” scenario. You’ll soon get bored with that.
The surface also has global OLR which means “Outgoing Longwave Radiation” from the surface (~288K by thermometer). The word “outgoing” is quite key here. That means it’s the longwave energy leaving the Earth surface… i.e. outgoing emitted at ~288K.
Thus OLR (~288K emission) is increasing over time, and OLR (~255K emission) as measured from space radiometers has been decreasing in the calibrated satellite era.
Show me the acronym ETR being used as you claim it is used, in any published paper.
OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
“Show me… “
See Loeb. et. al. GRL 2021 p. 4 of 8, Figure 2 caption in:
“Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate” 10.1029/2021GL093047
From that paper:
“As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to −OLR”
So, once again, despite all your obfuscation:
OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
“What they mean is that OLR is increasing over time, as measured from space radiometers.”
This is correct. The magnitude of the OLR has slightly increased over time.
Because temperature of the Earth’s surface has increased, which is a driver of increasing OLR.
In equilibrium, OLR must match ASR to achieve energy balance, and ASR has increased due to decreasing Earth albedo.
OLR is trying to increase to reach equilibrium and match ASR, but clearly it has not done so it yet, because the increasing GHE is partly cancelling the OLR increase.
Thus, there is an imbalance, a net energy input to the Earth, hence the Earth is warming.
DREMT 2:11 am learns & quotes ETR accurately, great! Progress!
DREMT, though, still can’t comment on Fig. 2(b) graph accurately and can’t realize space radiometers measure at TOA (satellite orbit) & thus don’t measure radiation at the surface (since they are in orbit!).
Actually, the radiometer results “measured from space” (DREMT term) ~255K system brightness temperature is decreasing over time as shown in Fig. 2(b). The NET of ASR and ETR is shown increasing Fig. 2(c) as Earth’s thermodynamic internal energy rises to achieve equilibrium as Nate 8:45 am comments.
Surface thermometer measured OLR (~288K thermometer temperature) is increasing over time (with wiggles due to weather in the troposphere) during the satellite era. DREMT just can’t handle minus signs correctly.
Apply that to DREMT’s earlier cogent: “the Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K” to better understand the current NET system thermal trend situation.
Ah, what the heck. I will respond now, anyway.
Ball4 gets confused by the anomalies, and the sign conventions. Fortunately, Arkady took care of all that for us when he made his graph:
https://imgur.com/a/uogtgSQ
As you can see, the graph is of absolute values, not anomalies. OLR starts out at about 240.1 W/m^2 in 2003 and ends up at about 240.6 W/m^2 in 2023.
So, the 255 K brightness temperature increased slightly. OLR is increasing over time, as measured by space radiometers.
As DREMT commented earlier & still avoids: “As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to -OLR” measured at satellite orbit.
Yes, you deliberately used the anomalies and the sign conventions to obfuscate the issue, trying to confuse readers into believing that OLR had decreased over time. You are one of the most intellectually dishonest commenters in the history of the internet.
DREMT 12:04pm, your 10:57 am link charts OLR not ETR. It is up to DREMT to properly explain the chart DREMT linked, and any difference from measured ETR, not me. Fig. 2(b) shows: measured ETR has declined in the satellite era.
Arkady’s graph was what we were meant to be discussing all along, Ball4. That’s what prompted this exchange. As usual, you jumped in without even paying any attention to what was being discussed, you started distracting with sign convention, anomalies and ETR when it had nothing to do with the graph, or the fact that OLR has increased over time, not decreased. You said on November 20, 2023 at 2:37 PM that "OLR measured decreasing over the satellite era". You were simply wrong.
DREMT, please just explain why your OLR chart link is different trend than reported measured ETR.
—–
NB: I have already explained to DREMT, and DREMT learned, satellite OLR and ETR have different sign conventions, so explains at least some of the difference from DREMT’s linked chart.
OLR at the surface is what DREMT first mistakenly commented was being discussed 4:34 pm “OLR has increased over time.” based on linking a paper discussing increased OLR correlated with surface temperature.
This I pointed out 3:38 pm: “yes OLR from the surface correlates with increasing surface thermometer temperature but satellite radiometers measure emitted thermal radiation (ETR) from the whole earthen system. (Here thermal is short for ther-modynamic intern-al.)”
It’s not my graph to explain, Ball4, it’s Arkady’s. However, I linked to the paper I did earlier to point out that it’s nothing new. It’s well known that OLR has increased over time.
From Wikipedia:
"In climate science, longwave radiation (LWR) is electromagnetic thermal radiation emitted by Earth’s surface, atmosphere, and clouds. It may also be referred to as terrestrial radiation. This radiation is in the infrared portion of the spectrum, but is distinct from the shortwave (SW) near-infrared radiation found in sunlight.[1]: 2251
Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is the longwave radiation emitted to space from the top of Earth’s atmosphere.[1]: 2241 It may also be referred to as emitted terrestrial radiation. Outgoing longwave radiation plays an important role in planetary cooling."
So, when we say that OLR has increased over time, we’re talking about the longwave radiation emitted to space from the top of Earth’s atmosphere. That’s what everybody but you seems to understand, Ball4. You keep trying to pretend it is something that is measured by thermometers at the Earth’s surface. You’re pretty ridiculous, generally.
DREMT confirms 2:21 pm can’t offer an explanation of the chart DREMT linked. That was expected since DREMT just doesn’t know, & can’t explain, that to which DREMT linked.
No pretending, DREMT: “yes OLR from the surface correlates with increasing surface thermometer temperature but satellite radiometers measure emitted thermal radiation (ETR) from the whole earthen system. (Here thermal is short for ther-modynamic intern-al.)” and ETR is shown decreasing over time in Fig. 2(b) as I have maintained all along.
Measured surface OLR (~288K) and satellite orbit earthen system brightness temperature (~255K) do confirm what DREMT earlier commented: “the Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K”.
The graph shows OLR increasing over time, in agreement with the paper I linked to earlier, OLR is the longwave radiation emitted to space from the top of Earth’s atmosphere, the source for the data in the graph is CERES, and that’s all you need to know, Ball4. Happy to help.
DREMT still hasn’t been able to understand & explain why the chart is for earthen brightness temperature (255K) & the paper DREMT linked was for surface temperature (288K) for surface OLR correlation, repeating for effect:
The paper linked in detail uniquely discusses global surface thermometer temperature change not brightness temperature change, quoting the paper authors:
“linked to low surface temperatures”
“is the derivative of the OLR with respect to global surface temperature.”
“the Arctic, where the temperature rise is the highest.”
“the NASA GISS temperature”
“GISS global surface temperature anomaly”
the OLR which are correlated with surface temperature”
“where the surface temperature increase is stronger”
“the OLR measured by ERBE and by HIRS (-ETR), as well as in the global (surface) temperature. This episode is discussed in detail in [16].” Ref. 16 uses global surface thermometer readings.
So, again DREMT: please explain why the satellite OLR is increasing in your link while ETR is measured decreasing over time or admit DREMT doesn’t understand the linked chart DREMT used. I’ve already advised in part a sign convention explanation satellite OLR = -(ETR).
Both the paper linked to and the graph show that OLR is increasing over time, OLR is the longwave radiation emitted to space from the top of Earth’s atmosphere, the source for the data in the graph and (in part) the paper is CERES, and thats all you need to know, Ball4. Happy to help.
Let’s just keep repeating ourselves for another dozen comments, huh? That’ll be worthwhile.
No need to repeat (unless something new is commented) after DREMT has again admitted doesn’t understand the difference in surface radiation OLR (from admitted ~288K) & space radiation (from admitted ~255K). Also, DREMT admits can’t explain the ~255K OLR chart DREMT linked, as expected. DREMT does comment correctly:
“the Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K” so DREMT knows there exist two different temperature measurements thus two different OLRs.
DREMT admits that DREMT won the argument some time ago, and watches Ball4 squirming around like the disgusting, despicable little worm he is with some satisfaction.
So you deflect my rebuttal by changing the subject, Clint.
Yet again the straw man from the ‘skeptics’. A spectacularly inane one, too.
AGW causes long-term warming, not monthly spikes.
You know this premise and are being disingenuous. Or you dont know this premise and are astoundingly dim.
I’ll let an expert in atmospheric physics explain. Here is Dr Roy Spencer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
barry,
You wrote –
“AGW causes long-term warming, not monthly spikes.”
Of course it does, if it continues long enough. You are not claiming that AGW is due to the operation of a GHE that you cannot even describe, are you?
There seems to be some evidence that man-made heat causes thermometers to show higher temperatures.
Tell me you don’t agree with that hypothesis! I need a good belly laugh from time to time.
Clint R what do you think?
https://youtu.be/58XaCA-btyg
Here is an animated video version of the EEI graph put to music.
Although I prepared it for a group of fifth graders, these are very advanced students, the kind that give up their Thanksgiving Holiday break to attend Science Camp.
A,
If you are trying to convince people that the Earth hasnt cooled over four and a half billion years, and that the surface doesn’t lose all the heat of the day each night (plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat), you are only appealing to those more gullible than yourself.
Anybody can produce a graph showing anything at all – even future events which havent occurred yet!
Maybe you could commit yourself to whether you think that the GHE heats the Earth, cools the Earth, or does both simultaneously. You seem to be a bit obsessed with semantics and silliness, rather than saying what you believe, and supporting your ideas with experimental evidence.
Ask a five year old if the temperature drops at night. Then convince him that it really doesn’t, by showing him a brightly coloured graphic.
Off you go, give it a try!
Sorry Ark, but crayons and eerie music ain’t science.
Got any values for “flux-in” and “flux-out”?
Be careful Clint. You might be accused of gaslighting Ark and driving him insane. I mean you are big time busting his bubble about crayons and eerie music. Whats next are you going to tell him Superman flies on wires?
Hopefully people are starting to understand how bad the cult “science” really is. When challenged, the cultists can’t support it.
Then they go into meltdown!
Fantasy and science fiction courtesy of NASA –
“Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System
CERES measures reflected and emitted from the top of Earth’s atmosphere.
There are two identical CERES instruments aboard Terra that measure the Earths total radiation budget and provide cloud property estimates that enable scientists to assess clouds roles in radiative fluxes from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.”
Claiming that CERES measures the “Earth’s total radiation budget”, hoping that nobody will point out that such a claim is nonsense (it is impossible to build a receiver which accurately measures the intensities of an infinite range of frequencies), is a silly thing to do.
About as ludicrous as NASA managements assertions of reliability exposed during the Rogers Commission.
As pointed out by Feynman at the Rogers Commission, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
However, as Arkady Abramovich shows, nobody is ever likely to be caught out underestimating the intelligence of the general public, if Arkady is representative of the cohort.
Life goes on.
“Sorry Ark”
Your response is as expected, if not a little more emotionally intense than I thought.
A,
Have you managed to find anyone who values your opinion yet?
You could always make a start by saying whether you think the GHE makes things hotter, colder, or both simultaneously.
So far, you haven’t committed yourself.
Venus is not hot because of greenhouse effect and if Venus was at Earth distance from the Sun, it would be colder than Earth.
And Earth is in Ice Age and about as cold as it’s ever been, and Venus at 1 AU would be colder than Earth.
But if Earth was at Venus distance from the Sun, it would obviously be hotter as it’s getting twice as much sunlight, but Earth would much colder at Venus distance as Venus surface is at Venus distance from the Sun.
Since we have proven that human could live in 2 atm of pressure and can sort of live at .5 atm of pressure. On Venus this “habitable zone” for humans. Human could have sky cities at that range of pressure. The atmosphere isn’t breathable you could wear oxygen mask.
But within this air pressure, Venus isn’t hot, other than it has twice the sunlight- or isn’t hot in the shade as we measure surface air temperature. But if go down depth equal to 500 feet under the ocean, it gets hotter. So Venus is heat at high elevation {around 50 km from rocky surface and has a “ocean” of air which increase per 1000 meter of depth.
Venus ocean of air is sort of like our ocean of water, it has a lot of thermal mass, and our ocean surface doesn’t cool in night because it’s high thermal mass, and have same thing with venus, it’s ocean of air, doesn’t cool down much as night {and venus has very, very long night]. But the upper atmosphere moves, humans in the habitable zone would have night of 2 or 3 Earth days. And if drive their cities properly they can have shorter or longer nights.
ark…a 5th grader preparing a video for his fellow 5th graders.
these guys can’t see they are being had.
The demonstration has incoming solar and outgoing longwave. right there you should know you are being had.
Solar is 50% longwave. And they actually believe that mirrors only reflect shortwave. Perhaps they don’t know that they believe that. But that’s even worse because as Lord Kelvin said their ”knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind”.
According to Binny’s calculations, the seas will start boiling in 5,000 years or so.
I’m surprised the surface cooled from the molten state, or that it does each night. Brightly coloured graphics and animations say otherwise. What to believe?
I’ll stick with physics and the widely held assumption that the Earth has slowly cooled from an initial molten state. No need to panic if Im right.
“Although I prepared it for a group of fifth graders“
Yeah, right. Sure you did.
Gaslighting Graham has a point – Troglodyte never went to school.
Honest DREMT has a point – Arkady McGuffin is a compulsive liar.
Gaslighting Graham’s illeism is silly.
Little Willy is silly.
Gaslighting Graham struggles with figures of speech.
Incorrect.
Whining Wee Willy wrote –
“Gaslighting Graham struggles with figures of speech.”
As DREMPT pointed out, Willy is silly. He thinks that acting intelligent will prevent people from thinking that his description of the GHE (“Not cooling, slower cooling”) is not just silly, but incredibly silly!
Willard may be many things, but bright is not one of them.
Mike Flynn wrote –
Who cares what he wrote?
Yeah, Swenson, he’s probably one of the least intelligent commenters, overall.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] More intelligent [people of Team Science] might try to counter this with a different model, like a yoyo with a frictionless connection between the string and the body of the yoyo
Yes, you need a reminder of the rest of that comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558288
Gaslighting Graham tries to deflect from a reminder that he forgot who kept mentioning a frictionless yoyo over the last few years…
Tim?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561988
Yeah, I think it was Tim. Or, maybe Norman. Possibly Entropic Man. Could even be all three. Little Willy was a bit late to the party, in any case.
Gaslighting Graham also forgets BG:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1222726
Besides forgetting what was being said, it should go without saying.
Yes, another good win that one.
GGGA.
He might even forget that Bob, his nemesis, also mentioned it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-550645
bob? My nemesis? Don’t be silly.
Here is where Mighty Tim mentioned a frictionless axle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1410262
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham misremembers?
Sure, maybe. Maybe not. I really don’t care this much about who mentioned the yo-yo and who didn’t.
Richard also mentioned something similar.
So almost everybody from Team Science came up with the same intuition, which means we all pass Gaslighting Graham’s IQ test.
Not in the least. I said that more intelligent “Spinners” might have attempted to counter a specific argument I was making by bringing up the yo-yo model. Nobody did. So, nobody passed the test.
Gaslighting Graham is a compulsive liar.
“More intelligent “Spinners” might try to counter this [argument] with a different model…”
a compulsive liar.
Little Willy seems a bit flustered, lately.
…compulsive liar.
If anything, I’m a compulsive truth-teller.
…liar.
No, truth-teller.
Weekly progression in weekly ENSO3.4 Anomaly.
https://tinyurl.com/Weekly-ENSO
Week ending:
Jul 08 … 1.0
Jul 15 … 1.1
Jul 22 … 1.1
Jul 29 … 1.2
Aug 05 … 1.1
Aug 12 … 1.2
Aug 19 … 1.3
Aug 26 … 1.5
Sep 02 … 1.6
Sep 09 … 1.6
Sep 16 … 1.6
Sep 23 … 1.7
Sep 30 … 1.5
Oct 07 … 1.5
Oct 14 … 1.5
Oct 21 … 1.6
Oct 28 … 1.6
Nov 04 … 1.8
Nov 11 … 1.8
Nov 18 … 1.9
So much Bill Hunter for your CPC Consol prediction “topping out as one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record. 1.5 to 1.6”.
I believe Yogi Berra observed “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
At least the IPCC agrees that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
What predictions are you making?
The same old half-truths from ‘skeptics’ over and over again.
IPCC:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems”
Translation. we can’t predict the global temperature of a given year or decade over the long-term. Instead we predict the probable range of global temperatures over the long term.
In the same way that you can’t predict the average temperature of a week in Summer, but you can predict that the range of temperatures will be higher in Summer than Winter.
Obviously this is too complex for ‘skeptics’, which must be why they have such trouble retaining the rest of the quote despite having read it here many times.
barry,
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Translation –
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Climate states are by definition long term – the statistics of historical weather observations.
If you dont agree with the IPCC, just say so.
You refuse to commit yourself to whether the GHE warms, cools, or does both at the same time. Come on barry, show some backbone – take a position. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
“You refuse to commit yourself to whether the GHE warms, cools, or does both at the same time.”
Translation –
“Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.”
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Weird Wee Willy,
You don’t seem to have mentioned the GHE at all.
Have you given up?
Or are you trying to say that the GHE cools the Earth, heats the Earth, and does both simultaneously?
You do seem to be going out of your way to avoid saying anything at all. Your quote (as usual) doesnt support you. No mention of the GHE, is there?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Weird Wee Willy,
You dont seem to have mentioned the GHE at all.
Have you given up?
Or are you trying to say that the GHE cools the Earth, heats the Earth, and does both simultaneously?
You do seem to be going out of your way to avoid saying anything at all. Your quote (as usual) doesnt support you. No mention of the GHE, is there?
Mike Flynn,
You asked for a description of the greenhouse effect.
You got served.
Anything else?
He got served with something that doesn’t describe the GHE. No mention of GHGs warming (or cooling) anything, or causing anything to be warmer (or cooler) than it would otherwise be. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
In contrast to him, Mike Flynn accepts that greenhouse gases are responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere.
GHGs are definitely responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere.
“Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.”
No mention of GHGs warming (or cooling) anything, or causing anything to be warmer (or cooler) than it would otherwise be. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
[MF] Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.
[GG] GHGs are definitely responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere.
Yep all that these CAGW activists do is do the do-si-do around the topic and never can find any science that establishes that CO2 controls the climate. And they always ask us to find it for them.
Yes. And?
My last comment was directed to Little Willy, not Bill.
Gill can’t plug “the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere” and “GHGs are definitely responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere” together.
What an auditor he should have been!
Perhaps you could actually explain why you think that your quote is a description of the GHE. Maybe actually elaborate for once, so that you can let people in to that weird scatter-brain of yours.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham should mind his own business.
Sure, OK then.
Weird Wee Willy,
You dont seem to have mentioned the GHE at all.
Have you given up?
Or are you trying to say that the GHE cools the Earth, heats the Earth, and does both simultaneously?
You do seem to be going out of your way to avoid saying anything at all. Your quote (as usual) doesnt support you. No mention of the GHE, is there?
You quote Mike Flynn saying that sunlight heats the surface, which cools in the absence of sunlight. Feel free to translate that into anything you like. The GHE does not get a mention, as it does not exist.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You don’t seem to have mentioned”
Should I care about what seems to you, and is there something in the comment you yourself wrote that I would need to explain to you?
Willard says:
Gill cant plug the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere and GHGs are definitely responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere together.
What an auditor he should have been!
———————
This is the kind of investigator that Willard would be. You are in Dodger stadium and you find a man has been murdered in the restroom. 50,000 fans and stadium staff are in the stadium. In comes Little Willy Clouseau and immediately points a finger at SIR radiative properties. When questioned Little Willy Clouseau exclaims it must be SIR Radiative Properties despite there being 49,999 other persons in the stadium. When question further Little Willy Clouseau exclaims but SIR you haven’t picked a culprit yet! And time is critical, we must arrest somebody now.
Gill, Gill,
You’re overthinking this.
The atmosphere reduces cooling.
Cooling is a radiative property.
The atmosphere has greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases have radiative properties.
It’s not rocket science.
Little Willy, you’re under-thinking this.
The atmosphere can be warmed by conduction from the surface and convection, but can only really cool (very effectively) via radiation. So, in a way, adding GHGs only increases its ability to cool, without effecting its ability to warm via conduction from the surface and convection.
Changed my mind on minding my own business. Thought you needed some help, again.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his pet theory –
Non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere.
The true genius Sky Dragon cranks deserve.
Little Willy misrepresents, as that’s all he has. Shame.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights about an analytical statement.
Sadz.
False.
Swenson, when I point out the ‘skeptics’ omit the second sentence, and then you do immediately do it again, you only corroborate the wilful blindness.
You make a lot of noise for someone with their head perennially stuck up their ass.
barry,
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Translation
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Climate states are by definition long term the statistics of historical weather observations.
If you don’t agree with the IPCC, just say so.
You refuse to commit yourself to whether the GHE warms, cools, or does both at the same time. Come on barry, show some backbone take a position. How hard can it be?
Can’t? Won’t?
Colour me unsurprised.
The same old half-truths from ‘skeptics’ over and over again.
IPCC:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems
Translation. we cant predict the global temperature of a given year or decade over the long-term. Instead we predict the probable range of global temperatures over the long term.
In the same way that you can’t predict the average temperature of a week in Summer, but you can predict that the range of temperatures will be higher in Summer than Winter.
Obviously this is too complex for ‘skeptics’, which must be why they have such trouble retaining the rest of the quote despite having read it here many times.
Can’t deal with, much less acknowledge that second sentence? Trying to change the subject to latest obsession?
Colour me unsurprised!
barry,
You quoted –
“IPCC:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
No translation needed for anybody with a reasonable standard of knowledge and comprehension.
Obviously, for the less gifted members of the population (SkyDragon cultists, for example), you realise that telling the truth is inconvenient, so you need to gently lie to them. It is not hard to convince them that prediction of climate states is, indeed, possible. They are not firmly attached to reality – just like you.
Carry on translating fact into convenient fantasy. Do you think you could make a living by telling lies to the less intelligent SkyDragon cultists? Others do – Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, etc.
By the way, thanks for the flattery by means of imitation. You obviously appreciate my way with words. There’s hope – even for a peanut like you.
Yes, you ignore the rest of the quote as if it doesn’t exist, and as if it doesn’t qualify the point.
I’m not dishonest, Swenson. What you are repeatedly doing here, is.
You are always free to quit avoiding the point.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems.”
Which is exactly what the IPCC has always done. Every report provides several different probability distributions of future climate, each based on a different emissions scenario. These include not only the range of possible temperatures for each scenario, but also precipitation, drought, storms, and other weather phenomena that may become more or less frequent, or more or less severe.
What the IPCC can’t and doesn’t do is tell us what the exact temperature of the Earth will be at the end of the 21st century. That’s what your cherry-picked sentence alludes to.
barry,
You quote –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems.”
The IPCC is quite clear. After admitting the impossibility of predicting future climate states, they want funding to predict “probability distributions” of coupled non-linear chaotic systems! Complete nonsense, with zero applicability to real systems – such as the atmosphere.
As you admit, “scenarios”, based on fantasy, can be anything at all –
“These include not only the range of possible temperatures for each scenario, but also precipitation, drought, storms, and other weather phenomena that may become more or less frequent, or more or less severe.”
Anything at all – you can then claim to have predicted anything – after it has happened!
What the IPCC cannot do is what they have admitted – predict future climate states. You may not like it, but there it is. A twelve year old can predict “precipitation, drought, storms, and other weather phenomena that may become more or less frequent, or more or less severe.”
You could even do it yourself.
It looks like the GHE does anything you want, doesnt it?
Perhaps if you actually read the IPCC documents, including the projections under the different forcing scenarios, you wouldn’t make such asinine comments about them.
But instead you copypaste quotes from blogs and pontificate in complete ignorance. Gasbagging doesn’t require much work.
“Anything at all you can then claim to have predicted anything after it has happened!”
This is the exact nonsense I’m speaking about. The projections are not anything goes. You are free to investigate what the projections actually are.
But you won’t. You’re too intellectually lazy for that. And incurious, which is why I’m not hand-feeding you.
barry says:
Perhaps if you actually read the IPCC documents, including the projections under the different forcing scenarios, you wouldnt make such asinine comments about them.
But instead you copypaste quotes from blogs and pontificate in complete ignorance. Gasbagging doesnt require much work.
————————
When it comes to projections its the IPCC thats gasbagging. There is nothing in all that documentation that details how the projections were arrived at beyond extending a projection line from the origin on the heels of some warming that the cause of has never been scientifically determined. See the paper by Dr. Syun-ichi Akasofu.
Such arrant BS barely deserves a response. Each report has whole chapters devoted to explaining the scenarios and how they are arrived at, the strengths and limitations of the projections, with hundreds of references.
Either you have read the reports and have seen even the chapter lists and are denying they exist, or you haven’t read the reports and you are, as you often do, blathering in utter ignorance.
Either way, you are a liar.
Barry says:
”Each report has whole chapters devoted to explaining the scenarios and how they are arrived at, the strengths and limitations of the projections, with hundreds of references.”
Indeed the IPCC report is very loquacious. But loquaciousness doesn’t add up to scientific evidence. As it is most of the discussion features strengths based upon ignorance of what other perturbations affect climate. Thus climate is a justifiable discussion but in our supposed free society it isn’t anywhere near justifying regulation by force.
Here watch this. Jimmy Dore calls out the very worst of hypocrisy in politics.
https://youtu.be/eHN4MJj0NZo?si=EtxrOvUOh3gbEPUM
Bill says:
“There is nothing in all that documentation that details how the projections were arrived at beyond extending a projection line”
I point out that the IPCC spends reams of pages on describing projections under various scenarios and how they are arrived at.
Bill says:
“Indeed the IPCC report is very loquacious.”
Senility.
What I am interested in is the assumptions used in the projections Barry. Not 2,000 pages of projecting temperature from increases in CO2 without any explanation at all of the physics behind CO2 increasing temperatures.
12 hours have passed since Clint R bailed on the question.
Meanwhile, here on Earth one:
Electromagnetic radiation is the primary carrier of solar energy from the sun to the Earth’s surface.
For the Earth to maintain a stable climate, the incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation must be in balance over the long term.
As of August 2023 there is a net positive energy imbalance of 1.48 W/m^2 as shown here https://imgur.com/a/uogtgSQ, and here https://youtu.be/58XaCA-btyg.
The graph is self-explanatory except to Clint R who, I imagine, looks at it like a cow staring at a new gate!
An energy flux imbalance of 1.48 W/m^2, spread over the Earth’s surface of 510×10^12 m^2 in the period of one year, is 23.8×10^21 Joules of energy accumulation. For scale, humans’ Global Annual Energy Consumption is 580×10^18 Joules.
Sorry Ark, but I didn’t “bail” on your question. Your question was your admission that “flux” is NOT “energy”. You bailed on facing that reality.
Now you are attempting to answer my question, without answering it. Maybe you’re afraid of what’s coming….
Your graph indicates ASR is about 242 W/m^2 and OLR is about 240.5 W/m^2. That results in the bogus EEI of about 1.5 W/m^2 —
ASR – OLR = 1.5 W/m^2
242.5 – 240 = 1.5 W/m^2
Finally I got an answer from the cult. Now, let’s understand how bogus it is:
1. The ASR (Absorbed Solar Radiation) value is the “assumed, estimated guess” of how much solar is absorbed by Earth’s surface. There is NO way to actually measure that value. It is completely made up.
2. The ASR value comes from adjusting solar for albedo, then dividing by 4. The Solar Constant is about 1370 W/m^2. Adjusted for albedo gives 959 W/m^2. Then, dividing by 4 gives 239.75. But as that is only a crude “assumption, estimate, guess”, the cult believes in the 242.5.
3. Note that the bogus ASR is in units of flux, not energy. They are treating flux as energy. That ain’t science.
4. Note that they attach no error margins to the bogus values. The Solar Constant varies over +/-3%. Albedo varies over 30%!
5. The OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) value is also based on assumptions, estimates, and guesses. There is NO actual measurement of OLR. The cult doesn’t realize the OLR value comes from a model.
6. As with ASR, there is no error margin specified with OLR. The cult believes it is accurate to TWO decimal places — +1.48 W/m^2. How about 1.48 W/m^2, +/- 20 W/m^2?
7. Note that the cult completely ignores solar energy lost to photosynthesis. That alone has been estimated to be 2-3% of solar. ASR and OLR typically will NOT be equal for that and other reasons.
8. The recent HTE provides another example of why the EEI is bogus. All of the energy for the HTE came from within Earth’s system. Yet, the temperatures went up. Earth laughed at the bogus EEI.
That’s enough for now. I’ve got things to do today….
You say some things that are true and some things that are new. Unfortunately the two don’t intersect.
1/ ASR = Incoming Solar (measured) – Reflected Solar (measured)
2/ Because Incoming and Reflected Solar are measured, I can calculate albedo, not just guesstimate as you suggest.
3/ I gave you the link to the data. You can calculate the error in the measurement to your heart’s content. That’s the proverbial you of course.
4/ Flux is given in units of Rate of Energy Transfer (Joules/Second)/Area. Why? Because Radiant Energy is transported over a distributed area rather than a single point.
On the positive side, I’m glad to see you’re practicing your graph reading.
Ark, you weren’t able to refute even one of my refutations. You just regurgitated your cult beliefs.
It’s like you’ve got NOTHING, huh?
Yawn.
A,
What are you trying to say? Is there a GHE? What is the role of the GHE in the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earth?
Maybe you could try and describe the GHE – if you transfer the contents of your bizarre fantasy to reality.
Just making silly statements like “Because Incoming and Reflected Solar are measured, I can calculate albedo, not just guesstimate as you suggest.”, does not make you look wise and knowledgeable, rather the opposite. Neither incoming nor reflected solar energy can be accurately measured – just estimated. Not only that, but both are continuously changing – the Earth’s orbit is not only not circular, moving closer to and further from the Sun, but the Suns output of energy varies moment to moment, chaotically, both in total and wavelength.
You are dreaming.
None of the contents of your fantasy matter. There is no GHE, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and the surface does so every night – radiating away all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat content.
Disagree away. You might get some support if you can show some facts to support your fantasy.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
1/ ASR = Incoming Solar (measured) Reflected Solar (measured)
2/ Because Incoming and Reflected Solar are measured, I can calculate albedo, not just guesstimate as you suggest.
3/ I gave you the link to the data. You can calculate the error in the measurement to your hearts content. Thats the proverbial you of course.
4/ Flux is given in units of Rate of Energy Transfer (Joules/Second)/Area. Why? Because Radiant Energy is transported over a distributed area rather than a single point.
On the positive side, Im glad to see youre practicing your graph reading.
————————
Well that is a wholly inadequate description to explain how the GHE is calculated.
1. Reflection can be directional or omni-directional. So taking a reading of the earths albedo from a satellite isn’t adequate.
2. The way albedo is measured isn’t adequate.
”Albedo can be measured using satellite imagery or a pyranometer device, which detects shortwave solar radiation in the form of watts per square meter (W/sq m). Simply, albedo can be calculated using the basic equation Albedo = Reflected Light/Incoming Light.”
https://tinyurl.com/yc227xku
The reason number 2 is inadequate is the GHE is calculated using blackbody radiation for the surface and net ASR for the incoming meaning you believe that the earth doesn’t emit any frequencies the sun showers the earth with. any overlap has not been measured or it has been ignored.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561106
When ever you feel like responding Bill.
Bill 12:40 pm: “any overlap has not been measured or it has been ignored.”
The solar SW and earthen LW overlap HAS been measured so it has not been ignored.
Also, blackbodies do not exist in nature so the GHE has to be measured using graybody radiation from the L&O surface.
The GHE is easier to calculate using blackbody radiation to which radiometers are calibrated. Both methods arrive at the same rounded GHE numbers because the earthen L&O surface emissivity measures only about ~3% different than blackbody emissivity.
Bill 12:40 pm, light reflection is directional (right back at the observer); it is light scattering that is omnidirectional. The satellites measuring albedo do look down at scenes covering enough of the earth system to get accurate readings for solar SW scattered thus not absorbed in the system.
Sure those numbers in the post you linked to are weekly numbers.
The CPCCONSOL projection is about 1.6 for the NDJ season and we are only 3 weeks into that season with 10 weeks to go.
the stat model had virtually the same peak as the cpcconsol
the dynamic models are about .4 higher for a peak.
Thus the coming 10 weeks will need to average 1.6 to make the CPCCONSOL and STAT on target for the peak of the El Nino and the dynamics need to average about 2.2 for the next 10 weeks to get theirs.
Too early to tell. So you disagree? Explain why.
Ball4 says:
”Bill 12:40 pm: ”any overlap has not been measured or it has been ignored.” ”
The solar SW and earthen LW overlap HAS been measured so it has not been ignored.
——————
thats a claim you haven’t provided any support for Ball4. I provided support for how albedo is measured that doesn’t measure IR albedo from earth. . .only shortwave.
If you have a source showing that albedo has been calculated with zero IR by all means post it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ball4 says:
”The GHE is easier to calculate using blackbody radiation to which radiometers are calibrated. Both methods arrive at the same rounded GHE numbers because the earthen L&O surface emissivity measures only about ~3% different than blackbody emissivity.”
————————–
Well gee a surface radiating 400w/m2 at only 3% makes for about a 2.5 degree change in temperature. So you think 2 degrees is something we don’t have to worry about?
Ball4 says:
”Bill 12:40 pm, light reflection is directional (right back at the observer); it is light scattering that is omnidirectional. The satellites measuring albedo do look down at scenes covering enough of the earth system to get accurate readings for solar SW scattered thus not absorbed in the system.
——————
”Light reflects from a smooth surface at the same angle as it hits the surface. For a smooth surface, reflected light rays travel in the same direction. This is called specular reflection. For a rough surface, reflected light rays scatter in all directions.”
Ball4 your take completely disagrees with this source. You must not have any idea what you are talking about. Someone else who knows more about this please comment.
https://tinyurl.com/y8awbuyw
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The GHE is easier to calculate using blackbody radiation to which radiometers are calibrated. Both methods arrive at the same rounded GHE numbers because the earthen L&O surface emissivity measures only about ~3% different than blackbody emissivity.”
You now claim the GHE is a “number”. Good for you! How about 33? That’s a number. Or the value of pi? Maybe one seventh? Another number!
You seem very confused. Some people claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter! They are silly, aren’t they? I prefer your description of the GHE being a “number”. That way, it can be any “number” you like, and who can prove you wrong?
Maybe you are just another confused fantasist. Let me know if Im wrong. Give me a “number”.
Mike Flynn,
You are wrong.
42.
Cheers.
Mike 5:45 pm Here’s some numbers from DREMT earlier: “Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K”.
Willard,
That’s the best you can.do? 42? Can’t you even create your own pointless number?
Maybe you don’t realise that the number,42 has already been used as the answer to everything – in someone else’s fantasy. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, if you don’t already know.
Oh well, if you can’t describe the GHE, you might just as well be silly.
Carry on.
…which is irrelevant as far as the GHE is concerned.
b4…”light reflection is directional (right back at the observer); it is light scattering that is omnidirectional”.
***
Reflection and scattering are not the same. Light can be reflected in all angles that are capable of diverting EM. Light reflected from a spherical mirror can come straight back or be reflected through more than 180 degrees. You can see that in the spherical mirrored surfaces of disco ball.
Atmospheric light Scattering is the re-direction of light through a gas. It has a prismatic effect in the atmosphere, breaking light into its constituent frequencies which are perceived by the eye as various colours. There is no reflection involved unless it can be considered reflection when light quanta bounces of an atom or molecule of gas. It’s not refraction either since that is the bending of light as it moves from one medium into another.
Bill,Gordon: to photons as particles (or waves) of vanishingly small dimensions, all surfaces are rough. In the link provided 5:34 pm, see diffuse reflection: light rays scattered in all directions. No real surface is a mirror as shown, that angle is only theoretical.
To better understand reflection, look in a mirror. Your pupils will be black. This is because your head blocks all light from reflecting off your retina. Cameras, though, will make your retina visible from scattered light.
For support, ask google: “What is the difference between solar radiation and Earth radiation?” Find a measured spectrum of both & observe the only wavelength at which one cannot tell if the photon was emitted from Earth or the sun.
b4…”The GHE is easier to calculate using blackbody radiation to which radiometers are calibrated”.
***
You live in a strange world where, based on those calculations, ice emits 315 w/m^2 of energy.
… of energy per second per m^2.
Ball4,
“Heres some numbers from DREMT earlier: Earths temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K.”
More numbers? Which numbers are you asking me to believe?
255 K is -18 C is -1 F . . . You do realise that temperature is the measure of hotness of an object, do you? An object cannot be two different degrees of hotness simultaneously – thats just being silly. About as silly as saying an object’s length is different, depending on whether you use metric or imperial units.
Maybe you don’t appreciate the difference between measuring the temperature of different things using different methods.
Still, you can’t actually describe the GHE, can you? Just claiming it is a “number” doesnt make you sound particularly intelligent, does it?
If you believe it does, let me know, and I’ll laugh at yet another SkyDragon cultist.
Ball4 wrote “Bill,Gordon: to photons as particles (or waves) of vanishingly small dimensions, all surfaces are rough.” and that rough surfaces create diffuse reflection.
Unfortunately, Ball4 also wrote –
“Light reflects from a smooth surface at the same angle as it hits the surface. For a smooth surface, reflected light rays travel in the same direction. This is called specular reflection. For a rough surface, reflected light rays scatter in all directions.”
Ball4 seems to be saying that no surfaces are smooth – he clearly states that to photons of unspecified “vanishingly small dimensions” all surfaces are rough – which is clearly at odds with reflections from, say, a mirror.
Not to worry, Ball4 will immediately fly off at another tangent, trying to confuse the issue.
What a cavorting donkey he is! Cannot even decide whether his magical GHE makes things hotter, colder, or both at the same time!
He should look at himself in a mirror, and try and figure out why the light rays (which he claims are scattering in all directions, because all surfaces are rough) seem to be “reflected” in straight lines. Or he could try looking it up on the internet. I wish him luck.
Mike errr… Swenson 8:14 pm: Note I didn’t mention a “GHE”. Mike did though! GHE must then mean something to Mike.
Ball4 wrote –
“Mike errr Swenson 8:14 pm: Note I didnt mention a GHE. Mike did though! GHE must then mean something to Mike.”
Clueless clod. Trying to appear intelligent – and failing.
There is no GHE.
Ball4 says:
”To better understand reflection, look in a mirror.”
For you to better understand reflection Ball4 I would suggest reading the source I linked to above.
Consult an online dictionary, Bill, and learn what the terms “reflection” and “scatter” really mean.
The spinners continue to play semantical games rather than bringing forth any science at all to support their position. Sad!!
Quick question, Gill –
If the Earth wasn’t considered a blackbody, would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?
So far nobody has addressed any of the points I made here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561307
Calling people names hardly passed for science when I went to school
“Calling people names hardly passed for science when I went to school”
Can I quote you on that, Bill?
As long as you note you still haven’t addressed any of the points.
Im not involved in this thread. But I was astonished at your statement, because there are numerous occasions when you have substituted name-calling for science answers.
Hmmm, what I was referring to was insults in lieu of debate.
Arkady stated –
“Electromagnetic radiation is the primary carrier of solar energy from the sun to the Earths surface.
For the Earth to maintain a stable climate, the incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation must be in balance over the long term.”
He obviously refuses to accept that radiation is the sole carrier of energy from the sun to the Earth.
He then compounds his error by assuming that which is demonstrably untrue, combined with an attempt to confuse the issue.
The Earth has cooled, and the surface does so ever night. There is no “energy balance”. Climate is the statistics of historical observations. Numbers, without any power to “cause” anything at all.
Arkady is one of those nutters whom I generally refer to as SkyDragn cultists. He cannot describe the GHE, and point blank refuses to say whether the GHE is supposed to result in heating, cooling, or both at the same time!
Who would value the opinions of such a strange obsessed person?
Not me, but others are free to believe any peculiar things they wish.
swenson…Ark seems to be hung up on the notion that energy in must always equal energy out. The truth is, it is a lot more complicated than such a simplistic observation. Ark fails to consider the mechanisms involved.
Solar energy heats the Earth much faster than infrared radiation can remove heat. With such a problem, the Earth must warm beyond an equilibrium state of a simple energy in/out situation. An astute alarmist may have gotten that but it appears there are not many, if any, astute alarmists.
Also, if you have an atmosphere layered with a negative pressure gradient, which will dissipate heat automatically as heated air parcels move through it, it reduces the need for heat to be dissipated via radiation.
You keep pointing out the obvious, that the surface continues to cool during the night when there is no solar input. If radiation was effective at cooling, the planet would cool much faster during the night, but it does not, on average. After a hot summer day, the air temperature does not drop a lot during the night.
The reason seems obvious: radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation and the warmed atmosphere slows the dissipation of heat via thermals.
Not only that, heat accumulated in the Tropical atmosphere and oceans is retained and distributed poleward throughout the planet, raising the average temperatures of those regions.
Ark would much prefer that it was as simplistic as he and his alarmist brethern see it, that a trace gas can cause catastrophic effects in the climate. According to them, a trivial atmospheric gas is responsible for raising global temperatures while being the sole means of surface heat dissipation.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“After a hot summer day, the air temperature does not drop a lot during the night.”
From the Ametsoc –
“The percentages of days with daily maximum DTRs above 60C are 4.9%, 1.7%, 33.1%, and 0.3% in the Qaidam Basin semidesert, the Tibetan Plateau, the central Andean dry puna, the Pamir alpine desert, and tundra, respectively.”
Temperatures dropping to 60 C below the daytime temperature seems like a fair drop to me.
Deserts can get very hot during the day, and rapidly drop to below freezing, leading to the millennia-old practice of making ice in the desert.
All good fun, isn’t it?
Still no GHE, though!
Bit late notice, but NOAA have declared a full-blown el Nino, following BoM from a month ago. JMA are a few weeks away from doing the same, based on their metrics.
As for the forecasts:
BoM:
“Climate model outlooks suggest this El Niño is likely to continue into the early southern hemisphere autumn 2024.”
NOAA (statistical modelling):
“El Niño is favored through Northern Hemisphere spring 2024, with chances gradually decreasing from the winter through the spring. A transition to ENSO-neutral is favored in May-July 2024.”
JMA:
“El Niño conditions have persisted in the equatorial Pacific since boreal spring this year.
They are likely (80%) to continue through boreal spring next year.”
Barry comes to forecast el Nino after it’s fully blown and already deminishing
Really? What forecast did I make?
There really are a lot of people who tell fibs on this board.
Not diminishing yet….that is coming in the future. Not sure why Eben keeps jumping the gun.
Same old wishful thinking from Eben. 3 out 4 ENSO monitoring groups have the latest week/month as the highest Nino anomaly yet.
But let’s call his remark a prediction and see how he goes. I give it 50/50 that the el Nino peaked last week.
Barry topples his useless post by 50/50 “prediction”
Really? Which of the institutes said el Nino has not peaked. and which said it has?
I’ve got you down for el Nino having already hit its peak. Let’s see how you go.
Posted it three times already
IRI plume.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Cooling expected in February.
Nuts and Berries forecasting services
There is still some confusion about the “240 W/m^2”. Again, that figure comes from the mythical, imaginary blsckbody sphere. It really has no meaningful application to Earth.
As flux from Earth changes with distance, there will be some point in space where the measured flux would be 240 W/m^2, since the surface emits about 390 W/m^2. But that is due to the Inverse Square Law, not the bogus GHE.
If the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere were the size of Earth and had a surface temperature of 288K (same as Earth), the 240 W/m^2 would be measured about 1000 miles above the surface. To claim that Earth’s TOA measures 240 W/m^2 just means the cult does not understand the basic physics.
We see that often….
“As flux from Earth changes with distance, there will be some point in space where the measured flux would be 240 W/m^2, since the surface emits about 390 W/m^2. But that is due to the Inverse Square Law, not the bogus GHE.”
Clint has figured it out!
The satellites measuring this flux are all orbiting at the precise ‘point in space’ that gives exactly that reduction!
Maybe he’ll shows us the evidence….
Furthermore, he suggests NASA and NOAA are unable to do the difficult math to account for the inverse square law!
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Nate. Not only is that a sign of maturity, but it’s a good way to learn. Memorization is even better.
Also, thanks for proving me right. As soon as I mentioned the confusion, you provided an example:
“The satellites measuring this flux are all orbiting at the precise ‘point in space’ that gives exactly that reduction!”
Wrong. There are no satellites at TOA.
“Furthermore, he suggests NASA and NOAA are unable to do the difficult math to account for the inverse square law!”
Wrong. Actual measured flux requires no math.
Keep proving me right, I can take it.
Clint R, that’s laughable, Nate didn’t even mention TOA! Great entertainment.
Your cult claims the 255K nonsense occurs at their “TOA”, defined to be at 20 km, child.
Neither Nate, nor you, understand any of this.
Clint R, the earthen brightness temperature ~255K is measured by radiometers on satellites in low earthen orbit. Clint should know satellites don’t orbit at 20 km., so funny & entertaining Clint continuously making such mistakes. To find the truth, Clint R could enter into google this string: low earth orbit height
Ball4 indicates he may have learned something.
But, we’ll have to wait to know for sure.
Clint R has now learned the earthen ~255K is not from an imaginary sphere after all! A Thanksgiving miracle.
Clint fails to catch the drift of why his post makes no sense.
Child, I didn’t expect you to understand.
I understand your ‘science’ is just for yuks.
ATTENTION. Clint is making history right here. He is re-writing quantum physics all on his lonesome.
Way to go Clint. Too bad none of centuries of painstaking physics is in agreement with Clint.
Not quite as bad as Ball4 who is making up stories about observing the 255K that only exists in theoretical calculations.
Earth surface 255K is theory based on 8000K sun surface temperature. The actual measurement is 288K.
The GHE theory depends on the difference between 255K and 288K.
The AGW hypothesis depends on CO2 emissions causing 288K to rise slightly (and insignificantly).
240Wm-2 is the average energy in and so must equal the average energy out. There is no way to measure the 240Wm-2 accurately so it too depends on a lot of rather solid theoretical physics and mathematics. The 240Wm-2 is reliable number to work with.
Hey Ken, Clint R just learned the ~255K is measured from low earthen orbit. Get this, too, from DREMT earlier: “observing that the Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288K.”
So yes ~255K is “measured from space” (DREMT terms) so “240Wm-2 is reliable number to work with” as it is measured from space continually.
…and, as Ken correctly explains, that’s irrelevant as far as the GHE is concerned. The GHE is concerned with a hypothetical surface temperature of 255 K, which is calculated, and compared to the measured surface temperature. So, Clint R has been correct on that front, all along.
No need to mention the 1LOT calculation “front” when “observing that the Earth’s temperature is 255 K measured from space whereas at the surface it is 288 K” is good enough.
Not good enough for evidence of a GHE, no.
Good enough for evidence of a greenhouse effect, yes.
Incorrect.
Now one of the brain-dead Canucks joins in attempting to misrepresent me!
I must be doing something right….
Ken,
You wrote –
“240Wm-2 is the average energy in and so must equal the average energy out.”
Complete nonsense, of course. About as nonsensical as putting a red hot iron ball in direct sunlight, and claiming that energy absorbed by the ball from the sun must equal the energy emitted by the ball.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. The energy from the Sun has been unable to maintain the surface temperature, let alone raise it.
You don’t want to accept reality, I guess. That’s your right. If you want to believe in a mysterious GHE which you can’t even describe – good for you! At least you can blame all mankind’s woes on your deity.
You are the only person that thinks the current climate is due to earth slowly cooling for the past 4 billion years.
No evidence to support your claim. No wonder you have no credibility. Recognizing reality should be your priority issue.
There is this yellow thingy in the sky, puts out visible spectrum light. All of the energy in the earth atmosphere comes from the sun and is distributed unevenly at an average 240 Wm-2. Good luck proving otherwise.
All of mankind’s woes are to be blamed on mankind.
Ken,
You wrote “You are the only person that thinks the current climate is due to earth slowly cooling for the past 4 billion years.”
You are quite mad if you believe your mind-reading course enabled you to read minds!
You can make up any old rubbish you like – you may even choose to believe it!
I don’t blame you for fabricating nonsense – you can’t actually bring yourself to quote me, can you? What a pity. At least your fantasy is rich and varied.
Carry on.
“mind-reading”
Ok so Swenson no longer believes “the current climate is due to earth slowly cooling for the past 4 billion years”, the thing he has been repeating incessantly for many years!
That’s news!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Dan analyzes ENSO:
https://dmn613.wordpress.com/2023/11/20/more-details-on-sep-oct/
Issues:
He has the current El Nino effect stronger than 1997 and 2015.
He has it affecting the globe earlier than those did.
And he ignores the Atlantic SST, which clearly has had a strong warming event this year, earlier than El Nino.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Select N. Atlantic
You can tell him right to his face:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/10/05/staggering/#comment-221722
Silly willy finds another source he can’t understand.
The source appears to have ignored the HTE, or possibly included it in with this El Niño. There’s a lot of garbage out there….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561988
The spinners continue to play semantical games rather than bringing forth any science at all to support their position. Sad!!
Dragon cranks confuse everything all the time.
Dragon cranks?
Have you a wind-up Dragon somewhere?
Consider a solar powered toy – no cranking required!
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Semantics? None in this thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There will be the end of Hamas.
What are you going to do with all the tunnels they made?
Could you make any of the war criminals, make more tunnels for the
rest of their lives?
The tunnels could be used to bury Hamas dead. One day the catacombs of Gaza could be a tourist attraction.
Hey, Pupman.
Riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-995629
Who wrote this comment?
The tunnels could be used to bury Hamas dead. One day the catacombs of Gaza could be a tourist attraction.
Something tells me you forgot about the second antifada, Kennui. Israel showed weakness against the weakest of the weakest. It won’t end with an amusement park.
Weaseling Wee Willy,
Still claiming that the GHE results in “Not cooling, slower cooling”?
Slower cooling still results in dropping temperatures, doesn’t it?
Tult, tut, Willard. That’s about as bizarre as the attempts of that other Willard (Willard Quine), to pass himself off as a great philosopher, but failing – as Stanford University points out ” . . . his contributions are negligible.”
If there was an Olympic event for negligible contributions, you would be a valued competitor for your country.
See? You can now “translate” a negligible contribution into a valuable contribution.
Maybe you could translate “slower cooling” into “getting hotter”? Someone might believe you.
[wee Willy is the gift that keeps giving]
Mike Flynn,
No, you do.
Cheers.
Weaseling Wee Willy,
Still claiming that the GHE results in “Not cooling, slower cooling”?
Slower cooling still results in dropping temperatures, doesnt it?
Tult, tut, Willard. Thats about as bizarre as the attempts of that other Willard (Willard Quine), to pass himself off as a great philosopher, but failing as Stanford University points out ” . . . his contributions are negligible.”
If there was an Olympic event for negligible contributions, you would be a valued competitor for your country.
See? You can now “translate” a negligible contribution into a valuable contribution.
Maybe you could translate “slower cooling” into “getting hotter”? Someone might believe you.
You wrote “You do”, presumably referring to me. No I don’t believe you at all. There is no GHE.
[wee Willy is the gift that keeps giving]
Stanford University?
What are you braying about?
Weaseling Wee Willy,
Still claiming that the GHE results in “Not cooling, slower cooling”?
Slower cooling still results in dropping temperatures, doesnt it?
Tult, tut, Willard. Thats about as bizarre as the attempts of that other Willard (Willard Quine), to pass himself off as a great philosopher, but failing as Stanford University points out ” . . . his contributions are negligible.”
If there was an Olympic event for negligible contributions, you would be a valued competitor for your country.
See? You can now translate a negligible contribution into a valuable contribution.
Maybe you could translate “slower cooling” into “getting hotter”? Someone might believe you.
You wrote “You do”, presumably referring to me. No I dont believe you at all. There is no GHE.
You have never heard of Stanford University or Willard Quine (negligible contributor)?
[wee Willy is the gift that keeps giving]
Mike, Mike,
You said –
“Stanford University points out”
What are you braying about?
Hey Willard,
Who cares?
Do you think someone, somewhere, is of sufficiently low intelligence to value your silliness?
Mike Flynn,
Gaslighting Graham does:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561848
Cheers.
I really don’t. I just respond to you to pass the time.
Hey Willard,
I assume that “Gaslighting Graham” is another figment of your imagination.
No real person values your opinion – laughing at your opinions assigns them no value at all.
But, hey, if you enjoy being viewed as a mentally impaired buffoon, who am I to disturb your equilibrium?
Carry on, by all means.
You assume?
No real person?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Hey Willard,
I assume that “Gaslighting Graham” is another figment of your imagination.
No real person values your opinion laughing at your opinions assigns them no value at all.
But, hey, if you enjoy being viewed as a mentally impaired buffoon, who am I to disturb your equilibrium?
Carry on, by all means.
Have you figured out that “slower cooling” is still cooling, not getting hotter? That might be news to you, but it’s true.
Strange person you are.
Hey Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Hey Willard,
I assume that Gaslighting Graham is another figment of your imagination.
No real person values your opinion laughing at your opinions assigns them no value at all.
But, hey, if you enjoy being viewed as a mentally impaired buffoon, who am I to disturb your equilibrium?
Carry on, by all means.
Have you figured out that “slower cooling” is still cooling, not getting hotter? That might be news to you, but its true.
Strange person you are.
Mike Flynn,
I wish Gaslighting Graham was the figment of my imagination.
Alas, he’s not:
https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hey, Pupman.
Riddle me this –
https://tinyurl.com/yo-yo-circa-2021
Who wrote this comment?
Little Willy probably thinks he was the first person ever to suggest the yo-yo as the "Spinner" model for "orbit without spin".
He does tend to think a lot of himself.
Gaslighting Graham probably misread what I wrote.
"Gaslighting Graham"…
…there’s nobody here commenting by that name.
GGGA.
LW, PST.
going into a global cooling cycle
https://youtu.be/6xRpzeS5jFU
Eboy with his silly global cooling updates.
Yet again.
Hello Eben,
Until ozone levels recover to pre 1985 values there is unlikely to be much global xooling.. just more of the same..
I see that you Republicans are gerrymandering again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67480042
E,
Well, that’s good to know, I suppose. Are you prepared to commit yourself to saying that the GHE has some definite effect, whether that be heating, cooling, or both simultaneously?
Nobody seems to know what the GHE actually does, do they?
You seem to think you are a clever chap – maybe you know what the GHE does.
Swenson must know since Swenson keeps commenting on the GHE.
Ball4,
Are you prepared to commit yourself to saying that the GHE has some definite effect, whether that be heating, cooling, or both simultaneously?
Nobody seems to know what the GHE actually does, do they?
You seem to think you are a clever chap maybe you know what the GHE does.
Are you seriously appealing to my authority? If I state that you suffer from a severe mental impairment, will you accept my authority in that area?
You are definitely strange – you don’t even have the guts to say what you believe – you just keep claiming everyone knows what the GHE does – just not you!
Pity, that.
Swenson must know the term’s meaning since Swenson keeps commenting on the GHE or Swenson wouldn’t use the term. That is all.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Willard enters the fray, to test if his gibberish generator is performing more or less satisfactorily. It seems to be – it generated the following gibberish +
“Quick question, Gill
If the Earth wasnt considered a blackbody, would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?”
Still needs a bit of a tune-up, as it keeps leaving relevant words out.
” . . .would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?” makes no sense at all! On the other hand, that may be a design feature of Willard’s gibberish generating machine.
Maybe Willard could set me straight. Only joking – nobody values Wee Willy’s opinions.
What is Mike Flynn braying about?
Willard enters the fray, to test if his gibberish generator is performing more or less satisfactorily. It seems to be it generated the following gibberish –
“Quick question, Gill
If the Earth wasn’t considered a blackbody, would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?”
Still needs a bit of a tune-up, as it keeps leaving relevant words out.
” . . .would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?” makes no sense at all! On the other hand, that may be a design feature of Willards gibberish generating machine.
Maybe Willard could set me straight. Only joking nobody values Wee Willys opinions.
Fray?
Test?
What is Mike braying about?
Willard enters the fray, to test if his gibberish generator is performing more or less satisfactorily. It seems to be it generated the following gibberish
“Quick question, Gill
If the Earth wasnt considered a blackbody, would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?”
Still needs a bit of a tune-up, as it keeps leaving relevant words out.
” . . .would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?” makes no sense at all! On the other hand, that may be a design feature of Willards gibberish generating machine.
Maybe Willard could set me straight. Only joking nobody values Wee Willy’s opinions.
Fray? Test? Weepy Wee Willy changes tack, and decides he doesn’t really understand English, after all. Good for him.
How could setting Mike Flynn straight ever be possible?
Willard enters the fray, to test if his gibberish generator is performing more or less satisfactorily. It seems to be it generated the following gibberish
“Quick question, Gill
If the Earth wasnt considered a blackbody, would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?”
Still needs a bit of a tune-up, as it keeps leaving relevant words out.
” . . .would the figure Pupman whines about higher or lower?” makes no sense at all! On the other hand, that may be a design feature of Willards gibberish generating machine.
Maybe Willard could set me straight. Only joking nobody values Wee Willys opinions.
Fray? Test? Weepy Wee Willy changes tack, and decides he doesnt really understand English, after all. Good for him.
Has Mike Flynn asked for his Marmite again?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Yes Bob wins again, after all, he has a telescope and a camera.
“Willard declares Bob the winner for bring forth a semantical argument as an answer to a science question.
Meanwhile the spinners havent found a single iota of scientific evidence for their conclusion that the moon spins independently of its orbit on its own axis.”
Semantic argument my rectum, not a single iota of scientific evidence, again my rectum.
Read this, then weep, and shred your garments of sack cloths and ashes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
bob wants attention!
Brain-dead bob uses cult nonsense to “prove” cult nonsense! He just can’t learn.
And now he’s succumbed to the same anal fixation as Norman.
Therapists have to make a living too….
Hey, Pupman, riddle me this –
Would it be possible to spin the cabins of a Ferris wheel?
If the cabins of a Ferris wheel were locked, so that they were physically unable to rotate on their own axes when the Ferris wheel was stationary, once the wheel was moving would they move like the “moon on the left” (MOTL), or 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
Gaslighting Graham obviously does not realize that a friction washer only works once side of an axle…
No, I get that.
The answer to my question was: the MOTL.
Next question:
Is it “tidal locking” or “tidal freedom of movement”?
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The “moon spin” motor would do nothing.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I get that a friction washer only works once side of an axle.
The “moon spin” motor would no longer spin the model moon, Little Willy…because there would be a low friction washer between it and the model moon. You would be able to spin the model moon with your fingers, though, but it would no longer be a very effective piece of equipment, overall.
Meanwhile, an important point has gone whizzing over Little Willy’s head.
Gaslighting Graham again shows he has no business here.
The Earth could rotate the Moon without changing its orientation. The Moon could still spin because of its the internal motor.
It’s as if Gaslighting Graham never used a power tool in his life.
Well, if you want to do away with the low-friction washer so that the “moon spin” motor can again spin the moon, then with the “moon spin” motor not engaged the model moon will “orbit” as per the MOTL.
Gaslighting Graham generates gibberish again.
The contraption locks the objects when their motor is off. This is a design choice. That’s how the CSA Truther hides his trick!
The XY plotter equipment locks the objects when their motor is off. This is a design choice. That’s how the XY truther hides his trick!
One choice makes orbit and spin independent.
The other forces Gaslighting Graham to redefine orbit and spin.
Tough choice!
…and a false one. "Orbit" and "spin" are independent with both the CSAItruth equipment, and the XY plotter equipment. That’s the beauty of this debate – I know I’m right, on points 1) – 4). You can keep repeating your errors for the rest of your life, you’ll always be wrong, and I’ll always be right.
Even if, once we’ve got past the point where all "Spinners" agree on points 1) – 4) and we go on to discuss whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL or the MOTR…even if it turns out that the moon does rotate on its own axis, and "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, I still won’t care, because points 1) – 4) will still be correct, regardless. I’ll always have a long internet history showing the depths that people will sink to, to try and argue against me, when I’m obviously correct. I’ll always have that victory over people like you.
It’s just a great feeling.
DREMT: “I know I’m right, on points 1) – 4).”
And fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat… (don’t sail over the edge!)
DREMT is wrong on point 3).
DREMT’s 1) and 2) just depend on location of observer which isn’t specified but is revealed by the description of the observation.
Bless him. My complete and utter victory over Ball4 is one of my favourites. Ball4 has one point, one note, one thing that he just repeats over and over again – and he is wrong. What a delight.
For once B4 is glaringly right, and only Gaslighting Graham’s seething rage remains.
Incorrect.
Clint R,
A person who doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and proof should leave the discussion to adults.
b,
A person who doesn’t understand the scientific method should just keep believing in a GHE which they can’t even describe.
You seem to be obsessed with your rectum. Maybe peering into it will reveal some hidden knowledge, maybe not. You might find it’s just full of shit.
Mikey Flynn,
I have already given you your Maypo.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Even better, Bob:
Friction washers make all motors ineffective!
Little Willy also wants attention!
Ah, the good ol’ days:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1359096
B for “Bob,” no doubt.
An argument against tidal locking? That reminds me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562117
Is it “tidal locking” or “tidal freedom of movement”?
Wondering Wee Willy,
Is there a point to your quote? You aren’t really trying to claim that you can make a homogeneous sphere spin around an internal axis using the force of gravity, are you?
I know you are quite silly, but that’s ridiculous! Gravity powered machines are the stuff of perpetual motion believers.
You really are incredibly gullible, as well as not terribly bright.
Are you still trying to convince people that “slower cooling” results from the operation of the GHE? No, you dummy, no GHE needed. Objects cool all by themselves, if allowed to do so.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Wondering Wee Willy,
Is there a point to your quote? You arent really trying to claim that you can make a homogeneous sphere spin around an internal axis using the force of gravity, are you?
I know you are quite silly, but thats ridiculous! Gravity powered machines are the stuff of perpetual motion believers.
You really are incredibly gullible, as well as not terribly bright.
Are you still trying to convince people that “slower cooling” results from the operation of the GHE? No, you dummy, no GHE needed. Objects cool all by themselves, if allowed to do so.
How is that braying related to free unobtainium, Mike?
Wondering Wee Willy,
Is there a point to your quote? You arent really trying to claim that you can make a homogeneous sphere spin around an internal axis using the force of gravity, are you?
I know you are quite silly, but thats ridiculous! Gravity powered machines are the stuff of perpetual motion believers.
You really are incredibly gullible, as well as not terribly bright.
Are you still trying to convince people that slower cooling results from the operation of the GHE? No, you dummy, no GHE needed. Objects cool all by themselves, if allowed to do so.
I believe unobtainium is as fictitious as the GHE. Of course it would be free, dummy.
“Gravity powered machines are the stuff of perpetual motion believers.”
Rubbish. Any weight driven clock is gravity powered.
Ent, how do the weights get re-raised?
You have no clue about science. Like the rest of your cult you believe “science” is throwing crap against the wall, hoping it will stick. You just clog up this blog with your false beliefs.
“I know you are quite silly, but thats ridiculous! Gravity powered machines are the stuff of perpetual motion believers.”
Try hydro power.
bumbling bobby,
Try hydro power? Indeed, all you have to do is first lift water by magic, and then . . .
You really don’t understand physics, do you?
yep these guys are a joke.
And EM is oblivious to having the wind the clock up and give the pendulum a good push.
Gill believes that “gravity powered machines” don’t exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvWHDXafXtQ
ROFL!
bobdroege says:
”Semantic argument my rectum, not a single iota of scientific evidence, again my rectum.”
DREMT produced a working model. Thats called a successful experiment. The challenge was hurled in your court to do the same with a single power source and all we see is your lips moving on your rectum.
The model:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
That’s “orbit” and “spin”, two independent motions, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective (where “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL).
Cool! The next post by the spinners should be a working model of their idea of how to build a device to imitate the motion on the moon.
But that will never happen as these guys are a joke. They would have difficulty engineering their way out of a paper bag even if armed with scissors.
Too easy, Gill –
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021JE006875
How many would you like?
He said “build a device”, Little Willy…but hey, you think you can just stick a low-friction washer underneath the model moon in the CSAItruth equipment and it will magically work how you want it to…so why don’t you try and actually make it? You might figure out why you’re wrong in the process, so it could be a good learning experience for you.
“The next post by the spinners should be a working model”
Gaslighting Graham is a compulsive liar.
OK, a working model:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/working%20model#:~:text=%3A%20a%20model%20of%20an%20actual,model%20of%20a%20freight%20locomotive
So, basically…build a device.
To SkyDragon cultists, a “model” is any figment of a self-appointed “climate scientist” imagination which supports cult dogma.
Loony “climate models” are produced by the dozen. Completely worthless – no two of them even agree on outcomes, and none of them can even predict the past!
Better off casting the runes, or consulting the Tarot. Cheaper too.
Too easy –
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA045591
But hey, Moon Dragon cranks have a clock!
Yes, it is too easy for you to repeatedly ignore what has been asked.
Gaslighting Graham plays Humpty Dumpty again.
Another working model –
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/429/the-moons-orbit-and-rotation/
Looks like NASA are monitoring our exchanges!
You could say that is a “model” for “Non-Spinners” or “Spinners”, Little Willy. Bill can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he is looking for a mechanical device that moves the model moon as per the “Spinner” view.
We could say that when Moon Dragon cranks are asking for a toy model, they insist on the word “toy.”
I’m just interested to see if anyone can come up with a device better than the XY plotter equipment for modelling the “Spinner” position. So far, no, they cannot. In which case, their apparent idea for how gravity works is a giant cosmic hand moving the object around in its orbit.
” a giant cosmic hand moving the object around in its orbit.”
Are some thinking like an Aristotelian again?
No hand is needed to keep things moving around, just inertia.
…in which case, their apparent idea for how gravity works is a giant cosmic hand moving the object around in its orbit.
We could say that the CSA Truther modelled a complete tidal lock. We could also say that he tricked few viewers by misplacing the locking mechanism of his motors.
Astute readers ought to know of tools with motors that lock onto gears when they are ON instead of when they are OFF. Safer for everyone.
” a low-friction washer”
FYI guys, it’s known as a bearing. And in thought experiments they can be frictionless.
Sure, Little Willy. You can endlessly repeat the same mistakes, if you wish. That’s a good way for you to once again evade the argument that you simply have no rebuttal for.
“The next post by the spinners should be a working model of their idea of how to build a device to imitate the motion on the moon.”
I’d like to see Bill build one that operates like gravity, with no physical connection between Earth and Moon, and then see what happens.
What will happen is the Moon will spin on a tilted axis, at a constant rate during the orbit, which will exhibit the Moon varying its linear speed, angular velocity and distance from the Earth.
A simple child’s mobile hanging over their crib works.
The problem is not the model, it’s the description of reality that throws people into 5 year long tantrums.
“Astute readers ought to know of tools with motors that lock onto gears when they are ON instead of when they are OFF. Safer for everyone.”
Use such a motor with the model moon in the CSAItruth equipment. See how it goes. The only way you are going to learn why this won’t work to recreate the movement you want to simulate is if you try it.
Since Gaslighting Graham has no argument anymore, we can consider this debate settled in favor of Team Science.
Onward!
“A simple child’s mobile hanging over their crib works…”
…if your idea of how gravity works is some giant cosmic hand moving the object that’s orbiting around the object being orbited.
Going back to Galileo dropping things off the leaning tower, physicists have been able to think abstractly, to extrapolate phenomena to unavailable conditions.
He understood that air resistance was a detail that mattered, yet he was able to extrapolate to what would happen without it and derive universal principles.
So why are people, well educated, yet so unable to think abstractly, and extrapolate to planetary motion, in vacuum, with no need for a hand pushing planets along, and no need for motors, arms, or strings?
I assume Nate is reminding bob that he’s wrong on my point 2).
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rotation-of-a-rigid-body-about-external-axis.841993/
Nothing there supporting you, I’m afraid, bob.
The link supports my position that rotation on an external axis with no rotation on an internal axis is like the Moon on the right.
DREMT, until you can figure that out, you are back on ignore.
From your link:
“Rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis is defined as the motion in which all particles of the body move on circular paths with centers along the axis of rotation and planes of rotation normal to this axis.”
That’s MOTL, not MOTR.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/new-bitmap-image-gif.91527/
That does not fit the description, since it is motion like the MOTR.
Yes it is.
“n the figure a rigid body – a circle- is moving such that its centre is moving in a circular path but the orientation of the body is fixed with respect to the centre of the body (the circle). According to def of rotion of rigid body –
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rotation-of-a-rigid-body-about-external-axis.841993/”
The orientation is fixed, like the Moon on the right.”
“In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis. It is defined as the motion in which all particles of the body move on circular paths with centers along the axis of rotation and planes of rotation normal to this axis. The orientation of the body is fixed with respect to the center of the body. However, in the given scenario, the centers of the circular paths of the particles do not form a straight line and the line joining any two particles’ centers is not normal to the plane of rotation. Therefore, the body cannot be considered to be rotating about axis “B”. The particles are undergoing translation along circular paths, not rotation. The conversation also mentions the possibility of choosing a Cartesian system fixed in the
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rotation-of-a-rigid-body-about-external-axis.841993/
Nate says:
The next post by the spinners should be a working model of their idea of how to build a device to imitate the motion on the moon.
Id like to see Bill build one that operates like gravity, with no physical connection between Earth and Moon, and then see what happens.
What will happen is the Moon will spin on a tilted axis, at a constant rate during the orbit, which will exhibit the Moon varying its linear speed, angular velocity and distance from the Earth.
—————————-
So physically despite the moon exhibiting all the characteristics of a rotation on an external axis in the real world where gravity from numerous objects operate to slightly throw that motion out of Nate’s perfect SIR (symbolically idealistic representation) with an emphasis on ”idealistic” that he was inculcated with in school he wants to use that as and when he sees fit to call out what he doesn’t like. Kind of sounds like the ignorance of racism. Instead of focus on the similarity of the OPR of rotations, the moon is not allowed to be a member of his rotational Country Club because he actually believes engineers don’t consider any like gravity in building the things he allows into his country club. Talking about Ivory Towerism!
The same goes for Bob.
The cult children are throwing crap against the wall, again.
Everything from silly willy and his differential equations and Euler angles (silly willy doesn’t understand that the same math would apply to a ball-on-a-string) to bob trying to apply kinematics and kinetics to orbital motion.
All they get is a messy wall.
That’s why this is so much fun.
bob even quotes the definition of rotation of a body about a fixed axis, which proves him wrong, and acts like it proves him right! You couldn’t make it up.
By definition, it’s the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Sheesh.
Pupman continues his blog terrorism, Gaslighting Graham continues his serial lies, and Gill goes on with his usual soapboxing instead of acknowledging that gravity cannot keep the Man on the Moon facing the Earth by pulling on the Moon’s axis of rotation.
This is all so farsical.
No lies here, Little Willy. Just pointing out that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR. As you agree.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob, and lies about an equivalence being an incompatibility. Meanwhile, he glosses over:
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rotation-of-a-rigid-body-about-external-axis.841993/
In other words, we can shoot down both his (4) and (3) with the same stone!
Little Willy tries the same trick again. How many times, now?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557174
My points 3) and 4) are, of course, correct.
Since Gaslighting Graham has no counterargument except repeating his gibberish, astute readers have no other choice than to adjudicate another win to Bob!
One day Moon Dragon cranks will get up to speed with Lunar Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory
“…repeating his gibberish…”
Little Willy finally admits that he just doesn’t understand. That’s OK. Astute readers would have worked that out a long time ago.
Willard knows just enough about physics and kinematics to be dangerous.
He constantly goes over the top and the only nut in here that thinks reference frames and isometrics determines the location that forces that create motion emanate from.
His mistake is in misunderstanding what a rotation is. A rotation that involves a single motion from a distant star will within the kinematic definition of a rotation will cause the view from that star to see all sides of the object.
Spinners though think seeing that means the object is spinning on its own axis and they completely reject the notion of a rotation on an external axis in conflict with all kinematics.
They deny that of course cherry picking in every imaginable way to stay consistent with kinematics while rejecting the notion of planets rotating around the sun and moons rotating around their planets and stars rotating around other stars.
Willard is one of the worst trying to introduce isometrics and reference frames as if those could distinguish between rotations on an external axis of different types. A bit short on the grey matter or an inconsistent view of physics and kinematics due to inculcation creating a mental gap across some empty space in the grey matter are the only possible explanations.
Bill,
I agree. In any race to the intellectual depths, Willard would be a worthy contender for a podium finish.
Bill,
“A rotation that involves a single motion from a distant star will within the kinematic definition of a rotation will cause the view from that star to see all sides of the object.
Spinners though think seeing that means the object is spinning on its own axis and they completely reject the notion of a rotation on an external axis in conflict with all kinematics.”
Nice but there are two different axes, one for the external axis which doesn’t work with elliptical orbits, because the Earth is at one of the focal points, not at the center of the ellipse.
The rotational internal axis of the Moon as observed by Astronomers is tilted with respect to the axis of revolution of the Moon’s orbit.
Gill keeps saying stuff like “A rotation that involves a single motion from a distant star will within the kinematic definition of a rotation will cause the view from that star to see all sides of the object” as if had any relevance with what has been discussed.
Here is the bit that passes above Moon Dragon cranks’ heads:
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rotation-of-a-rigid-body-about-external-axis.841993/
Just like Mighty Tim said regarding Gaslighting Graham’s merry-go-round.
bobdroege says:
”Nice but there are two different axes, one for the external axis which doesnt work with elliptical orbits, because the Earth is at one of the focal points, not at the center of the ellipse.”
Missing in your argument is why the focal point needs to be at the center of the ellipse for a rotation around the earth to be a rotation.
I realize you guys keep appealing to authority by none of your authorities to date has given a reason why gravity is not the force that controls the rotation or whatever you want to call it and suddenly the rotation moves to the center of the moon.
I pointed out the same problem with a rock sitting on the surface of the earth, being but other particles of the earth rotating around the center of the earth. Elevate it above the surface, give the orbit a slight elliptical shape and viola magically the force that controls the rotation moves to the center of the rock.
I know what is going on here. It has a name ”inculcation”. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inculcation#:~:text=Inculcation%20is%20the%20instilling%20of,hoping%20it%20will%20sink%20in.
there is no inherent science involved in the process of inculcation. Only a vulnerability of the inculcated. A rote learner that never learns the substance of what they are being taught but might be able to pass a test on sheer memorization.
Willard says:
November 22, 2023 at 5:52 PM
Gill keeps saying stuff like A rotation that involves a single motion from a distant star will within the kinematic definition of a rotation will cause the view from that star to see all sides of the object as if had any relevance with what has been discussed.
——————–
It was you folks claiming that the moon rotates on its center of mass because that is what you see from a distant star. However, you see the same thing with a rotation on an external axis. Spinners obviously have little capability of seeing their own shortcomings.
Again Willard gives lip service to inculcation but doesn’t provide any rationale at all. You may as well be saying ”by definition” assuming you think definitions have anything at all to do with real world physics. Definitions only have a role in inculcation of the use of physics tools within a Symbolic Idealistic Representation.
So you are saying anything at all about the OPR all you are doing is parroting the language you have been inculcated with. Its amazing how many so-called scientists are only translators divining meaning out of words rather that observing the real world. Its a very imprecise way to advance physics and is mostly used to twist the words of the long dead to either elevate them or bring them down. We have seen that here with words of Newton elevated and the words of Tesla brought down without using a single shred of science to do so.
Little Willy, nothing goes over our heads. You mention again what Tim said about fixing the origin of your reference frame through the wooden horse on the merry-go-round itself. Yes, then it appears to be rotating on its own internal axis. You have to be careful when doing this, though, because you are depriving yourself of the full picture. Place the origin of your reference frame through the centre of the merry-go-round, instead. Now, you can see that the wooden horse is either:
a) rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, or
b) translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis
as per rigid body kinematics (which bob is still in denial about).
Then, since the wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis when the merry-go-round is stationary, you know the OPR is that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own internal axis when the merry-go-round spins.
Yet, in choosing the wrong location for the origin of your reference frame to start with, you almost would have convinced yourself that it was rotating on its own internal axis! What a mistake that would have been.
b) should have course been:
translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Whoops.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Astute readers might wonder if he will try the Jedi trick of making them believe that the difference between active and passive transformations is merely illusory.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Is he trying the Jedi trick of making astute readers believe that the difference between active and passive transformations is merely illusory?
I’m not gaslighting, Little Willy. I tell you the truth. I try to explain. You just slap me in the face, every time. Every time you just reject anything I say, automatically, without consideration. It’s a shame, because you’re never going to learn anything.
Your problem, I suppose.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
I patiently explain to him why Bob is right, and why Bob says the same thing as everybody else. But instead of thanking me, he has to victim bully me again.
Such ingratitude.
You have such a confused understanding of events in this sub-thread. bob linked to what he linked to, to try and prove himself right about my point 2). He made absolutely no mention of anything in that link relating to my point 3). That was you Little Willy, not bob. You are the one bringing up frames of reference again!
Willard has a different perspective than DREMT.
Willard being a snowflake doesn’t take criticism very well and is being driven insane by DREMT thus he accuses DREMT of gaslighting.
DREMT points out though all he is doing is expressing his own opinion. Snowflakes can’t handle folks that have different opinions from them considering how narcissistic snowflakes are.
For Gill it’s all about “perspective”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keW4QqRGVN4
Next he’ll tell us that he’s been a food critic too!
He accuses me of gaslighting in just about every comment. I mean…get some new ideas, at least.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I meanget some new ideas, at least.
————————
Definition of insanity. Doing the same thing expecting different results.
Bill,
“Missing in your argument is why the focal point needs to be at the center of the ellipse for a rotation around the earth to be a rotation.”
An ellipse is the intersection of a cone and a plane, where the intersection of the plane is not normal to the axis of the cone.
If you rotate the plane, the ellipse is rotating around the center of the ellipse.
But the Moon revolves around one of the focal points of the ellipse not the center, that’s why it’s not a rotation.
Geometry lessons are closed, grades will be posted.
But you got a D.
Einstein supposedly played the violin in his youth, I assume he played it over and over again until it didn’t sound like two cats fighting.
Same for me, I expect someday that riff will sound good.
bob your idea of a center here is a geometric center. geometrics only sometimes apply to OPRs. the earth is the physical center of the energy and forces that control the moon’s rotation, namely the energy that creates the path for the moon. the angular momentum remains constant around that center. you have just been inculcated into believing symbolic idealistic representations of reality is actual reality when all there purpose is to provide a simplified way of working around reality. when you move beyond the apprentice level and become in charge of designing creating new realities or realistic working models of existing realities you need to advance to a higher level known as design engineering.
> geometrics only sometimes apply to OPRs.
qltm
“The link supports my position that rotation on an external axis with no rotation on an internal axis is like the Moon on the right.”
qltm
Bill,
You are not getting my argumnent.
“bob your idea of a center here is a geometric center. geometrics only sometimes apply to OPRs.”
I am arguing that the Earth is not the center of the rotation, thus the external rotation is not the OPR.
“the earth is the physical center of the energy and forces that control the moons rotation, namely the energy that creates the path for the moon.”
This I agree with, but
“the angular momentum remains constant around that center.”
There are two angular momentums you have to consider,
“you have just been inculcated into believing symbolic idealistic representations of reality is actual reality when all there purpose is to provide a simplified way of working around reality. when you move beyond the apprentice level and become in charge of designing creating new realities or realistic working models of existing realities you need to advance to a higher level known as design engineering.”
This all bs by an engineer inculcated into believing engineers are all God’s gifts to humanity.
You can’t see beyond all that.
Plus you need to take a course in Rhetoric so you can write a concise and coherent sentence.
This I agree with, but
the angular momentum remains constant around that center.
There are two angular momentums you have to consider,
———————-
There ”might” be two angular momentums you may have to consider.
1) Spin angular momentum.
2) rotational angular momentum on a fixed external axis.
In the case of the earth they both must be considered. In the case of the moon only the second needs considering. . .though you can derive a spin angular momentum by splitting that angular momentum down. (e.g. for the purpose of planning a landing after your landing vehicle has come under the control of the moon.)
However you can’t do that with a rotation on an external axis if you can’t achieve control by the object rotating on an external axis as in that case you have to still correctly determine the motion of the rotation.
And of course none of that is meant to suggest to the spinners that spin angular momentum doesn’t exist.
Bill,
You still don’t get it.
The Moon is not rotating around the Earth on an external rotational axis.
Try paper bag and scissors.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
You still dont get it.
The Moon is not rotating around the Earth on an external rotational axis.
Try paper bag and scissors.
————————
Sorry science isn’t a dice game. You simply don’t understand that the Lspin element of the function for a sphere rotating around a fixed external axis is NOT physically (in the sense of OPR separable from the Lorbit element. Separating it causes the loss of the vast majority of the moon’s angular momentum because Lspin is not angular momentum but instead is simply linear momentum missing the ”r” factor that would make it angular momentum. As long as you fail to recognize the proper form of angular momentum equations you cannot possibly understand what the OPR of the moon is. the hilarious thing is there are people in here that know that to be true but they refuse to recognize it because they don’t want to stray from their group. They just prefer being led around like they had a ring in their nose.
> You simply dont understand that the Lspin element of the function for a sphere rotating around a fixed external axis is NOT physically (in the sense of OPR[)] separable from the Lorbit element.
Gill confuses himself once again with his jargon.
But at least he recognizes that in Moon Dragon cranks’ toy model orbit and spin are not independent.
“Orbit” and “spin” is independent with the CSAItruth equipment, as even a child could understand. Engage the “orbit” motor and the model moon “orbits”, engage the “spin” motor and the model moon “spins”. Painfully simple. Point 4) is unquestionably correct.
Orbit and spin is independent with the CSAItruth equipment”
Orbit and orientational change are LINKED with that equipment.
Which is obviously not the case for planetary orbits, so one cannot extrapolate from that equipment to planetary orbits.
So what is the POINT?
I’m guessing Nate was again correcting bob on point 2), as those with integrity often choose to do.
Interestingly, though DREMT claims he doesnt want to engage with me, read or respond to my posts, he seems more than willing to tell me what I should be posting about.
Why should he care, if he is not going to read them?
Bill,
“You simply dont understand that the Lspin element of the function for a sphere rotating around a fixed external axis is NOT physically (in the sense of OPR separable from the Lorbit element.”
The point is that the Moon is not a sphere rotating around a fixed external axis.
But there are two components of angular momentum, spin and orbital.
And they are separable.
From wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#:~:text=The%20orbital%20angular%20momentum%20vector,and%20its%20distance%20from%20origin.
“Thus, for example, the orbital angular momentum of the Earth with respect to the Sun is about 2.66 1040 kg⋅m2⋅s−1, while its rotational angular momentum is about 7.05 1033 kg⋅m2⋅s−1.”
The Moon orbits and rotates, just like the Earth.
…guessing Nate was again correcting bob on point 2), as those with integrity often choose to do.
Too bad points 2 and 4 are contradictory.
If orbit and spin are independent as in point 4 then they are not dependent as in point 2.
They’re not dependent in point 2).
Sorry, yes it is.
“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 below GIF (not the MOTR).”
Are we going to have to argue about the definition of what is is?
Or maybe the definition of the word not?
You are saying rotation about an external axis specifies only one of the two possibilies.
You lose again.
bob is hilariously confused, as always. Since “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, that makes movement like the MOTR “rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation”.
When Gaslighting Graham states:
he seems to elide the fact that this counter-rotation counters a rotation he claims does not exist!
The "counter-rotation" is counter to the external axis rotation, Little Willy. So it counters the change of orientation of the object produced by the external axis rotation.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A counter-rotation of the Moon does not counter the rotation of the Earth, which in the CSA Truther’s contraption makes the Moon orbit.
It counters the change of orientation of the Moon that comes with that external rotation of the Earth.
And some, like Bob and Tim and the scientific community, calls a change of orientation a rotation.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A counter-rotation of the Moon does not counter the rotation of the Earth, which in the CSA Truther’s contraption makes the Moon orbit.
It counters the change of orientation of the Moon that comes with that external rotation of the Earth.
As I said, the "counter-rotation" is counter to the external axis rotation, Little Willy. So it counters the change of orientation of the object produced by the external axis rotation.
Gaslighting Graham equivocates again:
What is “the object”?
Typically we are referring to the moon.
So let’s rewrite:
(CREAM) The counter-rotation to the external axis of the Moon rotation counters the change of orientation produced by the external rotation.
Hmmm. Looks like that does not work. This is a simple orbit “undo.”
What Gaslighting Graham might wish to state, to keep the spirit of the CSA Truther’s demonstration, is:
(CRIME) The counter-rotation to the internal axis of the Moon rotation elegantly counters the change of orientation produced by the external rotation.
CRIME is elegant because it undoes a rotation Gaslighting Graham portrays as inexisting!
For movement like the MOTR:
As I said, the "counter-rotation" is counter to the external axis rotation, Little Willy. So it counters the change of orientation of the moon produced by the external axis rotation.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552711
Correct, and no contradiction, inconsistency or problem.
Astute readers will recognize that Gaslighting Graham described CRIME, not CREAM.
For movement like the MOTR:
The external axis rotation changes the orientation of the moon in one direction. The internal axis rotation changes the orientation of the moon in the opposite direction.
Not sure how to make it simple enough for Little Willy to understand, but hopefully that will do it.
Gaslighting Graham does not even try anymore.
Here was the claim:
That’s just an absurd way to say that the actual motion of the Moon can be described as an external rotation, whereas the motion of the Moon that does not change its orientation can be described as an external rotation minus a counter-rotation. It’s as if Gaslighting Graham forgot the CSA Truther’s demonstration.
The first point I made was that this counter-rotation (i.e. a clockwise turn) was around the Moon’s axis, not the Earth’s. The second point I made was that this counter-rotation counters a rotation.
Since Gaslighting Graham denies that there is any internal rotation by the Moon as it changes orientation (!!), he must hold that the counter-rotation does not counter any existing rotation.
Hard to put it in simpler terms indeed.
For movement like the MOTR:
The external axis rotation changes the orientation of the moon in one direction. The internal axis rotation changes the orientation of the moon in the opposite direction.
Not sure what he is still confused about. Oh well. Not my problem.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
“A counter-rotation to the external axis rotation” returns the Moon where it was. It undoes the complete motion.
The counter-rotation needs to be applied to the Moon‘s inner rotation.
So once again Gaslighting Graham feigns to ignore that an external rotation is equivalent to an internal rotation and a translation!
…but, with the CSAItruth equipment, the OPR for movement like the MOTR is that it’s two motions, "orbit" and "spin". You can even see in the video that when the "orbit" motion stops, the "spin" is still occurring. Really simple.
Willard needs to refresh his support of Bob’s moon design.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561262
bob has two motors at the end of the motorized arm extending from earth to moon that are rotating in opposite directions to first eliminate the illusion of a spin from the motorized rigid arm and then put it back. LOL!
“Since rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement like the MOTL, that makes movement like the MOTR rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation.”
Hmm, so since a car driving west at 60 mph looks like a picture of car driving west at 60 mph, that means a parked car is actually a car driving west at 60 mph– while simultaneously driving east at 60 mph.
Riiight?
And that must be its OPR!
Yes, Bill, bob’s creation was especially funny.
Nate says:
Since rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement like the MOTL, that makes movement like the MOTR rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation.
Hmm, so since a car driving west at 60 mph looks like a picture of car driving west at 60 mph, that means a parked car is actually a car driving west at 60 mph while simultaneously driving east at 60 mph.
Riiight?
And that must be its OPR!
——————————–
No Nate! Its the OPR of the motorized video of a moon traveling around the earth.
But you will never ever find a moon with a motor in the middle of it so you will never find a MOTR. There are lots of moons that operate like our moon as a MOTL but there are none that work like MOTR because they all lack motors. . .Instead most of the moons in our solar system are tidally locked due to the gravity of their host planet. Thats the only OPR you will be able to find in the universe. All the moon’s with real spin, spin at an infinite number of rates different than the orbit. . .statistically sufficient to suggest you will never find one like the MOTR. . . and if you do by chance find one. . .look quick because the OPR of orbiting bodies is going to instantaneously change it by slowing its counterrotation and conserving that spin angular momentum as additional orbital angular momentum.
“so you will never find a MOTR.”
Assertion without evidence. And who cares?
“There are lots of moons that operate like our moon as a MOTL”
Planetary orbits are elliptical in general. And few planets have 1:1 spin-orbit resonances.
Mercury has a 2:1 spin-orbit resonance.
So there is lots of variation of orbits/spins in the universe.
Thus astronomy does not use a MOTL model to describe planetary orbits, since such a model would hardly be universal.
"Its the OPR of the motorized video of a moon traveling around the earth."
Exactly, Bill. The OPR for movement of the MOTR, as demonstrated by the CSAItruth equipment, is that it’s two independent motions, "orbit" and "spin".
That doesn’t mean that it’s the OPR for the MOTR GIF itself! The GIF is just an animation. There are no possible clues about what is physically going on behind the movement, so there’s no "OPR" (objective physical reality) for the GIF itself.
They do get themselves confused.
> Its the OPR of the motorized video
Videos are motorized now.
LOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Little Willy is just trolling again.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham dislikes Gill’s style out of a sudden…
no the opr is that the moon is rotating around earth due to its linear momentum and earths gravity and like any such rotations it has the forces necessary to slow and stop any rotation on the internal axis that consists purely of angular momentum and does not have an active power source to maintain that 2nd internal axis rotation. so yes you can have two rotations simultaneously but only on two different axes. did you forget there are two axes for the discussion we have had going on for years now?
The ”no” above was to Nate’s comment.
And indeed we don’t know what is behind the animation. It could be a clock on the wall with the hour hand rotating the moon around and the gravity might be below the clock such that the moon has become tidal locked to the gravity of the ground below the wall with the clock among other possibilities.
With the MOTL its a good bet that the moon is either tidal locked to the external axis in the middle of its rotation around that axis. Or it could be attached by transparent string, or welded to an transparent arm extending outwards from the external axis.
An object spinning on its own axis changes its face to everything except those riding the object.
Objects rotating on an external axis changes its face to everything except sometimes to those inside of the arc of rotation.
When inside the arc of rotation on an external axis the face will not change its face if and only if there is no additional rotation on the local axis of the object.
this should be pretty simple to sort out for our retired physics teachers in here. Maybe they spend too much time reading books in an office with no windows and too little time outdoors.
“no the opr is that the moon is rotating around earth due to its linear momentum and earths gravity and like any such rotations it has the forces necessary to slow and stop any rotation on the internal axis that consists purely of angular momentum and does not have an active power source to maintain that 2nd internal axis rotation.”
Well Bill, this is not at all convincing, because again you ignore all the much discussed differences of the Moon’s orbit from a ROTATION.
I don’t understand why you keep insisting that you KNOW the OPR for the Moon, when each time you do, you fail to offer a sound rationale.
Such as here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565168
where you offered an alternative mathematical representation of the angular momentum, which was obviously a SYMBOLIC REPRESENTAION, and yet you asserted that it was OPR!
“it has the forces necessary to slow and stop any rotation on the internal axis”
Physics and astronomy describes this as a synchronous rotation, or a resonance phenomena.
The word ‘synchronous’ requires two or more motions to be synchronized.
The Moon’s orbit is technically 1-1 Spin-Orbit resonance.
A spin-orbit resonance requires two separate motions: spin and orbit, to be in resonance with each other.
Resonance: think of someone pushing a kid on a swing. The pusher moves his arms and pushes at the right time during each swing. The kid swinging is clearly a SEPARATE motion.
Again, two very different motions, but in some way synchronous.
Spin is not even in the same plane as the orbit, and does not vary in its velocity the way orbit does, so it makes perfectly good sense for it to be described as a different separate motion.
Nate says:
”Well Bill, this is not at all convincing, because again you ignore all the much discussed differences of the Moons orbit from a ROTATION.”
Well thats not a physical distinction Nate thats simply an arbitrary distinction. We know all the influences on the moon come from the gravity of other objects in the universe.
Fact is every rotation on an external axis is subject to the same forces and will cause various levels of deviation from perfection as determined by how stretchy and held together the system is.
So you are just pointing out an arbitrary difference that has no basis in OPR.
It is in your words, by definition is not a rotation. But you haven’t given a reason why. . .so its an arbitrary distinction and arbitrary distinction don’t change the OPR.
It is not a difference built on physics or science and thus has zero effect on the OPR of the moons rotation around earth.
You can whine all you want but unless you can give a physical distinction all you do is keep spinning in circles and looking ignorant.
“Well thats not a physical distinction Nate thats simply an arbitrary distinction.”
Non-sequitur. Nothing arbitrary about it.
“We know all the influences on the moon come from the gravity of other objects in the universe.”
First of all, no. Motion in space continues without any push from gravity.
Second of all, why does it matter for describing the motion?
“Fact is every rotation on an external axis is subject to the same forces and will cause various levels of deviation from perfection as determined by how stretchy and held together the system is.”
The same? How is gravity and tension in a string the SAME?
“So you are just pointing out an arbitrary difference that has no basis in OPR.”
‘Arbitrary’ is your word that has no basis in reality here.
You still have not shown why your symbolic representations of the Moon’s motion need to be the OPR.
“Well thats not a physical distinction Nate thats simply an arbitrary distinction.”
Non-sequitur. Nothing arbitrary about it.
A 10 % variation in orbital velocity with a constant rotation around a 6.7 degree tilted axis, are quite real, physical distinctions.
A ‘rotation on an external axis’ model is all planar and circular motion.
Such a model of planetary motion is a quite poor approximation. In the case of Halley’s comet it is a HORRIBLE approximation.
You have not shown why your very approximate and very symbolic representations of the Moon’s motion need to be its objective physical reality?
C’mon, Bill, that makes absolutely NO sense.
Nate says:
”Non-sequitur. Nothing arbitrary about it.”
—————————
Nate performs a handwave and doesn’t provide an argument. Definitions are arbitrary if not based on relevant factors. You need to name a relevant factor.
Nate says:
”First of all, no. Motion in space continues without any push from gravity.
Second of all, why does it matter for describing the motion?”
——————————-
You mean you believe all rotations where the power source is turned of and the rotation is coasting isn’t a rotation? You continue to be ridiculous. You have no source supporting that idea.
Nate says:
”The same? How is gravity and tension in a string the SAME?”
————————
They both cause a the sphere to rotate around the object from which the string reaches from.
Nate says:
”Arbitrary is your word that has no basis in reality here.”
———————
Yes we agree. So don’t use an arbitrary definition to describe the OPR of a rotational-like motion as not being a rotation. Argue from physics.
Nate says:
”You still have not shown why your symbolic representations of the Moons motion need to be the OPR.”
—————————————–
Thats what we have been trying to get you to do Nate. What are the elements of the motion and does that make it a translation or a rotation. . .we aren’t making any demands we are talking about a system of classification and which category it would naturally fall into. Our argument is simple it has elements unique to rotations and none that are unique to a translation. We don’t care what you want to call it orbit, revolution, etc.
Nate says:
”A 10 % variation in orbital velocity with a constant rotation around a 6.7 degree tilted axis, are quite real, physical distinctions.”
————————————–
Some rotations have greater variation in velocity than the moon as one turns the switch on and off or apply variations of power so thats a real non-sequitur.
OTOH other rotations show variation in tilt but not as uniquely as the moon. However, translations don’t even have axes.
Nate says:
”A rotation on an external axis model is all planar and circular motion.”
————————————–
So your argument is the Octopus amusement ride doesn’t have any rotating elements because they are spoiled by the hydraulics lifting the arms up and down and spinning cars at the end? Seems rather arbitrary. SIRs are by nature idealistic models that nothing ever meets up with 100%
Nate says:
”Such a model of planetary motion is a quite poor approximation. In the case of Halleys comet it is a HORRIBLE approximation.”
———————————-
You aren’t making an argument as to why you came to that conclusion other than the eccentricity of its orbit. Does it violate some rule of angular momentum? I really don’t know much at all about Halley’s comet.
“Some rotations have greater variation in velocity than the moon as one turns the switch on and off or apply variations of power so thats a real non-sequitur.”
You missed the point!
A ‘rotation around and external axis’ is ONE motion with the orientation of the body and the position of the body’s COM in space perfectly linked, and can be described by ONE variable, angle, that changes with time.
So if the velocity of the body speeds up and slows down, the rotation of the body (orientational change) speeds up and slows down.
Not the case with the Moon. Its velocity through space speeds up and slows down, while it rotation rate stays constant.
This clearly indicates to the impartial jury, that these are two separate motions, and should not be described as a ‘rotation about an external axis’.
In addition the rotation of the Moon is in a different plane from its orbital motion, again NOT consistent with a ‘rotation around an external axis’.
So why are you trying so hard to force this tilted elliptical peg into a round hole, and it just doesnt fit!
And OPR? That’s become a meaningless term.
“First of all, no. Motion in space continues without any push from gravity.
Second of all, why does it matter for describing the motion?”
–
“You mean you believe all rotations where the power source is turned of and the rotation is coasting isnt a rotation? You continue to be ridiculous. You have no source supporting that idea.”
I see nothing in your answer about gravity. It’s like you forgot the point pf my comment on your comment completely!
ROTFLMAO!!! Nate is trying to go comedy central
Bill, do you have Tourettes syndrome? With all your random falling down and laughing….
“Nate says:
The same? How is gravity and tension in a string the SAME?
They both cause a the sphere to rotate around the object from which the string reaches from.”
Yes, but the string FORCES the orientation of the body to align with the string.
Gravity does not do that, e.g. balls can spin as they traverse a gravitational field, planets can spin as the orbit.
So this is quite an glaring difference, which you guys choose to ignore.
Gravity can, via resonance, cause changes in orbits and spins.
Thus there are gaps where there are no asteroids orbiting the sun, as any that did orbit in the gaps were repeatedly nudged by Jupiter until their orbits were removed from the gaps.
…Willy is just trolling again.
2023 is going to become the next top rank in temperatures for UAH lower troposphere.
Interesting that this happened 7 years after the last record-breaker in 2016, which came 18 years after the previous warmest year in 1998, and this time without a super el Nino, just a moderate to strong one.
What’s more interesting is most of your cult ignores the HTE.
But, ignoring reality is nothing new for cult idi0ts, huh?
Many of the regulars have discussed and posted links on it ever since the event.
No need to fib about people ignoring it just because your views aren’t applauded.
barry, you even ignored HTE in your comment above.
The HTE has been discussed by many here throughout 2022 and 2023, despite you saying nothing new about it for months, and most of those conversations were not initiated by you. Bindidon, for example, has written more extensively about it, and with graphs and links, than you ever have. So quit the BS, liar.
If you want to discuss it, open a thread and invite chat, instead of making pronouncements and then pouting when people don’t snap to attention nearly two years after the topic was introduced.
You wrote –
“Many of the regulars have discussed and posted links on it ever since the event.”
And? What do you think, or are you just trying to hide behind others, and take credit for their ideas?
Ask nicely and I’ll tell you what I think. No way with that sour attitude.
barry,
By all means keep your silly fantasies secret. That might be your best option. I might be able to cope, I suppose.
[laughing]
The operation of the GHE is wondrous indeed!
Any weather event or eventual climate state can be attributed to the GHE.
As the IPCC states –
“These include not only the range of possible temperatures for each scenario, but also precipitation, drought, storms, and other weather phenomena that may become more or less frequent, or more or less severe.”
Just pick a scenario which results in the desired outcome (after the fact, of course – predictions of future climate states is not possible), and hey presto! – mission accomplished.
Oh, and its always worse than we thought.
“Any weather event or eventual climate state can be attributed to the GHE.”
No.
In a warming world new hottest years will continue to emerge. AGW doesn’t cause the peaks and troughs in the annual temperature, it causes the background temperature to rise.
Which is why in our lifetimes we are not going to see a record-breaking coldest year since the instrumental record began. But we will keep seeing record warmest years occur, as we have been, up to the present day. Each time that happens, the immediate cause will be el Nino or some other significant interannual weather phenomenon, but the conditions for the record to be broken are set by AGW.
AGW changes the probability distribution to a higher range for global temperatures. It loads the dice for higher rolls.
barry,
AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to Anthropogenically Generated Heat.
Are you now saying that the GHE has no effect at all? On anything? Weather? Climate?
You seem confused. How would you describe the GHE?
Only joking – you can’t (without looking like a laughing stock)!
I’ve described it many times. But why not let an expert do it? Roy Spencer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
The GHE is responsible for much of the weather we have (see Roy’s explanation). AGW is an increasing GHE (See Roy’s explanation).
Any questions about the GHE or AGW, please read Roy’s explanation and come back if anything is unclear to you.
barry,
An increasing GHE? You haven’t even described a non-increasing GHE!
I’m afraid your appeal to Dr Spencer’s authority falls flat. Maybe you could copy his “description”? Be prepared to defend it, if you think you can
Or you could just scuttle away, while you figure out what to do.
I’ve described it many times. Tired of repeating myself. And there is an expert you can consult.
Any questions about the GHE or AGW, please read Roys explanation and come back if anything is unclear to you. Be specific.
barry,
An increasing GHE? You havent even described a non-increasing GHE!
Im afraid your appeal to Dr Spencers authority falls flat. Maybe you could copy his “description”? Be prepared to defend it, if you think you can
Or you could just scuttle away, while you figure out what to do.
No point describing it for the 20th time if you keep forgetting.
Any questions about the GHE or AGW, please read Roys explanation and come back if anything is unclear to you. Be specific.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
I saved a post for this occasion, with several links to where I described the GHE. You were present in those discussions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484566
I can’t help it if you keep forgetting.
Any questions about the GHE or AGW, please read Roys explanation and come back if anything is unclear to you. Be specific.
–The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation. (Our miniscule enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide emissions, and its possible role in global warming, is a separate issue).–
Yes. it’s so miniscule, that we can’t measure {or we are so incompetent we can’t measure it- I go back and forth}.
barry,
You wrote –
“No point describing it for the 20th time if you keep forgetting.” Oh, I see. Where may I find these previous 19 descriptions? In your fevered imagination only, or can they be found elsewhere?
You seem to think that Dr Spencer has described the greenhouse effect somewhere, but you can’t quite find it. Is it the same as your 19 previous descriptions?
Maybe you are not just making stuff up as you go along, but you are certainly not going to provide any evidence to the contrary, are you? I don’t blame you – you don’t want to look even more of a dimwit that you look like already.
Oh well, still no description of the GHE that agrees with reality. Colour me unsurprised – again!
Thanks gbakie, that’s just one part of Roy’s explanation of the GHE. Apparently Swenson can’t find it in the article.
gb,
“The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation.”
The surface temperature seems to have fallen quite remarkably since it was molten. It also falls at night – by up to 50 C or so.
Maybe the GHE only operates in the imaginations of GHE believers.
An increase in the Earth’s surface temperature might just as well be described as an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature. Why complicate the issue?
barry,
You wrote ” I saved a post for this occasion, with several links to where I described the GHE.”
No you didn’t describe the GHE anywhere, did you?. You are just doing your evasive best to avoid acknowledging that nobody has ever provided a description of the GHE which accords with reality. You won’t even say whether this effect supposedly makes thermometers hotter, colder, or both hotter and colder at the same time!
Come on, man up, how hard can it be?
You’re a broken record. I’ve described it many times. Whenever I do, you come back the very next day saying no one has described it.
That’s why I’ve provided you links, so you can see that it has been described, and so I don’t needlessly repeat myself.
How about you ‘man’ up, quote me or Roy, and tell us where we went wrong?
Don’t have the intellectual honesty to deal straightly? That’s fine. But I’m not dancing to your broken record. You want to engage, make an honest effort.
Here’s my description. Your last chance to be honest or keep playing games.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1442454
barry,
Nobody can quote you describing the GHE, because you’ve never provided one. All you do is link to irrelevant links which do not provide descriptions of the GHE.
You wrote (in a fit of silliness) “Youre a broken record. Ive described it many times. Whenever I do, you come back the very next day saying no one has described it.”
Well, no, you haven’t described the GHE at all – not the 19 times you claim to have described it on one occasion, not the “many times” you have claimed just now, not in any pointless link you have provided – not once.
Nobody has – maybe you can copy a description from one of your many pointless and irrelevant links, if you can spare the time. Only joking, of course you can’t.
Maybe you refuse to accept that the nonsense about an “energy balance” would result in the Earth’s surface never cooling. Which it has, of course, since it was molten, and continues to do each night – emitting more energy than it receives. You may even be thick enough to believe that a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface. Actually, even an atmosphere which is warmer than the surface (a nighttime low level inversion, say) still can’t prevent the surface from cooling.
But hey, you can’t help being unable to accept reality – just like the others of your ilk, who prefer fantasy to fact.
Keep making silly claims. Maybe someone exceptionally gullible or intellectually impaired will believe you.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Nobody can quote you describing the GHE, because youve never provided one”
Here it is:
Cheers.
barry, Dr. Spencer has accepted the cult’s GHE, with serious reservations. He accepts it because the physics involved is not in his area of expertise. He prefers to leave the physics to others. His reservations are based on his areas of expertise, which include weather and climate.
Your efforts to hide behind someone that calls himself a “Lukewarmer”, merely indicates you have NOTHING.
Your attempted efforts to define/describe the bogus GHE indicate your own ignorance of the physics. You don’t understand the science, and you can’t learn. Like the rest of your cult, all you have are insults and false accusations, like your “lying dog”. You clearly believe in your cult’s nonsense. You are just as radical as any terrorist. You’re a blog terrorist.
Clint has just confirmed that I’ve described the GHE, Swenson, and Willard quotes me doing so above. Others have done so at your request many times.
You’re a mendacious game-player. I guess you enjoy the attention.
barry, here’s what I stated, “Your attempted efforts to define/describe the bogus GHE indicate your own ignorance of the physics. You don’t understand the science, and you can’t learn.”
If you believe that means I am “confirming” that you have adroitly described the bogus GHE, then you may have cognitive dissonance.
Either that or you’re trying to get me to use the “L- word”. Sorry, I was raised to be a responsible adult.
Now you’re being mendacious, too. What is it with AGW ‘skeptics’?
Sorry barry,, but false accusations ain’t science. Science is linked to reality, NOT beliefs.
I can’t help you grow up, but learning science is a start. Class has just started:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Weird Wee Willard,
You quote someone else’s nonsense, claiming it is a description of the GHE, supposedly supported by reality. You are obviously not prepared to support it.
For example, “The Earth emits IR to maintain thermal balance with the incoming energy of the sun that warms it..
Defend that, if you can. I point out that four and a half billion years of sunlight has been unable to prevent the surface from cooling.
What “thermal balance” are you talking about? Just more SkyDragon cult weasel-words, not found in any standard physics textbook, if my guesses correct. And no, if you meant “thermal equilibrium”, you would have said so, wouldn’t you?
You really have no clue , have you? Not about physics, not about reality.
Go on, convince me that a body in “thermal balance” (if that means emitting as much energy as it is receiving) is not maintaining a constant temperature – neither heating nor cooling. The Earth has cooled, dummy.
Oh well, that’s the first hurdle you can’t get over. No need to worry about the rest, is there?
Hit me with your next silly “description”. Maybe you need to go back to your “Not cooling, slower cooling”. Admirably brief, even if completely nonsensical.
First things first, Mike. You said –
“Nobody can quote you describing the GHE, because youve never provided one”
Please acknowledge this was baloney.
Weepy Wee Willy,
I still haven’t seen a description of the GHE. Just meaningless word salad, which doesn’t even contain the acronym GHE.
So yes, your claim that bumbling barry has described the GHE is baloney.
What is this GHE supposed to do? Where may it be observed, measured, documented?
Use what little brain you have Willard. Quoting meaningless gibberish won’t help. Playing silly semantic games won’t help you to extricate yourself from the hole you have dug, either.
Come on Willard, defend your “description”. Tell me again how “thermal balance” cooled the Earth’s surface from a molten state to its present temperature.
How hard can it be for an “expert” like you? Not claiming to be an “expert”? In that case, I accept your lack of expertise – it’s quite obvious.
Whether you claim to be an expert, or no expert at all, it seems you might have buggered yourself nicely in either case. You might pick which authority you appeal to more carefully next time.
— Clint R says:
November 22, 2023 at 7:46 AM
barry, Dr. Spencer has accepted the cults GHE, with serious reservations.–
Maybe he agree with it, because it’s such a small amount and therefore difficult to disprove.
I tend to think it a small amount and a small amount apparently was measured in some old paper that I don’t have bookmarked.
Half of all the warming isn’t that insignificant, gb.
Perhaps you need more coffee.
significant?
i doubt you would score well on recognizing the temperature you are in if it changed by all the warming.
Perhaps Gill could tell us what Roy thinks?
if you wouldn’t notice it why would it bother you that a guy with very expensive equipment including space launched satellites could?
Perhaps Gill missed the graph at the top of the page?
and just how does the graph at the top of the page establish significance?
People monitor their babies, monitor the sound their cars make and hope that doesn’t reveal something that is significant.
Additionally Roy and John are advancing science doing something far more efficient than running thousands of surface based stations that suffer inaccuracies from the grass changing its length.
Gaslighting Graham can only be gaslighting.
His overall position here rests on three semantic slips.
Orbit. Warming. Energy balance.
This is not Chaucer in the source, as a friend would say.
Everything else is a compendium of Machiavellian abuses.
Willard, talking about substance isn’t abusive. I realize you have married yourself to the forms you were inculcated with but until you question the limits of those forms you have zero chance of advancing them. Science is always growing. Either you grow with it or you will be left behind.
There’s no substance behind your comments, Gill.
Roy holds that at least half of the warming is due to AGW.
Willard says:
Theres no substance behind your comments, Gill.
Roy holds that at least half of the warming is due to AGW.
——————————
Sure that’s the way he was taught. His problem is he isn’t completely convinced and has said so. He like others have tried without any significant success to produce the GHE demonstrating that he like everybody else in here has no scientific evidence that at least half of the warming is due to AGW.
Anybody is free to have an opinion. . . still. . .I think.
But all that about Roy is irrelevant to the issue as to if the warming is significant. My thought on significance is if the warming was sufficient for you to notice it then it ”might” be significant. I don’t think you given a sensitivity test would notice if. I am sure I wouldn’t. I spend a lot of time in outdoor adventures and dress according to the expected temperature but the differences in clothing choices work on a basis of 10C increments. I would never notice 1 degree much less half a degree. So to me the warming that is claimed is quite insignificant. On a projected basis, I would notice 3 degrees but it wouldn’t make much change in my outdoor planning and preparation. Anyway to worry about projections you need some validated prediction models and we don’t have those either.
And I forgot to reply like an auditor.
Its kind of strange to me that Roy would think at least half the warming was due to AGW, unless of course he is including anthropogenic changes other than CO2.
After all his work on the matter came up with ”negative” feedback meaning at a minimum it would be at most one quarter the warming was due to AGW.
So I forgot to ask for your evidence that that is what Roy believes.
Could you provide that for me?
> But all that about Roy is irrelevant to the issue
The issue being what Roy thinks, what he thinks matters.
Of course what Roy thinks matters. Now where is the source? It would be good to know if you have one or your BS’ing about having one.
Gill, Gill,
Roy said it many times.
Are you sure you read the blog?
i have been reading it for years wiilard and i am not asking you produce links for everytime he said that. one would suffice.
Since you read the blog, you’re obviously just pulling my leg, Gill.
Play dumb a little more. I might be tempted to give you your Maypo.
Any time you want Willard. Here is some help for you.
Half of 21st Century Warming Due to El Nino
May 13th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/half-of-21st-century-warming-due-to-el-nino/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Ljungqvist-2000-yrs-temp-reconstruction.jpg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/ill-see-your-97-percent-and-raise-you-3-percent/
Here Roy says UAH vs Ceres data indicates a ECS of .8C per doubling of CO2. Thats a good deal less than half.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/
Mike, Mike,
You said that Barry did not describe the greenhouse effect.
He did.
Why are you a compulsive liar like most if not all dragon cranks here?
Weepy Wee Willy,
I still havent seen a description of the GHE. Just meaningless word salad, which doesnt even contain the acronym GHE.
So yes, your claim that bumbling barry has described the GHE is baloney.
What is this GHE supposed to do? Where may it be observed, measured, documented?
Use what little brain you have Willard. Quoting meaningless gibberish wont help. Playing silly semantic games wont help you to extricate yourself from the hole you have dug, either.
Come on Willard, defend your description. Tell me again how thermal balance cooled the Earths surface from a molten state to its present temperature.
How hard can it be for an expert like you? Not claiming to be an expert? In that case, I accept your lack of expertise its quite obvious.
Whether you claim to be an expert, or no expert at all, it seems you might have buggered yourself nicely in either case. You might pick which authority you appeal to more carefully next time.
Want more attention, Filthy Liar Mike?
Weepy Wee Willy,
I still havent seen a description of the GHE. Just meaningless word salad, which doesnt even contain the acronym GHE.
So yes, your claim that bumbling barry has described the GHE is baloney.
What is this GHE supposed to do? Where may it be observed, measured, documented?
Use what little brain you have Willard. Quoting meaningless gibberish wont help. Playing silly semantic games wont help you to extricate yourself from the hole you have dug, either.
Come on Willard, defend your description. Tell me again how “thermal balance” cooled the Earths surface from a molten state to its present temperature.
How hard can it be for an expert like you? Not claiming to be an expert? In that case, I accept your lack of expertise its quite obvious.
Whether you claim to be an expert, or no expert at all, it seems you might have buggered yourself nicely in either case. You might pick which authority you appeal to more carefully next time.
Oh dear, Willard, do you really think “Want more attention, Filthy Liar Mike?” would endear you to the inconsequential Willard Quine (your role model, perhaps) – or anybody else, for that matter. You’ve been caught out having committed yourself to something even sillier than your previous characterisation of the GHE as “Not cooling, slower cooling.”
Keep at it – while I continue to enjoy a good laugh at what you have become reduced to.
Filthy Liar Mike – I like it. It has quite a ring to it. Do you mind if I use it as a pseudonym?
In Ropy’s post dedicated to describing the greenhouse effect, Swenson can’t find where Roy describes the greenhouse effect.
I used almost exactly the same language to describe it where you quoted me, Willard. The description is consistent.
The problem is not with Roy or me.
Does "nobody can describe the GHE" mean that "nobody has attempted to describe the GHE" or does it mean that "multiple people attempt to describe the GHE in different ways, meaning that nobody can describe the GHE".
Just something to think about, before more accusations of lying get thrown around Willy-nilly.
Gaslighting Graham now tries to gaslight Barry.
The cycle of life is complete for our Sky Dragon crank.
I don’t gaslight. I just think it’s funny that you guys can’t see that Swenson is maybe making a point with his "nobody can describe the GHE". There is more than one way to make a point.
Gaslighting Graham obviously gaslights, for Mike Flynn simply uses a trick as old as Procrustes.
Since he claims disbelieving the greenhouse effect (something that is far from obvious considering that he described it many times), it is child’s play for him to reject any description he has been offered over the years. And child play is what Mike Flynn knows best!
With our trio of buffoons {1}, it’s semantic games all the way down.
{1} Sometimes with guest appearances, these days it’s Gill. Where’s Bordo?
Why are there so many differing descriptions of the GHE?
Doesn’t that even bother you guys?
Shouldn’t something this supposedly important have one, and only one, description?
For example, barry’s description omits any mention of back-radiation warming/insulation. He’s instead going for the old "the presence of GHGs slows the rate at which upwelling IR escapes the planet to space"…but this delay has been calculated to be very small. Some might say…negligible (at least, on Earth). This is why other descriptions might focus on the back-radiation warming/insulation aspect. Or some go for an "effective emission height" route.
I think what Swenson is trying to point out is – nobody can describe the GHE because there is no one, single, Universally-agreed-upon definition of what it actually is! Which is…somewhat astonishing. So it seems like it would be a point worth making repeatedly. Over many years.
this would be a good place for a few of the CAGW activists to list what they think it is.
We could describe Sky Dragon cranks as cranks.
We could describe them as asshats.
Or as adolescent contrarians.
There is an infinity of ways we could describe Sky Dragon cranks.
Why is that?
Little Willy’s hatred and intolerance of different views is on display again.
Gaslighting Graham ignores the point being made to victim bully once more.
Your point appears to be that because you can describe (invent) a variety of negative character traits about your intellectual and moral superiors then a scientific theory (I’ll be generous) can be as inconsistently explained as you like. Never mind that it has multiple proposed physical mechanisms, all different. That’s totally normal! After all, Little Willy is able to insult his betters in a variety of different ways, too. Case closed.
Gaslighting Graham appears to be gaslighting again.
My point is that there’s an infinity of ways we can describe just about anything, including the greenhouse effect. Hence why I mentioned “infinity of ways.”
Instead of acknowledging that obvious point, Gaslighting Graham needs to relitigate it. No wonder Bob put him on mute.
Yes, Little Willy, there are many different ways you can describe things. If the GHE had only one proposed mechanism, you could describe that in an infinity of different ways to your hearts content, and I would have no problem. The problem is that there is not only one proposed mechanism for the GHE. Which, for a scientific "theory", is pretty bizarre.
Please do put me on mute.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Mike Flynn’s silly game has very little to do with his own pet argument against the many descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
The former whines that the levels described are too shallow, the latter lulzes that they’re not descriptions at all.
Little Willy has probably never correctly represented somebody else’s argument in his life.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Cf. the Monktopus thread, circa 2022-10.
Then you go and summarise it this way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562950
Which is a total misrepresentation.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
“The O2 and N2 are the planetary insulators” and “Non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere” are basically interchangeable.
Unless, of course, Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to suggest a new meaning for “insulator,” like he did with “orbit” and “warm”?
No, they are not interchangeable. I don’t think you even understand what radiative properties are.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Obviously, if anything, you are gaslighting me. Since you’re trying to tell me what I think, even though I know that what you’re telling me is not what I think.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563751
All wrong, Little Willy.
“For example, barry’s description”
Thanks DREMT.
How many more people need to confirm that I’ve described the GHE before Swenson will acknowledge that I’ve described the GHE?
The answer, as we all know, is none.
You may have missed the point a little there, barry.
— Jim Davis says:
November 16, 2023 at 2:45 pm
Musk himself has always been skeptical about SPS. The quote SPS produces electricity where it is expensive and tries to sell it where it is cheap is attributed to him.
I think much the same objection can be raised about Mars (and other space) settlement projects. Space settlement proponents are trying to get people to move to where the cost of living is extremely expensive and the sources of income extremely limited.–
https://selenianboondocks.com/2023/10/sps-in-the-van-allens/
Yes, Musk correct electrical in orbit {and rest of space] is very expensive. But issue is how can price electrical in space be lowered by a lot.
The way most often said is to lower launch costs from Earth. And Musk knows as do many that only way to get settlements on Mars is to lower launch cost from Earth {and that is why he is a madman}. And you have to lower price of electrical power on the Mars surface, to have Mars settlement.
But what I think is more important [or more of requirement, first} is to have cheap water on Mars. Or my rule is Mars water has to be $1000 per ton {or less] for Mars to habitable by humans. Now $1000 per ton is not cheap water on Earth. But it’s very cheap water on Mars or the Moon. With the Moon for water to be mineable, you have to able to sell it at $500,000 per ton {or $500 per kg} this is cheap enough water on the Moon, and it’s possible that some day say within 50 years, lunar water might sell for $1000 per ton. It depends on how much water is mineable on the Moon.
So for lunar settlement you also need cheap water {around $1000 per ton} and only way to get water cheaper Moon, is to get water from somewhere else in Space, which could make lunar water cheaper than Earth water {less than $10 per ton}.
And Mars eventually could have water cheaper than Earth water- either getting water from Mars or likewise importing water from Space.
Now the Moon could have cheaper electrical power than Earth, but at moment and for at least a decade, electrical power anywhere in space is really expensive, or if/when you start mining lunar we would be “lucky” to get electrical power at $50 per Kw hour. And Earth can be around $50 per Mw hour. Lucky if only spending 1000 times more then Earth’s price.
But it seems only reason to explore the Lunar polar region is to create an electrical and water market beyond Earth {in space}.
So if the Moon and/or Mars can start an electrical or water market in Space, we are off to the races.
Or I was interested in Space rocks, the problem with space rocks, is there is no market for water in space.
Elon Musk is a doomer.
Musk has long said that he founded SpaceX in 2002 chiefly to help humanity colonize Mars. Becoming a multi-planet species would serve as an insurance policy, minimizing the risk of humanity’s extinction should something terrible happen on Earth, he has said.
I don’t entirely agree with him, but I think he is sort of right.
I think it’s important that NASA explore something, and NASA wants to explore Mars.
It’s somewhat a reasonable argument.
But Mars by itself is not enough, we need to become a spacefaring civilization which require more than it’s some settlements on Mars.
But some settlement on Mars, sort of require using Venus orbit, and using Venus orbit, enough, does make us a spacefaring civilization.
Just Mars crew exploration could enable the the use of Venus orbit.
Of course, NASA could decided to explore Venus rather than Mars, and Venus is easier to got too, also.
A doomer? I’d describe him, based on his words, as being pragmatic.
Here is a quote about Venus retrogade spin:
“Curiously, since Venus is now at 1.92 CW polar axial rotations per orbit, Venus has recently passed thru a rate of two (2) solar days per orbit, and after Venus loses 0.92 CW rotations of its remaining 1.92 CW polar rotations, Venus will then have a sidereal rotation rate of zero (0:1).
Since Venus actually has 1.92 solar days left today, at zero sidereal rotations (0:1), Venus will still have one final CW polar axial rotation left to lose before stopping at a final 1:1 sidereal spin rate.
As Venus proves, an astronomical body with a 0:1 sidereal rotation rate is possible, it just doesnt last for very long since a 0:1 rotation rate is transitory as it spins down to 1:1.
In short, the sidereal perspective is not some *Gods Eye* view of reality since the sidereal perspective has its obvious quirks, which are more readily apparent with Venus due to Venuss retrograde CW rotations!
Using the convention that astronomers prefer to use (of sidereal rotations / orbit), Venus is slowing down like this (starting arbitrarily with 3 solar days left to lose):
2:1 (3 solar days) 1:1 (2 solar days left) 0:1 (1 solar day left) 1:1 (one long solar day on one side, perpetual darkness on the other side).
2 ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ 1
NOTE how Venus will have two 1:1 sidereal spin rates as Venus is fully despun!
Of course, from the suns center-point perspective, Venus will spin down like this:
3 ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ 0
Remember, the center-point and sidereal (outside) perspectives will always differ by one (1), and as Venus proves, the sidereal perspective has its obvious quirks!
Clearly, the sidereal perspective does not reflect reality!”
So the spinners will see that at one point the Venus stops spinning(at 0:1) but then in starts to spin again. How would they explain it?
Nonspinners see that the Venus spins down as follows 3 2 1 0.
yonni…good point. However, no amount of scientific logic will get through to the spinners. They all live by appeals to authority and if NASA claims the Moon spins exactly once per orbit that’s what they will believe, even if it defies all logic.
One of the authority figures is not Newton but the translators of Newton’s work. Newton stated clearly in Principia that..
1)the Moon moves with linear motion.
2)Its linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field, and…
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointing at the Earth throughout the orbit.
That clearly defines a curvilinear motion with no rotation. However, each translator has interpreted his words based on two minor statements made by Newton in which he referenced revolution, not rotation. I think in the entirety of the 3 volumes of Principia he mentions anything similar to a local rotation with two sentences. I have tried, in vain, to point out that someone with the mind of Newton would surely have elaborated on a local lunar rotation had he observed one.
Yonnipun says:
”So the spinners will see that at one point the Venus stops spinning(at 0:1) but then in starts to spin again. How would they explain it?
Nonspinners see that the Venus spins down as follows 3 2 1 0.”
Correct. And when the nonspinner view goes to zero from 3,2,1,0 the spinners in here will still be claiming that Venus is spinning at the same rate its orbiting.
Good to see that most people are intelligent enough to understand the debate transcends the moon. Yes, "orbit without spin" being as per the MOTL rather than the MOTR affects all orbits, not just the orbits of tidally-locked moons. So, for example, for Earth, the "Non-Spinners" see it as spinning 365.25 times per orbit. Whereas the "Spinners" see it as spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
There are some "Spinners" on this board who are so thick I don’t think they even realise that the discussion is about more than just our moon.
And indeed not one of that has dared to try to explain the oddity in their theory of why a rock on the surface of the earth is believed to be rotating around the center of the earth until it gets a vertical boost above the surface of the earth and then the spinners believe that rotation changes to around the center of the rock.
Nonspinners believe the rock is rotating around the center of the earth in both circumstances because the OPR of it is that the gravity of the earth is the control mechanism in both circumstances.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”for example, for Earth, the “Non-Spinners” see it as spinning 365.25 times per orbit. Whereas the “Spinners” see it as spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
There are some “Spinners” on this board who are so thick I dont think they even realise that the discussion is about more than just our moon.”
Yes indeed everything is in place for that to be true. They should catch a clue on this when they realize that at rotation number 183 the earth is on the other side of the sun and folks on earth have seen 182.5 rotations so starting out at noon it would be dark. That extra rotation is obviously the orbital motion.
The old saying goes, believe nothing you hear and half of what you see. Lessons learned only from experience.
Thank you for proving the ridiculousness of Gaslighting Graham’s (3). Moon Dragon cranks are wrong whatever their perspective. Because, physics.
Point 3) is correct, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham may not get Ken Dine’s impersonator’s point.
That’s alright.
I get the point. That is how I know point 3) is correct.
Earlier, blundering barry wrote –
“Clint has just confirmed that Ive described the GHE, Swenson, and Willard quotes me doing so above. Others have done so at your request many times.”
Well, no, barry, you are letting your fantasy overcome reality. I see no confirmation from Clint, and in fact he has denied doing so. Do you suffer from some mental deficiency? You don’t seem to be attached to reality all that firmly.
Maybe you are not an intentional prevaricator – it may be that you really can’t distinguish between fact and imagination.
As to the not-so-bright Willard, you will find that he is not prepared to defend your supposed “description” for fear of looking as intelligent as he is.
Go on, tell me – are you prepared to defend your description of the GHE?
No? I thought not.
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“I see no confirmation from [Pupman]”
Here:
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Attempted efforts to describe/define . . .”?
Are you quite mad? About as mad as those who claim they can describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality! Play your silly semantic games all you wish.
You can’t even explain how non-existent “thermal balance” allowed the Earth to cool – in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight! What a dummy! You can’t even say whether you believe you are an expert or not – as far as description of natural phenomena goes.
Give it a try – say “The greenhouse effect is a phenomena which may be observed . . .”, and finish the description!
Maybe you could ask a known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann to help you. He claims to be a “climate scientist”, doesn’t he? It’s alright, Im just having a laugh at your attempts to to disembugger yourself. You don’t mind, do you?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Pupman indeed confirmed what Barry said.
Why do you keep lying over such a silly thing?
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Attempted efforts to describe/define . . .”?
Are you quite mad? About as mad as those who claim they can describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality! Play your silly semantic games all you wish.
You cant even explain how non-existent “thermal balance” allowed the Earth to cool in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight! What a dummy! You cant even say whether you believe you are an expert or not as far as description of natural phenomena goes.
Give it a try say “The greenhouse effect is a phenomena which may be observed . . .”, and finish the description!
Maybe you could ask a known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann to help you. He claims to be a “climate scientist”, doesnt he? Its alright, Im just having a laugh at your attempts to to disembugger yourself. You dont mind, do you?
Keep lying, Mike!
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Attempted efforts to describe/define . . .”?
Are you quite mad? About as mad as those who claim they can describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality! Play your silly semantic games all you wish.
You cant even explain how non-existent “thermal balance” allowed the Earth to cool in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight! What a dummy! You cant even say whether you believe you are an expert or not as far as description of natural phenomena goes.
Give it a try say “The greenhouse effect is a phenomena which may be observed . . .”, and finish the description!
Maybe you could ask a known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann to help you. He claims to be a climate scientist, doesnt he? Its alright, Im just having a laugh at your attempts to to disembugger yourself. You don’t mind, do you?
Mike Flynn,
He may be a filthy liar, but he’s *our* filthy liar.
Most greenhouses can be warmed.
So, isn’t urban heat island effect a “greenhouse effect”?
Gill has a knack for saying stuff like –
“Willard is one of the worst trying to introduce isometrics and reference frames as if those could distinguish between rotations on an external axis of different types.”
“Isometrics.” LOL!
Different types of external rotations. LMAO!
Different types of external rotation?
You quoted “The postfit rms orientation difference, after removal of a three-axis rotation to correct for lunar orbital ephemeris differences, was about 0.03 arcsec selenocentric over a six-year span.”
Are you really silly enough to claim that the three-axis rotation is really only single axis rotation?
You don’t even have the faintest notion what your appeal to authority indicates. It’s obvious you dont understand what you are talking about!
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Different types of external rotation?
You quoted “The postfit rms orientation difference, after removal of a three-axis rotation to correct for lunar orbital ephemeris differences, was about 0.03 arcsec selenocentric over a six-year span.”
Are you really silly enough to claim that the three-axis rotation is really only single axis rotation?
You dont even have the faintest notion what your appeal to authority indicates. Its obvious you dont understand what you are talking about!
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Obviously addressing any of the points I made using complete sentences stretches beyond Willard’s abilities.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562659
Isomterics and their relationship to isometry. . . also beyond Willards education.
”Two metric spaces X and Y are called isometric if there is a bijective isometry from X to Y. The set of bijective isometries from a metric space to itself forms a group with respect to function composition, called the isometry group.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry#:~:text=Two%20metric%20spaces%20X%20and,composition%2C%20called%20the%20isometry%20group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection#:~:text=Isometric%20projection%20is%20a%20method,of%20them%20is%20120%20degrees.
You succeeded in missing the relevant bit, Gill:
Do you think anybody in here is going to believe you Willard?
No, Gill. I think everybody will believe a guy who wrote a book on affine geometry:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
See here Willard how to draw isometric ellipses using AutoCad.
https://www.g-wlearning.com/cad/0619/ch04/data/supmat04a.pdf
Note the ”professional tip”. Seems your experience with isometry is exceedingly shallow.
Gill gets confused between geometrical isometry and an isometric view, i.e. the representation of a 3D object in 2D.
Nope what we are talking about is your narrow isometric view of the moon’s orbit and how your claim that the restrictions of isometry prevent rotations from being anything other than circular.
As we see advanced 3 dimensional (you know 3 dimensional like the real world) isometry allows for elliptical rotations. You lose really badly on this one having repeatedly paraded your ignorance around this forum for months.
Your equivocation rests on a narrow “view,” Gill.
Pun intended.
My own view stands on a basic geometrical fact.
To create a 2D representation of a spherical object, you do have to break isometry. A unit circle needs to be stretched a bit. It is only within the projection that your metric is preserved.
Willard says:
”To create a 2D representation of a spherical object, you do have to break isometry. A unit circle needs to be stretched a bit. It is only within the projection that your metric is preserved.”
Apparently Willard isn’t aware that the world is 2d or that there is 3d isometry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_groups_in_three_dimensions
Apparently Gill still does not read his own sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection
too bad willard. isommetrics is a word that applies to isometry. igave you a source establishing that.
the fact that the word is used in many other areas does not distract from your demonstrated ignorance of my using the word correctly and your actual ignorance of isometry.
here again is the source and a quote from the source
”Two metric spaces X and Y are called isometric if there is a bijective isometry from X to Y. The set of bijective isometries from a metric space to itself forms a group with respect to function composition, called the isometry group.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry#:~:text=Two%20metric%20spaces%20X%20and,composition%2C%20called%20the%20isometry%20group
so you running around looking for uses that either don’t apply or are only related is just a diversion to hide your ignorance from yourself.
> isommetrics is a word that applies to isometry.
LMAO!
here again is the source and a quote from the source
Two metric spaces X and Y are called isometric if there is a bijective isometry from X to Y. The set of bijective isometries from a metric space to itself forms a group with respect to function composition, called the isometry group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry#:~:text=Two%20metric%20spaces%20X%20and,composition%2C%20called%20the%20isometry%20group
Gill should read the second sentence slowly:
But now he should think about what it implies.
Why? Do you think there is a deeper esoteric meaning or something?
It actually has a very simple meaning, Gill, one I alluded to earlier elsewhere.
Willard if what you want to say is simple, then why are you alluding? Why not just come out and say it?
There are simpler ways to say “from a metric space to itself,” Gill.
Remember that math isn’t about motion, but transformation.
Willard says:
”Remember that math isnt about motion, but transformation.”
Of course not. isometry is a tool used to create animations of motion but not actual motion. so it doesn’t apply to real motions.
so hopefully we can get off of yet another Willard bunny trail.
> Isometry is a tool used to create animations of motion but not actual motion.
Gill blunders again:
Actually, the computer industry contributed a great deal to the development of isometry. Willard is just parroting stuff he read without understanding what is being said or what some of its most important uses are.
Gill confuses himself once more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_video_game_graphics
He gladly provides a perfect illustration of how contrarians and cranks can resist the simplest notions. It is as if they were doing everything in their power to refuse to understand.
All this so Little Willy can make the same point as other "Spinners" have made a hundred times already – a rotation about an external axis supposedly cannot occur in an ellipse, because a rotation typically refers to circular motion. Well, once all "Spinners" have accepted that points 1) – 4) are correct, we’ll get on to re-discussing that.
” It is as if they were doing everything in their power to refuse to understand.”
Yep, that sums it up well.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time trying to spin his yarn by equivocating on “the point” I’m supposed to be making.
…this so Little Willy can make the same point as other "Spinners" have made a hundred times already – a rotation about an external axis supposedly cannot occur in an ellipse, because a rotation typically refers to circular motion. Well, once all "Spinners" have accepted that points 1) – 4) are correct, we’ll get on to re-discussing that.
sounds like the only approach that can achieve any results as its absolutely necessary to put an end to their relentless dedication to divert the conversation down endless bunny trails.
Gill believes that computer graphics are relevant to the mathematical notion underpinning rotation. He also believes that they preserve isometry.
ROLFCOPTER.
“…as its absolutely necessary to put an end to their relentless dedication to divert the conversation down endless bunny trails”
Exactly, Bill.
[ME, A PEASANT] Rotations are isometries. They all are.
[GILL, AN INTELLECTUAL GIANT, JUST LIKE GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Do you think anybody in here is going to believe you Willard?
[ME] No, Gill. I think everybody will believe a guy who wrote a book on affine geometry:
[GILL] See here Willard how to draw isometric ellipses using AutoCad.
[…]
[ALSO GILL] sounds like the only approach that can achieve any results as its absolutely necessary to put an end to their relentless dedication to divert the conversation down endless bunny trails.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, A TOWERING GIANT] Exactly
Once all "Spinners" agree on points 1) – 4), there will be a lot less distractions and pointless running down endless bunny trails, as Bill put it. Little Willy is one of the absolute worst at relentlessly doing so. His wild scatter-brain is always all over the place, unable to do joined-up thinking, and just getting lost from one diversion to the next.
Right after having opined on topicality, in a subthread about the concept of isometry, Gaslighting Graham declares himself the winner…on something else.
Little Willy has another problem about something or other.
Nate you are avoiding addressing DREMTS 4 points. Why is that?
Nothing to do with the Moon. And a distraction from it.
It’s probably because he knows I’m right on all 4), but can’t bring himself to admit it, Bill…since that would mean too many of his colleagues being wrong about various extremely basic things, that they have argued relentlessly about for over five years now. A lot of the problem is that “Spinner” is completely unwilling to argue against “Spinner”. So, we’re stuck in a rut. Any time a discussion progresses, the same people derail the debate by making the same mistakes about the points 1) – 4) over and over again. We never get anywhere because those people refuse to listen to anything the “Non-Spinners” say. They might listen to “Spinners” correcting them, but the “Spinners” don’t have the integrity to correct them! In fact, as we see, they keep covering for them, instead!
Then these “Spinners” that know better keep complaining about the debate, saying it’s going on too long or that it’s some sort of nightmare, but never do what they need to do to help bring it to a close. It’s a really weird situation, generally.
Exactly, Nate.
Moon Dragon cranks are not arguing about the Moon anymore, they’re more into rediscovering the noumenal world.
It’s not really about the moon, Little Willy. It’s about whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR. That then affects all orbiting bodies, not just moons.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Nobody cares about Moon Dragon cranks’ distortions of a fairly straightforward GIF.
Little Willy will never understand the absolute basics of this discussion.
“Its about whether orbit without spin is like the MOTL or the MOTR.”
So there is no science at all-just creative semantics.
Its about making up your own personal definitions of words that no one else agrees with.
Got it.
…Willy will never understand the absolute basics of this discussion.
DREMT says:
Then these Spinners that know better keep complaining about the debate, saying its going on too long or that its some sort of nightmare, but never do what they need to do to help bring it to a close. Its a really weird situation, generally.
—————-
You can’t bring them into an honest conversation of rotations about an external axis.
Nate still hasn’t explained what he meant by the conservation of angular momentum for the orbit component (which is by far the largest share of angular momentum). He said to my statement:
i can wind up my arm by burning calories and put an idle object on the end of a string into rotation. if that string breaks most of the angular momentum disappears.
FALSE. Angular momentum is conserved and continues: the ball continues to rotate as it flies off, so its spin angular momentum is conserved. AND it continues to have its orbital component m*v*r, even as it flies off.
So I replied that Nate seems to think the ball will keep spinning around my head, to which he denied thats what he thinks. Now he is in obfuscation mode and doesn’t want to talk about it any more.
Exactly, Nate.
It all does seem a bit odd, Bill.
“‘FALSE. Angular momentum is conserved and continues: the ball continues to rotate as it flies off, so its spin angular momentum is conserved. AND it continues to have its orbital component m*v*r, even as it flies off.’
So I replied that Nate seems to think the ball will keep spinning around my head, to which he denied thats what he thinks. Now he is in obfuscation mode and doesnt want to talk about it any more.”
Bill, you claimed to understood the skater example, where a skater was travelling LINEARLY, yet had still ANGULAR momentum, mvr, and transferred it into rotational motion of the skater pair, because it is CONSERVED.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565712
Then you should be able to apply this understanding to how the ball can fly off LINEARLY and still have ANGULAR momentum.
If you have just understand this basic property of angular momentum, you should understand that there is no need for the ball to keep going around your head!
Can you?
Nate says:
”Bill, you claimed to understood the skater example, where a skater was travelling LINEARLY, yet had still ANGULAR momentum, mvr, and transferred it into rotational motion of the skater pair, because it is CONSERVED.”
i understand that you are so lost in the land of SIR physics that you think a skater has angular momentum to conserve before she starts rotating. yeah got that full frontal.
Bill, you claimed to understand why the skaters end up spinning.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to your theory of why that happens, preferably using conservation of angular momentum.
“understand that you are so lost in the land of SIR physics”
By so often trying to discuss angular momentum you are putting yourself firmly on that continent, Bill.
but if science and SIR doesn’t maintain a close and consistent relationship with OPR we can honestly say the science isn’t yet ready for primetime. here you arguing that science is to be trusted no matter how inconsistent it is. that a strike three for you. . .looking.
> but if science and SIR doesnt maintain a close and consistent relationship with OPR we can honestly say the science isnt yet ready for primetime.
Had we access to this vantage point from which you can judge the consistency and the closeness of that relationship, Gill, why would we need science in the first place?
Bill the OPR here is that you keep talking about angular momentum which is fully SIR, yet imagine you are looking at OPR.
Quite contradictory.
Still waiting for you to enlighten us as to your theory of why the skaters end up spinning, preferably using conservation of angular momentum!
…all does seem a bit odd, Bill.
Obviously Gill refers to isometries, not isometrics. And he’s obviously ignoring that there are only two different types of rotations, at least according to his pet guru, Holy Madhavi.
He still is licking his wounds over his failure to find rotations for non-circular ellipses.
Willard<
Two metric spaces X and Y are called isometric if there is a bijective isometry from X to Y. The set of bijective isometries from a metric space to itself forms a group with respect to function composition, called the isometry group.
I suppose you think an isometric is only a form of exercise.
I have no trouble finding a rotation in an elliptical shape. Look all around you all rotations have particles moving in ellipses.
I realize you want to limit rotations to a specific kind of ellipse however the challenges of making that case have been laid at your feet and all you do is rotate around the bush.
Here is your challenge since you probably can’t find it without help. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562298
Gill, Gill,
Isometrics are exercises in which muscles are not supposed to change lengths. Put your hands together and push. Congratulations, you just did an isometric exercise!
Have your arms moved? No. They were static. *Static* exercises is another name for these exercises.
Now, spin your arm around your shoulder. Was it isometric? No, for your muscles contracted and stretched!
Please, very please, learn the difference between isometrics and isometries.
thats what I figured you thought.
Here Willard are some advanced isometric projections for you to practice up on.
Note the technique to use an isometric transposition that is elliptical. You select an angled plane for the transposition.
Note the ”Professional Tip”
https://www.g-wlearning.com/cad/0619/ch04/data/supmat04a.pdf
Gill, Gill,
You’re not helping the Moon Dragon cranks’ cause by going for 3D:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection
This makes Bob wins immediately.
Also, I do hope you realize that it’s not how human vision works.
In Little Willy’s view, everything "makes bob wins". Whether bob has actually weighed in on the topic, or not.
Willard instantly retreats from ”Isometrics are exercises in which muscles are not supposed to change lengths.” LMAO!!
Gill is one of the worst trying to introduce “isometrics” without understanding that the plural is first and foremost used to refer to a specific type of physical exercises, e.g.:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/article-isometrics-exercises-explained/
Worse, he must not even realize that “isometric view” has NOTHING (h/t Pupman) to do with my point about a rotation being an isometry or Holy Madhavi.
Willard says:
Gill is one of the worst trying to introduce isometrics without understanding that the plural is first and foremost used to refer to a specific type of physical exercises, e.g.:
———————
well you said it. popularity is how you judge everything. a real honest to God sycophant of celebrities.
yes indeed isometric exercises became more popular than isometry in the 1960’s and dictionaries are aways evolving finding the currently most popular usage of terms. i posted and you ignored the following:
Two metric spaces X and Y are called isometric if there is a bijective isometry from X to Y. The set of bijective isometries from a metric space to itself forms a group with respect to function composition, called the isometry group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry#:~:text=Two%20metric%20spaces%20X%20and,composition%2C%20called%20the%20isometry%20group
FYI there are an infinite more pairs of metric spaces possible.
Since you seem to believe they must all lay on a single plane and be viewed only from a perpendicular perspective establishes you know very little about the topic.
But it appears you are wholly committed to remaining ignorant by failing to address the facts.
but as far as you are concerned that doesn’t represent anything new around here where your ignorance is proudly paraded in front of us all constantly.
However people define words, Gill just goes his own way.
Oh, and here’s the relevant bit for Gill’s latest rediscovery:
What will be when Gill will discover quasi-isometries?
Willard says:
However people define words, Gill just goes his own way.
————————-
you mean right after you went your own way and argued that isometry prove the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth. Sheesh!
Gill sets up another silly double bind.
Perhaps he could quote where I am supposed to have argued what he said I have argued?
ah now willard backpedals.
Gill tries to project his confusion between geometry and physics.
Willard is not the brightest bulb in the box. He’s about as inconsequential as that other Willard – Willard Quine.
He probably didnt realise that he could have chosen another pseudonym – Dummy, Wanker, Master Baiter . . .
It took Mike Flynn ten years to discover who wrote “language is a social art” and he is proud of it!
Willard says:
”Gill tries to project his confusion between geometry and physics.”
I am not the one that brought up isometry as a means of defining rotation being only a circle.
My argument for the moon’s rotation is based on physics and the fact that an isometric transformation can be of any shape defined by geometry. . .including an ellipse. Your bring up of isometry only helped make my argument.
And isometric projection is only related to isometry. In Jr High School drafting you do both exercises in the simplest of ways. You use isometric projection to give a 3d appearance on a 2 dimensional drawing. Isometry can be used to duplicate any shape of the same size shape in another location. So since my interest in drafting quickly went toward architecture I used both methods in creating and displaying what I was designing.
You can explain why exactly you brought the topic up regarding the OPR of the moon’s motions if you wish to pursue the issue.
> I am not the one that brought up isometry as a means of defining rotation being only a circle.
And now Gill mentions concepts from geometry while confusing himself about definitions!
LMAO.
Nate the problem is you think the OPR of the moon is determined by definitions and geometry. LMAO. Wrong! Its determined by forces of nature and physics.
The problem is that Gill still thinks he can probe the mind of people without giving any evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, he still confuses OPR with ROOMBA. LOL!
I don’t think that pointing out an inability to stay on topic has anything to do with mind probing.
What we are dealing with here is a form of backpedaling. One where you back track off a bunny trail you created and got lost on as to why you created it in the first place.
“Nate the problem is you think the OPR of the moon is determined by definitions and geometry. LMAO. Wrong! Its determined by forces of nature and physics.”
Sure Bill, again you try to insert your weird ever changing notions into my mind!
First, I have never endorsed the OPR concept anywhere.
Only DREMT and you are pushing the OPR narrative.
And your selected OPR: TMDNS, is declared to be true, with no sound scientific rationale offered.
I bet you cannot even define OPR.
For astronomers, they have complex set of equations to predict the positions and librations of the Moon at future times.
Are those equations OPR?
OPR Nate is real physics and chemistry. What its not is your imagination. Your imagination happens to be inculcated to a symbolic idealistic representation of reality that an undisciplined (i.e. essentially inexperienced) scientist will mistake as reality.
For new minted scientists experience is the professor of classes in OPR and being able to distinguish that the hammer is not a nail. In school you spend the minority of the time in the lab. On the job you spend all your time in the lab.
“Nate the problem is you think” is indeed mind probing, Gill.
Nate a symbolic idealistic representation of an idea can only be in a mind.
If you believe that’s reality that is confusing your thoughts with reality. it can’t be anything else. Its not ”mind probing” its self evident by the statement of that position.
“Nate the problem is you think the OPR of the moon is determined by definitions and geometry. LMAO. Wrong!
Bill, you need to figure out what you think I’m supposed to believe about OPR, that I have never stated.
“Its determined by forces of nature and physics.”
And you need to get your story straight on physics and OPR and stick to it.
Thus far you have taken every side on it!
“But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (SIR) of a physical reality.”
The OPR for the ball on a string is a good example. Hold the ball and stretch the string taut…can you spin the ball on its own internal axis? No, of course not. The string’s holding it in place. Now, swing the ball on a string around your head. The string’s taut, thus it’s still holding the ball in place so that it physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis. Therefore, we know the OPR is that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. Simple.
Now, some people will whine that if you were to cut the string, the ball would fly off at a tangent, rotating on its own internal axis. Sure, but as Tesla pointed out:
"The rotation 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."
Those tangential velocities are different, because prior to the string being cut, the ball is rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Cut the string, the tangential velocities of parts of the ball are different, so now that it’s moving in a straight line, that difference is of course going to apply a torque to the ball and cause it to spin on its own internal axis.
Why is DREMT responding to me?
“Cut the string, the tangential velocities of parts of the ball are different, so now that its moving in a straight line that difference is of course going to apply a torque to the ball and cause it to spin on its own internal axis.”
Nice story. Too bad its nonsense.
The differing tangential velocities of parts of the ball are present before and after the string is cut.
No torque is involved, just conservation of SPIN angular momentum.
So there is no need to invent one, that weirdly comes from velocity!
Nate says:
”And you need to get your story straight on physics and OPR and stick to it.
Thus far you have taken every side on it!”
——————————————–
Wrong! There are two kinds of physics. Physics of the real world otherwise known as OPR. And the other kind which is what they teach you in school, not real physics but ”tools” with which to work with and estimate and approximate real physics.
If you don’t understand the difference then you don’t understand physics period.
As I said here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564164
Bill Hunter says:
”OPR Nate is real physics and chemistry. What its not is your imagination. Your imagination happens to be inculcated to a symbolic idealistic representation of reality that an undisciplined (i.e. essentially inexperienced) scientist will mistake as reality.”
”For new minted scientists experience is the professor of classes in OPR and being able to distinguish that the hammer is not a nail. In school you spend the minority of the time in the lab. On the job you spend all your time in the lab.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Those tangential velocities are different, because prior to the string being cut, the ball is rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Cut the string, the tangential velocities of parts of the ball are different, so now that its moving in a straight line, that difference is of course going to apply a torque to the ball and cause it to spin on its own internal axis.”
Yes the action of cutting the string creates the necessary reaction demanded by Newtons 3rd law of motion that changes the situation with the ball traveling on a linear path while continuing to rotate at the rate it was originally rotating. The string cutting eliminated the gravitational torque that was pulling the ball around on the string.
The spinners want to be able to separate Lorb from Lspin without having any torque eliminated nor the reaction. It can’t be done in that way without violating a law of physics. there is some real physical energy required that is missing. Name the effect on the hand that was spinning the ball when the string was cut. With that missing their resulting equation for Lorb is incorrect. The Lspin remains intact but Lorb is a fallacious equation.
Conclusion. Lspin cannot be removed from Lorb without introducing a third action.
> Lspin cannot be removed from Lorb
When will Gaslighting Graham correct Gill on that one?
Bill is talking about angular momentum, Little Willy. He’s not saying that "orbit" and "spin" aren’t independent from the "Non-Spinner" perspective. "Orbit" and "spin" are independent from both the "Non-Spinner" perspective and the "Spinner" perspective, the difference is what "orbit" is, in either case.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Gill clearly states that the Moon’s orbit and spin are interlocked.
This goes against Gaslighting Graham’s claim that they are not.
Bill does not think the moon spins.
Bordo also claims the Moon does not spin.
I’m sure it means something to astute readers.
I’m sure your comment means something to you.
“Wrong! There are two kinds of physics. Physics of the real world otherwise known as OPR. And the other kind which is what they teach you in school, not real physics but tools with which to work with and estimate and approximate real physics.”
Heee haw! That is new and quite hilarious one.
So let’s see.
First Bill declares that physics does not tell us ‘objective physical reality’.
Second, he declares that physics does tell us ‘objective physical reality’, as long as it agree with Bill’s beliefs.
Now, he clarifies that he meant there are two kinds of physics, real world physics and physics that is taught in school which explains all the previous discoveries.
No one needs that!
any physicist with any real comprehension of it knows that physics is a symbolic close approximation of reality but falls short of reality. great physicists fully understand this as there great discoveries arise from close scrutiny of the gaps using basically the same techniques of any auditor, maintaining skepticism while doggedly prodding away at the soft points. . .which for some stuck in the muds can be very annoying.
“physics is a symbolic close approximation of reality but falls short of reality”
I have consistently agreed with this.
Only you and DREMT claim you KNOW (off and on with physics) what the OPR for the Moon is, but offering nothing substantive to support this claim.
You can’t even define it!
Nate says:
”First Bill declares that physics does not tell us objective physical reality.”
——————————
Nate backpedals yet another time in this comment section.
He now agrees that physics only provides a close approximation of OPR via Symbolic Idealistic Representation.
Worse he claims he has always agreed with that. But if that were true he wouldn’t so often chosen to hold to the SIR over the OPR.
Is he intentionally trying to deceive people or is he just confused about what actually controls the moon.
Gill believes that he has direct access to objective reality.
IJBOL!
"Gill believes that he has direct access to objective reality."
I don’t think that Bill’s saying that. Personally, I don’t claim to know the OPR for whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. For one thing, that’s outside the scope of points 1) – 4). I’ve tentatively put forward some arguments as to why it might be the case that it’s the MOTL, briefly venturing outside the scope of points 1) – 4) just for the hell of it, but I don’t think I’ve ever said that "the OPR is that the moon does not rotate on its own axis". I think I’ve said that it’s much harder to determine than, for example, what the OPR for the ball on a string is. Which is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
“Nate backpedals yet another time in this comment section.
He now agrees that physics only provides a close approximation of OPR via Symbolic Idealistic Representation.”
“Worse he claims he has always agreed with that.”
Bill has decided that misrepresenting his opponents arguments, then attacking them, is a winning strategy.
It aint. Because we’re on to him.
FYI, here is my Nov 7 comment that a week BEFORE Bill ever mentioned SIR.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556188
“I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not physical reality.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
Oh well!
Bill, Only you and DREMT claim you KNOW (off and on with physics) what the OPR for the Moon is, but offering nothing substantive to support this claim.
You STILL have yet to define it!
Apparently OPR is defined to be whatever DREMT tells you it is.
Wrong Nate. I defined it mathematically with an array of particles using the MVR formula for each particle and showed the sum of those mvrs to be equal to Lorb+Lspin.
You ignored the effort.
Just follow the guidance of the link above and group some particles equally around the mean point and you will find more angular momentum that produced by the mean point mass calculation and that additional angular momentum always equals Lspin.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
“I defined it mathematically with an array of particles using the MVR formula for each particle and showed the sum of those mvrs to be equal to Lorb+Lspin.”
Sure, you are showing well known alternative ways to symbolically represent the motion.
None of which are OPR!
…which is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
“Conclusion. Lspin cannot be removed from Lorb without introducing a third action.”
🤦
…is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
… wrt to the string.
Go away, Ball4.
Solar wind
speed: 481.9 km/sec
density: 1.34 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 174
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.70×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
https://www.spaceweather.com/
So, was at 138 and now at 174, which quite a jump, but not showing
the new picture yet. This might enough for it not to go below the curved line of graph, which I guess it could do. But still Nov still going to be low sunspot number month {there is simply not enough days
left in month to make much of difference}. But the number alone, does not suggest we will not get a spotless day in Nov. I need to see new picture.
I said at end of Nov, I would say what I thought about being in solar grand min, nothing changed to change that. But at this point, I am going to guess that Dec going to be low sunspot number month, also.
Earlier I thought Dec might get higher than 100 to 110 sunspot number month.
I am going to check what Pros says:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
20 November – 16 December 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels with a
chance for moderate levels on 20 November to 01 December and again
on 14-16 December. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So, they aren’t saying much different than I am guessing.
So a big spot coming from farside in southern hemisphere and probably will be numbered 3499.
The “AR3490-91-92 poses a continued threat for M-class solar flares”
is growing and days before directly facing Earth, but over next 4 days as becomes “more directly facing Earth” it will have greater threat. And 3498 is closest to going to farside and about 4 days from doing that. So it seems Nov will not cross the curved drawn line and will not have a spotless day.
And it will have to be Dec before, it crosses curved line and we get some spotless days.
It must be past mid month. Nothing but wearisome slagging of each other.
I am reminded of an Irish Rover ditty that went:
‘Two Irish men sitting in a ditch
The one calls the other one a dirty son of a bitch’
I can’t hardly wait for the start of next month when we (the bores and slags excluded) will have a few days of actual sane discussion about the few hundredths of a degree difference from the month before as if it matters.
Ken,
You have appointed yourself the arbiter of “we (bores and slags excluded)” have you?
Is that the Royal “we” (you and God), or do you have a select few envisioned, no doubt selected on the ability to agree with everything you say?
You could all get together and agree on a greenhouse effect, and its dire consequences, without having to worry about inconvenient questions or facts. Anyone who didnt agree would be classified as a bore or a slag!
That would be good, wouldn’t it?
[laughing at pretentious donkey]
I’m not needed as arbiter. You’ve long ago clearly delineated the camp in which you belong all on your own.
Ken,
And you decided this, did you?
Or did God tell you?
Ho, ho, ho!
I’m sure you are cognizant of why I feel constrained to make the statement made in this thread. Clearly you understand that you are part of the problem.
You don’t like feeling persecuted? Then its long past due time for you, and the others of your ilk, to change your obnoxious attitude.
Ken,
Why would I feel persecuted? Are you trying to do so?
I can’t feel it.
Should I be concerned?
I’m with you, Ken. There’s very little point in participating in a slanging match.
Though I would disagree that the temperature readings are not important.
The climate system is behaving in a way which should have been impossible for 2023. You saw one researcher’s reaction “gobsmacked!” .
When any complex system wanders off into unknown territory, something has changed and there is always a lot to be leatned.
Sorry Ent, but your bogus GHE did not cause the HTE. You don’t understand science. Your cult religion is based on made-up beliefs, not science. It’s just like your made-up “passenger jets can fly backward” nonsense.
If you, and hateful jealous Ken, should ever get interested in learning science, start here;
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Low Entropy man pretends to know what the normal weather is supposed to be , that’s rich
yep gobsmacked like a young’un who thought he knew it all.
Actually its a recognized and very common medical/psychologic disorder. its name is Nature Deficit Disorder. It is believed to arise from overly protective parenting to the extent the victim never really learns to relate to the full diversity of nature. they forego playing in mud puddles and taking risks or spending enough time frankly nude out in nature.
Gobsmacked?
Probably one of those severely misinformed “scientists” who refuse to acknowledge the existence of chaos. They point-blank deny that a chaotic system doesn’t need any disturbance to produce chaotic behaviour. That’s why the system is called chaotic – it doesnt “revert to the mean”, nor is it amenable to “probability distribution functions” (in general).
A “strange attractor” is just that – strange and completely unpredictable. The approximate future is not determinable from the approximate present.
There is no “normal weather”, and hence no “normal climate”.
Let the gobsmackery continue unabated. Its practitioners would certainly be most unhappy with Richard Feynman who declared “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”
Gobsmackery or dimwittery? Which is more prevalent amongst SkyDragon cultists? I agree with Feynman – for better or worse!
“A strange (or chaotic) attractor is one in which the trajectory of the points circle around a region of phase space, but never exactly repeat their path. That is, they do have a predictable overall form, but the form is made up of unpredictable details.”
Whacky Wee Willy,
You could try appealing to authority, but I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between authority and regurgitated silliness.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Mike Flynn is about to bray.
We may not know what exactly, but it should be something he already did.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You could try appealing to authority, but I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between authority and regurgitated silliness.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Mike Flynn goes for the fixed point instead.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You could try appealing to authority, but I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between authority and regurgitated silliness.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Will Mike repeat his comment a fourth time?
“In mathematics, a fixed point (sometimes shortened to fixpoint), also known as an invariant point, is a value that does not change under a given transformation. Specifically, for functions, a fixed point is an element that is mapped to itself by the function.”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ren and RLH appear to have gone AWOL. I wonder why.
Friends, family, and holiday, but it’s American Holiday, hmm.
Black Friday and shopping for Christmas??
One is in Poland and the other is in England, gb.
More coffee?
Willard says:
One is in Poland and the other is in England, gb.
———————
the question isn’t where they are. the question is who they are.
Is that what you believe the question was? Oh dear.
i wasn’t talking about your question. it doesn’t matter as much if somebody is in poland but instead more important re: thanksgiving is he an American and does he have a family with him.
If Gill lived in Canada, he would certainly not celebrate Thanksgiving the same way his neighbors do.
Witless Wee Willy wrote –
“If Gill lived in Canada, he would certainly not celebrate Thanksgiving the same way his neighbors do.”
If Willard had a brain he would . . .
If Mike Flynn was a donkey, he would still bray.
Willard says:
”If Gill lived in Canada, he would certainly not celebrate Thanksgiving the same way his neighbors do.”
Yep if the Canucks waited for American Thanksgiving they might not have one as the harvest might have frozen solid.
If Muricans had a proper Thanksgiving like in the rest of Western Civilization they could both have a nice family gathering followed by a Boxing Day in which they could stampede one another.
You must be a Canuck.
You must be slow on the uptake.
I don’t spend as much time guessing as you do Willard.
Some auditor we have there.
Willard, auditors don’t guess. They seek evidence.
Easier to find evidence when one reads comments.
I agree there is a lot of evidence you are a Canuck in your comments.
I had one cup, but yes will get more.
I think they have Christmas in Europe.
Though they may be as hysterical, about it.
RLH tends to post at the start of the month before it gets all screwed and Ren tends to post to the last article where he has plenty new ones
And you are a qwerp for writing this because nobody owes you any posts
That is true for RLH only for the last couple of months while the anomaly has been +0.9+. Before that he was part of the screwiness throughout the month.
Your comment about ren is unintelligible.
And where have I suggested that anyone owes me posts? I am celebrating their disappearance.
Let me help with your low entropy, ren has like 10 posts in the last two days
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1562665
A,
You wrote –
“I am celebrating their disappearance.”
Good for you.
Their presence obviously deeply disturbed you. Care to share the reasons, or do you just suffer from intermittent outbursts of celebration for no good reason?
Does the same mental defect account for your belief in a GHE, of which nobody can coherently state the outcome?
Maybe you are a SkyDragon cultist who is detached from reality, and prefers fiction to fact. Or maybe not, I suppose.
Carry on.
This is an older thread. Plenty of posts from ren on the newer one.
Ren indeed disregards Roy’s editorial content.
Unlike you, of course.
I try to stick to open threads, yes.
And you only bite ankles, Mike Flynn, so by accident you too.
What is that supposed to mean? Try? Bite ankles? Mike Flynn?
Willard is just trying to show how original he can be.
Mike Flynn and Gill must have problems getting our Eboy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563566
Willard, unable to find anything rational to contribute, posts another link. Based on past experience, completely irrelevant and likely to contradict Willards statements.
As usual, Willard must be expressing his frustration that I am not using his preferred pseudonym, and also “Gill” (whoever he is) is not dancing to Willard’s jangling cacophony.
Oh well, the pointless GHE scam (popular delusion, madness of the crowd, whatever you want to call it) is slowly fading into the background. “Luke warmers” are becoming even more tepid in their enthusiasm, and even considering other sources of heat. Man made heat, for example.
All good fun – SkyDragon cultists’ mental contortions give the rest of us the opportunity to feel at least superior, if not supremely rational and intelligent.
Mike Flynn, unable to click on the link, fails to read:
“Twerpy replaced Bindiclown as my current #1 ankle biter”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
–Half of all the warming isnt that insignificant, gb.
Perhaps you need more coffee.–
Making more.
The rise in sea level has been quite insignificant.
And cargo cult needs to make it’s mind about the Little Ice Age- when sea levels dropped and it was colder.
And assuming it was about what is wanted {and our governments should spending trillion of dollars and not doing anything- including something pretty easy such as focusing on accurately measuring global surface temperature which has been and is currently somewhere around 15 C} But assuming we had a choice {governments weren’t focused on starting World War III} do want sea levels slightly lower and global air temperature to be somewhere around 13 C {or colder}?
The weather before cars and electricity – according to climate shysterz
https://youtu.be/EsaZ1jx1fmY
Now we can explain why the planet Mars average surface temperature Tsat.mean = 210K is the same as Mars theoretically calculated effective temperature Te = 210K
–
In the New Tmean equation in the case of Mars the
(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴
and
Φ
eliminate each other, because in the case of Mars, by a pure coincidence
Φ = ~ 1 /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴
or
0,47 = ~ 1 /(150*0,9728*0,18)∕ ⁴ = 0,441138
( 0,47 /0,44 )∕ ⁴ = (1,0682)∕ ⁴ = 1,0166
so there is only a
1,66 % difference in the final result of Te =210K
and Tsat.mean =210K
–
Thus we have here a clear confirmation of
the rightness of Φ =0,47 for the smooth surface planets and moons.
****************************
We have calculated The Planet Mean Surface Temperatures by the use of the New Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived
https://i.postimg.cc/zXrgfHrp/nino12-Monadj.png
https://i.postimg.cc/L8mLxYQh/nino3-Monadj.png
https://i.postimg.cc/mDfnnyv7/nino34-Monadj-PDFC.png
Why did you cherry pick NOAA? Why not these ones:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/elnino/20231101/nino34_anom_20231101.png
https://charts.ecmwf.int/streaming/20231123-1330/58/ps2png-worker-commands-76898cbbf-zdbjw-6fe5cac1a363ec1525f54343b6cc9fd8-z8JjQ6.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20231118//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
Ask Bindiclown why I pick these
https://i.postimg.cc/Jzr9WG1n/bdnb23nino34-Mon.gif
Sure it is, just like when Eben declared that was spotty sun was over.
https://tinyurl.com/53e44bet
The spotty sun is only over when reach solar min, but Nov will have low sunspot number than it maybe over 100, and I guess there was good chance it cross 93 number and go the curved line. It might, but I think we have wait for, but in either case, following the model of a solar grand min- which will last for a few more decades.
I agree. I think grand solar events are in the neighborhood of 5 solar cycles. Using that as a bench mark our most recent 5 solar cycles just hit average with cycle 24.
So a grand solar minimum is still a long shot, needing 4 more low cycles.
The Dalton Minimum which is much more iffy on temperature affects than the Maunder was only 3 below average low cycles as was the small temperature dip for 3 cycles after 1878.
Solar wind
speed: 560.1 km/sec
density: 16.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 184
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 178 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.66×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
“Sunspots AR3490and AR3500 have ‘delta’-class magnetic fields that pose a threat for X-class solar flares. ”
And:
“CME IMPACT SPARKS GEOMAGNETIC STORM: Arriving about 12 hours earlier than expected, a CME struck Earth’s magnetic field on Nov. 25th (0852 UT), sparking a minor G1-class geomagnetic storm. Another CME might arrive tomorrow, Nov. 26th, delivering a glancing blow that could extend minor storming through the weekend.”
I doesn’t seem as exciting as I thought it might be. It seems
fairly quiet.
The spot I saw coming from farside is small. Don’t see another one, yet. 3498 appears gone/faded but will be gone in a day in terms of going to farside.
It seems one could say southern hemisphere is more active than northern, but it’s close call. The big bunch in northern seems impressive, and I am going to say it looks like it’s “eating the coronal hole” it’s following
Solar wind
speed: 455.7 km/sec
density: 6.14 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 179
“Sunspot AR3500 has a ‘delta’-class magnetic field that poses a threat for X-class solar flares.”
I guess 3490 doesn’t. 3500 coming closer to facing Earth.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.66×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.4% Low
They numbered small spot 3503. Don’t see any spots coming from farside. Got 12 numbered spots, and going to 11.
“El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived”
Thank you, Eben. I’ve saved this as well as your previous prediction that el Nino has already peaked.
It’s the last day of October, so I’ll see you in a couple of weeks for an update, and again over the next few months.
While we’re at it, would you care to bet on your prediction? I’ve got US$100 says you’re wrong.
Do you believe in what you’re saying for an easy $100, or are you about to expose yourself as a gasbagger?
Nino predictions are always a gamble. even the experts lost two years ago when they said the odds were for la nino to end in spring. they were way off.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_nov2021/ensodisc.pdf
at the moment one cannot talk about peak values as the enso index this week is at +2.1.
so eben pointed out that nino 1.2 had peaked an the others would soon do their turn around. are you, arguing that nino 1.2 will hit a higher peak than the august peak it hit? if not you guys aren’t even on the same page.
Nino 1.2 is a small region and HIGHLY variable. Its peak is not a good measure of an El Nino peak.
it may be for non-modoki el ninos. non-modoki el ninos originate in the most eastern part of the pacific. modoki el ninos originate in the central pacific. last consensus non-modoki was 1997. it started in spring and 1+2 remained strong until january 1998 then the elnino lasted through the amj season in 1998. this one 1+2 started around the same time in spring but started weakening in september 4 months earlier than the great record setting el nino of 97-98
“are you, arguing that nino 1.2 will hit a higher peak than the august peak it hit?”
I’ll go with the monthly values given by the institutes that monitor ENSO.
Eg,
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
The first two use the standard NINO3.4 region, and JMA uses NINO3.
Well Eben wasn’t talking about that index. If you had opened his link you would know that. He did say the others would soon follow but that can be by as much as 4 months for a non-Modoki el nino.
I thought hurricane season was over, but I checked. I got tropical depression:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Which is far from me, but roughly going in my direction and is suppose to become a tropical storm. On Atlantic which is the season which I thought was over, there is one disturbance with low chance of
doing anything and it far away, also. Or both are mostly going to worry the fishes, only {and nothing to do with rocket launches}.
I was thinking about putting a tower on Mars {though one could also do the with the Moon- but I had already thought about that}.
Anywhere on Mars or the Moon, you want solar panels to be at higher elevation- which could be from the natural terrain, but if had higher elevation you still might want to make it, even higher.
The Moon has no air and so can’t have wind and has low gravity which make towers easier. Mars has more gravity and has some wind, but generally it’s it’s like the Martian Hollywood movie.
So first thing you might want is a water tower, so you have constant
and dependable water pressure. And lower gravity place need the water tower to be higher {cause the gravity causes the water pressure}.
So for Mars, you should have water tower about 70 meters high.
And you make it from a hull of a starship- though a starship stands about 70 meter tall. So without a water tower, one can say it can serve temporary as water tower. But for water tower you only need about 10 or 20 meter of starship hull, and tower legs make it higher.
And was thinking you put the solar tower on top of it and make it about 500 meter tall. And you need about 20 tons metal to make it- and with Starship can bring 100 tons of stuff to Mars surface {in theory}.
I was thinking more about it, and building 500 meter tower wasn’t needed, but it seems solar power on Mars is better than I thought it was. And I had thought solar power on Mars was far more viable than solar power on Earth’s surface.
The main problem with solar power for electrical power on Earth is that you only get electrical power for about 6 hours of a 24 hour day, whereas with Mars you get it for 12 hours per 24 day.
So on Earth you have battery problem or you can solve it by having solar farms linked to together across time zone to increase the hours of the day from electrical power create by solar farm electrical grid.
There are other ways doing it also, which I have discussed, such as using reflected sunlight from orbit to extend the solar hours of solar farms on the Earth surface. And these satellites could reflect sunlight to more than just one solar farm. Some argued about the light pollution which I didn’t think was a big issue.
But Mars simply being smaller planet shorten the distance between time zone by almost 1/2 distance, and starting with 12 hours and making get say 14 hours is simple and 14 hours is a lot better than 6 hours of course a lot the installed solar farms on Earth, aren’t even getting 6 hour average per day per year, so these are even more hideous than the ones which can closer to 6 hours a day.
The other aspect which make solar power work on Mars, is you put solar panels in locations which have topographical advantage which could add an hour or two to the 12 hours.
And finally, Solar power at higher latitudes, like higher than 50 degree, don’t work on Earth, but they do have shorter distance to the next time zones. And with Mars {or Moon or Mercury or dwarf planets, moons/space rocks} higher 50 degrees works better then lower latitudes.
With Moon and south pole you have peaks which give 80 or more percent
of the time in sunlight {80% 24 hours is 19.2 hours of “day” – in one site- and could grid site location and get close to 100%}.
Now with Earth and Mars, if closer to polar region, you are wide difference of sunlight. So 60 degrees {north or south} daylight reduced to 5 1/2 hour per 24 day for a winter month {and winter months are longer on Mars] and a month of about 18 hours during summer. For Mars a tower would up it to more than 6 hours, and does not need 500 meter tower. But having another solar site going east or west fairly short distance to up to 8 hours a day. Though in shorter grids than we have Earth, you increase to 24 hours or have constant
electrical power from solar energy.
So, don’t need 500 meter tower.
This doesn’t work for Earth. Well it certainly doesn’t work in winter on Earth. But might work in other seasons. And if solar power didn’t work in winter, the powerline in winter could work.
Map of Canada. So say at 55 degree North. Dead winter 50 is about 16.5 above horizon at noon, so 55 is 11.5 and hour of daylight for dead winter month is about 7 hours, at noon 11.5 and in 3.5 hours drops to horizon, dropping about 3.5 degree per hour. And if clear weather that is sunlight like you get on Dwarf planet Ceres.
But going up about 47 degree by summer, and need it to get 20 degree
higher before gets much solar energy {if got clear skies}.
When get say 11 hour daylight. March 1 gets 10.3 hours and Oct 1 is
11.28 hours. So could get some solar power starting March and ending mid Oct. But you could have it go thru 8 time zones. Though grid could be at 60 degree latitude, and 5 times 111 = 555 km {+300 miles} but you would have mainlines going vertical from 50 to 60 degree latitude, and solar farm branching at 55. And solar farms being close to these vertical- within 50 km of it. So instead a line across 55, it’s widely spaced bands, solar farms going near vertical mainlines which has national grid at 60 degree straight across the country.
They might already doing it. Already done it, sort of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec%27s_electricity_transmission_system
First La Nina forecasts for 2024 starting to pop up
https://youtu.be/A2BXtsVWalo
From an amateur on Youtube … seriously?
A,
You prefer to pay your fortune seller, do you?
If you have any brains at all, you would refuse to bet me that you can find any professional forecaster who can forecast the future better than an amateur like myself. I’ll even let your professional go first.
You do have a brain, do you?
Oh well, maybe another sucker will take me on.
Twerpy replaced Bindiclown as my current #1 ankle biter
Antonin Qwerty says:
From an amateur on Youtube seriously?
——————————–
In that business EVERYBODY is an amateur. No skill means guesses have the same chance for everybody.
Subsurface equatorial heat content on the rise.
Surface T, nino3.4, generally follows ~ a month later.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
This analysis argues that 3.4 temp follows 2 months after subsurface heat content.
https://www1.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/
We will see..
Well you should note that the upper ocean heat content has been fluctuating almost monthly and none of that shows up in any ENSO seasonal data that just shows a rise over the past year.
The easiest trap to fall into with ENSO is to look too closely as what is happening today or this month and using that to predict the next season. The ENSO expert predictors aren’t even making an attempt to predict the outcome of SON or OND. They are only putting out model predictions for the 3rd season to com NDJ. That means the warmest season for a turn to a cooling trend will be December. Nate getting excited that ENSO index is still rising and it might rise for two more months is pretty aggressive since the current rise amplitude simply gets smoothed to nothing and having it show up is going to require no cooling.
More astute posters in here linking to whats going on with Nino 1+2 apparently know that Nino1+2 is an early indicator of what Nino 3.4 is going to do with non-Modoki El Ninos such as this one.
Nino1+2 has been cooling since August where it was +3.3. It currently stands at +1.5 and hasn’t warmed monthly but clearly has a seasonal negative slope. This relationship between Nino1.2 and non-modoki El Ninos is born out by the statistical models that are in close agreement with the expert panel’s analysis of model output. Does that mean thats what is going to happen? Of course not. Statistics is a very iffy proposition in dealing with chaotic systems. And they are chaotic until you figure out the pattern completely. Same deal with climate science that rode the shoulders of Ben Santer’s statistics in AR3 who obviously missed major parts of the pattern.
“The easiest trap to fall into with ENSO is to look too closely as what is happening today or this month”
Eben was arguing about what was happening this month, that El Nino was peaking now. I am showing evidence that that is not the case.
Because subsurface heat content was rising, and that is due to recent Kelvin waves generated near the dateline, which travel East, which feed heat into the Eastern Pacific and strengthen the El Nino.
An expert’s summary from BOM:
“El Nio continues in the tropical Pacific. Warmer than average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) persist in the tropical Pacific, with warmer water beneath the surface to support further surface warming. In the atmosphere, cloud, wind and pressure patterns are consistent with El Nio conditions. Climate model forecasts indicate some further warming of the central to eastern Pacific is possible, with SSTs remaining above El Nio thresholds into the early southern hemisphere autumn 2024. The 2023 El Nio event is tracking around moderate strength.”
I agree with you on
“the upper ocean heat content has been fluctuating almost monthly”
and
“The easiest trap to fall into with ENSO is to look too closely as what is happening today or this month and using that to predict the next season.”
Nate says:
Eben was arguing about what was happening this month, that El Nino was peaking now. I am showing evidence that that is not the case.
——————
all that is happening at the moment is the experts are saying that while the nino index has benn aboe +1.5 for sometime and is currently +2.1 that is likely that the NDJ season will average less than +1.7 despite it only being less than one third of the way into that season. so within the math of enso averages you really haven’t staked out a claim separable from eben’s. eben was more explicit than you he indicated 1+2 had peaked and that 3.4 would soon follow. so if you are talking 3.4 and disputing eben then your claim is that 3.4 will continue to climb for the long term. if your claim is 1+2 hasn’t peaked well you are with near certainty wrong.
Nah, Eben was plainly premature on this for last several weeks.
Your ongoing attempts to revise history are quite ridiculous. Is he your offspring?
Seems more truthful, especially considering experience with Nate, Nate again is building a strawman and claims that Eben has been saying for weeks that Nino 3.4 has been declining.
But as usual with all strawmen that Nate builds, Nate will fail as he always fails to find evidence of his claims.
False, This has been thoroughly explained. he was wrong. You are wrong. You refuse to face reality, for some reason.
If its false Nate all you have to do is link to the alleged claim by Eben from weeks ago where: ”Eben has been saying for weeks that Nino 3.4 has been declining.”
But since you can’t do that you are going to lie and obfuscate as usual.
” claims that Eben has been saying for weeks that Nino 3.4 has been declining.”
No quote no credit. Stop making up fake arguments for me, loser!
We gave you specific Eben quotes, about El Nino, which were wrong.
Only one lying is you denying that Nino`1+2 is an ENSO zone for which NWS closely follows its index.
One cannot just look at somebody’s statement and ignore the evidence he presents and then completely fail comprehend the scope of his statement. That just makes you look too st-u-pid to know what he was saying
Climate change science denial is a lost cause, so might as well discuss social collapse…
34 arrested in Ireland race riots after child is stabbed in Dublin.
Immigrant neighbors of a POLITICO reporter in Dublin – Filipino hospital staff, Polish waiters and cleaners, a Moldovan cabbie and a Ghanian cook – all said they would stay home because they feared being confronted in the street for looking or sounding foreign.
Politicians inside Ireland’s three-party coalition government showed reporters screenshots of social media chat groups rallying rioters to particular spots.
“We have a buildup of a simmering anti-immigrant sentiment which hasn’t been addressed … and a beleaguered police force who don’t in any way seem capable of manning or policing the city center,” said Aodhan O’ Riordain, a lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party.
Politicial climate is changing.
End the mindless immigration of people who cannot and will not assimilate.
When will you assimilate, Kennui?
It must be past mid month. Nothing but wearisome slagging of each other.
I would like to know why multiculturalism in Canada proceeded with no consultation with Canadians. It’s still proceeding in that direction with our PM trying to shame us into protesting about Muslim terrorism by calling it Islamophobia.
It’s not as if our government or the US government are high on compassion and/or empathy, they are bringing in huge amounts of immigrants from Third World countries to undermine the working forces in the US and Canada, with the result of driving down wages an conditions.
Then they stand aside while landlords drive up rents to the point lower income Canadians can no longer find a place to live.
Having said all that, I am all for helping people throughput the world who are suffering. We simply cannot help them all by trying to relocate them to Canada. The more that come in and the more unrest they create, the more all countries will turn like Ireland and start reacting.
ark…what is climate change denial?
It comes in many forms:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Worried Wee Willy,
Another pointless link? Why do you bother?
You cant name one rational person who believes the climate is unchanging, can you?
Mike Flynn,
My links answers Bordos silly question.
Filthy liar.
Who says they won’t assimilate… https://youtu.be/VXKCR9GTMHQ
As with the climate change claptrap I don’t believe what anyone says.
Observations; hard data, are what matters.
If you moved here 50 years ago and are still Pro Hamas … you haven’t assimilated.
Really? There are 5th generation white Australians who support Hamas.
"ark…what is climate change denial?"
"Climate change denial" is any expression of a lack of faith in serial sock puppeteer Arkady’s deeply-held religious views on the climate.
I’m not aware of anyone who denies that the climate changes.
There are a group of wildly cavorting nutters who believe they can “Stop Climate Change!”.
I suppose you could call them climate change deniers, if they are mad enough to believe that they can create an unchanging climate.
Ken reminds me of the Borg, and their favorite saying:
“You will be assimilated”
Thanksgiving, When the inhabitants of North America helped some new arrivals and then discovered that no good deed goes unpunished.
E,
They should have paid attention to Arkady, who advised –
“End the mindless immigration of people who cannot and will not assimilate.”
Easier said than done, obviously.
Whoops, Ken’s advice, not Arkady’s!
My bad.
Good advice.
The archaeologists estimate that the indigenous population of America when Columbus arrived was around 60 million.
Over the next 200 years that shrank by more than 90%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171896/pre-colonization-population-americas/
1492 + 200 = 1692
Climate change?
This isn’t about climate change.
ent…archaeologists ‘estimated’ a population of 60 million? That’s why archaeologists go into that field, they’d have flunked out badly studying math.
Entropic man says:
”The archaeologists estimate that the indigenous population of America when Columbus arrived was around 60 million.
Over the next 200 years that shrank by more than 90%.”
EM you are way too easy of a mark for propaganda.
In Mexico alone there is almost 100 million people with indigenous blood running through their veins. To that you have to add US, Canada, Central America, The Caribbean, and all of South America.
Correction the Mexican population of those with Indigenous blood is over 117 million.
“Over the next 200 years that shrank by more than 90%.”
Gee, Bill, you are telling us the population today to debunk this?
Is today 1692??
Archaeologists aren’t census takers Nate.
You hit the ‘be contrary’ button again, without thinking.
archaeologist methods don’t count the assimilated populations.
Just admit it. Your complaint missed the mark.
what i was complaining about is the misuse of science to deceive people.
Archaeologists can estimate the populations still living in within a pre-Columbian culture. The moment of contact resulted in massive culture change that snowballed. The Spanish used harsh methods to bring about conversion but harshness was far from necessary in a lot of cases.
Mountains of skulls were found that strongly suggested a conversion option wasn’t an option before the Europeans arrived.
It is also known that the Europeans were successful despite being massively outnumbered.
But what most people are unaware of is there were dozens of other tribes whose members made up those mountains of skulls who were highly motivated to join forces with the Europeans and as such there wasn’t really all that much of an imbalance in numbers.
But for ol Nate its guaranteed he doesn’t hesitate to bite on any baited anchovy dangled in front of him by his daddy.
Instead of always doubling down, just admit that nothing youve offered has rebutted this:
“Over the next 200 years that shrank by more than 90%.
Your suggestion that it was propaganda is not supported by today’s demographics that you’ve been discussing.
“EM you are way too easy of a mark for propaganda.”
and you are still defending the BS that native populations declined by 90% after European contact. . .right? just more academic claptrap to serve a political witch hunt and highway robbery.
“and you are still defending the BS that native populations declined by 90% after European contact. . .right? ”
Are you still insisting that today’s demographics can be substituted for those of 1692?
As usual, you rant without thinking.
You can when you are sure you are right about 1692 not being representative at all of the actual indigenous population and instead is representative of the indigenous population that still lived and practice their culture as if they had never even seen a European.
Of course confirming it that far back would be very difficult as the indigenous peoples didn’t keep many records of births and deaths.
Thus if the current indigenous population was low you could draw some linear lines and claim a cause like you do with CAGW. But even that is ruled out by the current population proportions.
And none of that is a denial that European contact primarily from spreading disease through populations that hadn’t gone through it already. The Europeans also had huge population losses from the various plagues that rampaged through Europe and Asia before the Europeans came to the shores of the Americas.
The Pilgrims found an empty Wampanoag village to live in.
“In 1616, we think the village of Patuxet becomes ground zero for what became the Great Dying. There was a plague that ripped through the Wampanoag nation where there are estimates of over 100,000 Wampanoag dying in just three short years. There were accounts of a French fishing ship that had wrecked off the coast of Patuxet, and of some of the fishermen coming into the village exhibiting signs of sickness, with yellowing of the skin and fever, and dying. Shortly after that, the plague just starts to rip right through the Wampanoag nation. Everyone in Patuxet either dies or fled the village, and they never returned. And thats how the village of Patuxet ends up vacant in 1620 when the Pilgrims arrived. We know that the Pilgrims knew about the Great Dying, and they also must have known that that village of Patuxet was empty when deciding to make that Plymouth Colony.”
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pilgrims-plymouth-colony-patuxet#:~:text=The%20Wampanoag%20called%20the%20region,established%20where%20Patuxet%20once%20stood.
“And none of that is a denial that European contact primarily from spreading disease through populations that hadnt gone through it already.”
Which was the point of Entropic man’s post that you denied was true.
well also keep in mind that the various tribes were always trying to exterminate each other as well.
Fact is seldom do those diseases kill everybody. However, tribal warfare often resulted in the surviving losers moving far away.
and I have no beef with saying European, Asian, and African diseases raked up a lot of victims with the America’s being among the last in line for the continents. . .Australia and the Pacific Islands came later. And its certainly notable and not surprising that the natives were in many cases willing to marry the Spanish and begin that 200 year process of a major cultural shift.
Where would you prefer to live? In a Spanish Hacienda or an Adobe bunker with no windows?
And status? Aztec society had few nobles who owned the land the commoners worked on. European soldiers and settlers presented a vast increase in the opportunity to marry and live a better life and also they could be more competitive than the Aztec nobles because the Aztec nobles killed their competition and the Spanish had an empire to sell their goods to.
So you might say that for the first time in history the America’s had a middle class.
In the colonies, things went a bit differently. Rather than soldiers and adventurers the colonies were settled by families of Protestants escaping persecution from the Catholic monarchs. Only later in the 17th century after James II was overthrown did the new Protestant monarchs of England began to take interest in managing the Colonies.
the first major war of in the colonies came before that change in interest and was over the control of trade. For decades the natives fought among themselves over the control of the wampum trade.
When the Dutch arrived they started trading wampum for European goods exclusively with the Pequot who was the dominant tribe in the area.
Later when the English colonists arrived they started trading wampum with other tribes that previously the Pequot had monopolized.
So the Dutch were not recognized as a belligerent in the Pequot War and it was the Pequots vs the English colonists and their allies from 2 other tribes. The Pequots lost very badly but they inflicted the worst losses per capita ever experienced by Colonists taking more casualties than the Pequots with entire settlements of families massacred. However, the Pequots were defeated and killed, exiled, or enslaved as was the usual outcome of tribal wars before the Colonists arrived.
Many tangents…
I live in a New England town founded by so-called Praying Indians. They were granted the land initially, because they were Christian. Many were killed in the 1675 King Philips War, and ultimately they lost it all to the white folk.
An exemplar of what happened to Indigenous people in America.
Ah, the Native Americans liked the horses and the other stuff.
–Tightening Proxima Centauris Orbit (and an Intriguing Speculation)
by Paul Gilster | Nov 24, 2023 | 3 Comments
Although I think most astronomers have assumed Proxima Centauri was bound to the central binary at Alpha Centauri, the case wasnt definitively made until fairly recently. Here we turn to Pierre Kervella (Observatoire de Paris), Frdric Thvenin (Cte dAzur Observatory) and Christophe Lovis (Observatoire Astronomique de lUniversit de Genve). We last saw Dr. Kervella with reference to a paper on aerographite as a sail material, but his work has appeared frequently in these pages, analyzing mission trajectories and studying the Alpha Centauri system. Here he and his colleagues use HARPS spectrographic data to demonstrate that we have at Centauri a single gravitationally bound triple system. This is important stuff; let me quote the paper on this work to explain why (italics mine): —
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2023/11/24/tightening-proxima-centauris-orbit-and-an-intriguing-speculation/
bob d….”An ellipse is the intersection of a cone and a plane, where the intersection of the plane is not normal to the axis of the cone”.
If you rotate the plane, the ellipse is rotating around the center of the ellipse.
But the Moon revolves around one of the focal points of the ellipse not the center, thats why its not a rotation”.
***
It needs to be understood that the Moon does not follow an elliptical path that is mathematically defined, it creates that path from its motion and that motion is created by its natural linear momentum in conjunction with Earth’s gravitational field. It has nothing to do with math or conic sections and the ellipse varies all the time with its major axis rotating through 360 degrees over time.
Although an ellipse can be claimed to be part of a conic section, that is not the definition of an ellipse. Conic sections are a distraction offered by math dweebs who don’t really understand ellipses.
The ellipse is defined as…
x^2/a^2 + y^2/b2 = 1, where…
x = the x-coordinate of a point on the ellipse
y = the y-coordinate of a point on the ellipse
a= length of semi-major axis
b = length of semi-minor axis.
To find the focal points, we take a radial line the length of the semi-major axis, ‘a’, and rotate it about the point where the semi-minor axis meets the ellipse. Where the radial line meets the major axis it creates two focal points with the distance from the focal points to the origin being ‘c’.
That length, c, from the origin to each focal point is important. The distance c/a from the focal point to a line outside the ellipse, called the directrix, defines it. The directix runs orthogonal to the major axis and parallel to the minor axis. Any point on the ellipse to the focal point is the same distance as from the point to the directrix. The directrix is also used with parabolas and hyperbolas.
There is another important relationship in an ellipse that does not exist in any other geometrical shape and it’s vital for understanding longitudinal libration.
The bisector of the angle formed by lines draw from either focal point to a point on the ellipse is also the radial line of that point and it is perpendicular to the tangent line. That combo defines the direction of any body along that elliptical path.
If you draw a line from the focal point where the Earth is centred to the centre of the Moon, that line will track the Moon throughout its orbit wrt the Earth. The aforementioned radial line defines the direction in which the near face of the Moon will face at any point on the orbit. There are only two points on the orbit where that radial line is in line with the line from Earth’s centre to the lunar centre…at either end of the major axis (apogee and perigee).
That is the definition of longitudinal libration, the angle made between the radial line and a line drawn centre to centre between Earth and Moon. It is obvious that the variation in the angle of the near face varies natural as the Moon orbits and it has nothing to do with a local rotation of the Moon. It is a property only of an elliptical orbital path.
> It needs to be understood that the Moon does not follow an elliptical path that is mathematically defined,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Willard,
You are missing the point. The Moon’s orbit is like those of all celestial bodies – chaotic, and therefore unpredictable.
There are more than two bodies influencing the Moon’s orbit, and even Wikipedia states “Second, in general for n > 2, the n-body problem is chaotic. . . .”
You should stop appealing to Wikipedia as an authority. It eventually shows that you are misguided, and ends up supporting me.
Were you also a slow learner as a child?
Mike Flynn,
I refuted the point, so I did not miss it.
As for your lie, search for ephimerides.
You go too far Mikey,
Eclipses are predicted quite successfully.
Here is a computer simulation of the effect the eccentricity of the orbit of Jupiter has on the earth’s orbit. Other planets are frozen in place. 74% of simulation runs became unstable.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab5365#:~:text=Both%20the%20amplitude%20and%20frequency,seasonal%20patterns%20experienced%20by%20Earth.
this is the effect on the whole earth.
Tides on earth vary on the basis of their flexibility. Rock very little. water a couple of meters, and air?
We have to consider that possibly most variation in earth’s climate is due to what America’s first famous scientist thought, Benjamin Franklin.
[ACTUAL SCIENTISTS] By varying the orbit of Jupiter and keeping the initial orbits of the other planets constant, we demonstrate how subtle changes in solar system architecture could alter the Earth’s orbital evolutiona key factor in the Milankovitch cycles that alter the amount and distribution of solar insolation, thereby driving periodic climate change on our planet. The amplitudes and frequencies of Earth’s modern orbital cycles fall in the middle of the range seen in our runs for all parameters consideredneither unusually fast nor slow, neither large nor small.
[MOON DRAGON CRANKS] Ball on string go brrrr.
Gordon,
“It needs to be understood that the Moon does not follow an elliptical path that is mathematically defined, it creates that path from its motion and that motion is created by its natural linear momentum in conjunction with Earths gravitational field.”
Good then that you agree that the Moon’s orbit is not a rotation about an external axis.
bob…physics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum that is bent into an orbital path by Earth’s gravity, has to be rotating about the Moon. In other words, the reason the Moon rotates about the Earth is Earth’s gravitational field holding the Moon in an orbital path about the Earth.
Try revolving around the Earth.
[BOB] A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
[BORDO] physics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum
Quick! bob is in trouble! Change the subject!
[BORDO] physics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum that is bent into an orbital path by Earths gravity, has to be rotating about the Moon.
[BOB] Try revolving around the Earth.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] But but but Bob said “A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.”
[ME] Bordo said “physics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum”
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Quick! bob is in trouble! Change the subject!
Everyone can read the sub-thread, Little Willy.
Rotating is for objects spinning on their internal axes.
Revolving is for objects in orbit around other objects.
And no, I am not in trouble.
Unless being disagreeable with non-scientists is being in trouble.
You tried “correcting” Gordon, when he said “the moon rotates about the Earth”, by suggesting he say “revolving around the Earth”, instead. Yet you have already said elsewhere that, “a rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting”.
Gaslighting Graham is that petty.
Astute readers got it.
“Unless being disagreeable with non-scientists is being in trouble.”
Well, you’re currently arguing with yourself, so I guess you are being disagreeable with a non-scientist…
[BORDO] physics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum that is bent into an orbital path by Earths gravity, has to be rotating about the Moon.
[BOB] Try revolving around the Earth.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Obviously [Bordo] meant “has to be rotating about the Earth”
“You tried correcting Gordon, when he said the moon rotates about the Earth, by suggesting he say revolving around the Earth, instead. Yet you have already said elsewhere that, a rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.”
And I have also explained ad nauseum why it is not a rotation.
It does not stay at a constant distance from the central body, which is another reason why it is not a rotation, because a constant distance is a property of a rotation about a central point.
And again celestial bodies revolve around barycenters.
bob continues to argue with himself. So, to revolve means to rotate about an external axis…the only problem being, no revolutions can ever be called a rotation about an external axis, because they’re not circular. So it’s a definition that can never apply. How useful.
Gaslighting Graham confuses rotation and pure rotation once again.
It’s been a while since he last did.
Little Willy makes up some more nonsense to try and cover for bob.
Astute readers already know that general motion is translation and rotation. They also know that it’s trivial to describe an orbit as a general motion.
How low can Gaslighting Graham go?
Really astute readers would know that describing "orbit without spin" as a general plane motion would automatically mean you’re rooting for the "Non-Spinners".
Logically consistent "Spinners" describe "orbit without spin" as a translation in a circle or ellipse (which is how they see movement like the MOTR). Not as a general plane motion.
Absolutely astute reader would realize that in “general motion is rotation and translation” there is the word “rotation.”
Exactly.
willard goofs again.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, THE TRUEST GENIUS OF OUR TIMES] no revolutions can ever be called a rotation about an external axis, because theyre not circular
[ME, WITH AN IQ OF 99] Absolutely astute reader would realize that in “general motion is rotation and translation” there is the word “rotation.”
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, THE TRUEST GENIUS OF OUR TIMES] Exactly.
He’s not very bright, Bill…and, what little he had before, he’s definitely losing it, today.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time trying to evade the fact that an orbit can be described as general motion, which in turn can be decomposed as a sum of translations and rotations, including external ones.
Little Willy, the closet "Non-Spinner". Hilarious!
bobdroege says:
”And again celestial bodies revolve around barycenters.”
Well as far as barycenters are concerned they are yet another Symbolic Idealized Representation.
They aren’t a fixed place in space but instead represent the location of a point in space that two objects one orbiting the other or both orbiting each other would rotate around in a idealized universe that contained only these two objects.
Try calculating a specified barycenter that involves the gravity of multiple objects then show all the individual rotations around it. About that time you will begin to glean why weather is so chaotic.
This symbolic representation has no OPR. . .both because the idealized location is fictional and it contains no ability to control a rotation.
Revolve and rotate are synonyms. spin specifies, often fictionally, that the axis must be through the center of mass.
Identification of fictions requires a closer look than the depth that physics textbooks delve to. Experienced engineers need to be aware of this or they will never remain as engineers. . .they don’t get tenure, they have to live in the real world. The OPR world.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Little Willy, the closet “Non-Spinner”. Hilarious!”
Most closet people know they are in the closet. Does Willard?
Yep he even suggested I was ducking Bob’s MOTL driven by 3 motors build.
We know the ball being spun overhead on a string only has one motor and the spinners can’t seem to remain reconciled to that fact.
Astute readers might already know why how me and Bob agree:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548362
Bob’s first point is that an orbit can’t be described as a pure external rotation. He’s obviously correct.
Bob’s second point is that an external rotation imposes a change of direction on the Moon. Thus the “no rotation about an internal axis” condition must be met by cancelling that change of direction with a counter-rotation, like the CSA Truther did. He’s correct here too.
Gasligthing Graham is stuck with accepting that the CSA Truther cancelled an inner rotation while denying that it exists.
Must suck for him.
bob states that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTR, not the MOTL. He’s wrong, and Little Willy’s own statements show that he agrees with me, and disagrees with bob!
It’s great to watch bad people lose, so spectacularly.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob.
Perhaps he should have read my comment before responding?
I read your comment. It was just more worthless, desperate drivel. bob’s wrong, I’m right…and you agree. That’s the funny thing.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His chest thumping might be consider imprudent.
…bob continues to argue with himself. So, to revolve means to rotate about an external axis…the only problem being, no revolutions can ever be called a rotation about an external axis, because they’re not circular. So it’s a definition that can never apply. How useful.
Bob and Gaslighting Graham issue the same correction to Bordo’s typo.
Moon Dragon crankery ensues.
Little Willy thinks bob was "correcting" the "has to be rotating about the Moon" sentence…and not the "Moon rotates about the Earth" sentence. Classic Little Willy confusion.
[BORDO] physics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum that is bent into an orbital path by Earths gravity, has to be rotating about the Moon.
[BOB] Try revolving around the Earth.
Classic Little Willy confusion.
[BORDO] a body like the Moon […] has to be rotating about the Moon.
[BOB] Try revolving around the Earth.
The second sentence apparently does not even exist.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564409
Does it not even occur to Little Willy that bob might have been responding to this:
“In other words, the reason the Moon rotates about the Earth is Earth’s gravitational field holding the Moon in an orbital path about the Earth.”
when he said:
“Try revolving around the Earth.”
Or, if it was the first sentence, that his “correction” was not about Gordon’s typo of “moon” instead of “Earth”, and was rather a complaint about the use of the word “rotating” instead of “revolving”?
“Or, if it was the first sentence, that his correction was not about Gordons typo of moon instead of Earth, and was rather a complaint about the use of the word rotating instead of revolving?”
To be clear, it was both.
Right, so we are here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564866
Pointing out how bob continues to argue with himself.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-879785
Orbits are revolutions.
[TIM] Orbits are NOT rotations.
[BOB] A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time by equivocating.
When Tim says that a revolution isn’t a rotation, he is not saying that a revolution is a straight line!
When Bob says that a revolution is a rotation, he is not saying that a revolution is *only* a pure rotation!
There is no incompatibility between saying that a revolution is not a (pure) rotation but also involves a rotation, say because it can be described as a general motion!
I’ve seen people on the spectrum with better abilities to go beyond surface grammer.
Little Willy likes to put a bunch of words in different people’s mouths. However, if bob wants to argue that “orbit without spin” is a general plane motion, I can also welcome him to the “Non-Spinners” club.
WAITING FOR LOGIC
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565655
You will get there eventually, Little Willy.
Bill,
“Experienced engineers need to be aware of this or they will never remain as engineers. . .they dont get tenure, they have to live in the real world.”
So do you mean bad engineers don’t get tenure?
Engineers that live in the real world do get tenure?
Engineers don’t get tenure like professors?
How do engineers get experience if they ignore the real world.
bob, how’s that argument with yourself going? Have you won yet, or do you even lose those?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again.
Incorrect.
“bobphysics tells us that a body like the Moon, moving with a linear momentum that is bent into an orbital path by Earths gravity, ”
Gordon, are you forgetting that rotating objects have angular momentum, that tends to keep them rotating?
Just as there is no need for a force to maintain the linear momentum, there is no need for a force to maintain the angular momentum.
Nate calls out the physicist as stu-pid who told us that the angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis is equal to Lorb+Lspin.
nate is in essence telling us that the Lorb element isn’t angular momentum because when you cut the string of the moment arm it flies off straight into space and can’t have had angular momentum because its not conserved.
but Nate has built his physics view on a house of cards that violate newtons laws of motion. i can wind up my arm by burning calories and put an idle object on the end of a string into rotation. if that string breaks most of the angular momentum diappears so nate is saying above it never was angular momentum in the first place. ROTFLMAO! THATS A CLASSIC WORTHY OF A BOOKMARK!
lorb
“nate is in essence telling us that the Lorb element isnt angular momentum because when you cut the string of the moment arm it flies off straight into space and cant have had angular momentum because its not conserved.”
Bill, unable to argue with what his opponents actually say, shamelessly creates opinions for them, that he feels he can argue with.
Thoroughly dishonest debate.
Again, Bill, your lack of understanding of angular momentum is keeping you confused.
Lorb is simply m*v*r in this situation, and is conserved, and continues even as the ball flies off in a straight line.
“but Nate has built his physics view on a house of cards that violate newtons laws of motion”
Auditor Bill again WAY overestimates his understanding of physics, and continues to mansplain it to people who do understand it.
“i can wind up my arm by burning calories and put an idle object on the end of a string into rotation. if that string breaks most of the angular momentum diappears”
FALSE. Angular momentum is conserved and continues: the ball continues to rotate as it flies off, so its spin angular momentum is conserved. AND it continues to have its orbital component m*v*r, even as it flies off.
“so nate is saying above it never was angular momentum in the first place.”
FALSE
nate claims a rotation on an external axis isn’t possible in physics and he came to this conclusion on the basis of the form of the SIR equation where the orbital term is a translation. nate has along history of this kind of crazy physics discovery. he has done the same thing in disputing Einstein on the substance of photons as he has divined the substance of photons as being the statistics of quantum mechanics proving once again those who can do and those who can’t teach.
nate claims the ball DREMT was spinning above his head when the string broke will continue to spin around dremt’s head. LMAO. nate is so much a narcissist he can’t see how ridiculous he is getting. what happened to the larger term for the angular momentum of the ball and/or the moon called Lorb?
“nate claims a rotation on an external axis isnt possible in physics”
Again, Bill shamelessly assigns beliefs to me that I have never held!
Quite dishonest.
“nate has along history of this kind of crazy physics discovery.”
And continues to seriously overestimate his own understanding of physics.
“nate claims the ball DREMT was spinning above his head when the string broke will continue to spin around dremts head.”
Bill is frustrated, as he again shamelessly misrepresents my arguments, because obviously he cannot rebut my actual arguments.
“what happened to the larger term for the angular momentum of the ball and/or the moon called Lorb?”
Clearly explained:
“FALSE. Angular momentum is conserved and continues: the ball continues to rotate as it flies off, so its spin angular momentum is conserved. AND it continues to have its orbital component m*v*r, even as it flies off.”
If you don’t understand this then why are you telling us anything about angular momentum?!
Come on Nate how is that a misrepresentation of your views you said just above my comment in response to my claim that the breaking of a string causes the ball to lose most angular momentum.
your quote:
”FALSE. Angular momentum is conserved and continues: the ball continues to rotate as it flies off, so its spin angular momentum is conserved. AND it continues to have its orbital component m*v*r, even as it flies off.”
you need to either admit you are wrong or explain how i misrepresented your viewpoint.
I have no idea what you are confused about now.
nate real simple. we are talking about the conservation of angular momentum when a string breaks on a ball being spun overhead at the end of a string, in particular the much greater part of it represented by Lorb.
you do seem quite confused, i am here to help.
Yes, that is clear. But you still misrepresented my views.
And still seem confused as to how Lorb can be conserved as the ball flies off.
Well if I misrepresented your view of a skater skating in a straight line already possessing the angular momentum that she will need to rotate around her partner when they join hands then perhaps you need to take another shot at explaining your position on the matter.
“Well if I misrepresented your view of a skater skating in a straight line already possessing the angular momentum that she will need to rotate around her partner when they join hands then perhaps you need to take another shot at explaining your position on the matter.”
Now you shamelessly misrepresent your own posts, along with mine!
Why?
My view, and the view of basic physics has been consistent throughout the discussion: The skater travelling in a straight line possesses angular momentum, just as the ball flying off travelling in a straight line posses angular momentum.
If you doubt this, prove me wrong!
If you don’t like this, don’t understand this by now, then you need to stop bringing up, using, and mansplaining angular momentum.
Because you clearly have no idea what it is.
nope simply trying to get you to give a consistent explanation of your position but you fear being explicit because as you look deeper into your position it gets really blurry for you.
so in frustration over not giving a consistent position you just handwave away your own confusion by claiming ”you clearly have no idea what it is.”
yes you are right i have no idea what your position is and you are tripping over your own feet trying to explain it. its not lost on me or dremt that you have not yet gotten willard, bob, or b4 on the same page also.
Why does bob even care about that when he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR? Or has he finally realised he’s been wrong for five years?
Because the MOTR and the MOTL are giffs that don’t accurately model the motion of the Moon.
Never mind, bob. Another one went over your head. That’s OK.
Exactly, Bob.
Exactly, DREMT.
And the Moon on the right is the one that is not rotating because it keeps its orientation fixed and every particle of the Moon is traversing around the Moon axis of rotation in circular paths.
Some people might find it useless to come up with definitions of rotation on an internal axis so they can hang on to their losing arguments.
bob the moon on the right either is translating per the definition of a translation (any line between two particles does not change its orientation) or it has two rotations operating in the exact same rate of rotation in opposite directions. so you can break the latter down for the moon on the left and the only rotation you can stop is the spin on the center of the moon as if you stop the other it won’t look like the motl.
> two rotations operating in the exact same rate of rotation in opposite directions.
LOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOO
Bill,
The Moon is not rotating on an external axis.
It is only orbiting and rotating on an internal axis.
> the moon is not a dimensionless point mass.
I’m not the one who tried to argue that the path of the Moon as a point object could be described as a single translation, Gill.
It’s still funny that you just said that geometry facts about rotation was all that was needed to end the story.
But it’s in another thread, so it doesn’t count, right?
“I’m not the one who tried to argue that the path of the Moon as a point object could be described as a single translation, Gill.”
Me neither. I was talking about “orbit without spin”.
“either is translating per the definition of a translation (any line between two particles does not change its orientation) or it has two rotations operating in the exact same rate of rotation in opposite directions.”
Or it is driven by a clockwork with 92 gears with different rotations…
Why do you guys harp on OPR, then imagine that there are undetectable cancelling rotations at work?
Gaslighting Graham denies the obvious:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565681
This is so wrong as to be comical.
[LITTLE WILLY] This is so wrong as to be comical.
[BOB] The problem is that dimensionless points do not have an orientation.
After five years, Gaslighting Graham still does not get that an object does not need to have any recognizable face to rotate. He could pick up a pen and figure it all out by himself. Starting with a simple dot would do. That dot cannot rotate, but can still be rotated. All he needs is to spin the sheet.
But no, he has to drag his most basic misconceptions for days.
I haven’t spent much time at all over the past five years thinking about the movements of dimensionless points, Little Willy, since it’s just a meaningless distraction that “Spinners” use to avoid facing up to more important issues. I have no doubt that after some furious Googling you now know more about it than anyone that has ever lived, though.
[ME, A SIMPLE NINJA] After five years, Gaslighting Graham still does not get that an object does not need to have any recognizable face to rotate.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, CAPTAIN OF TEAM MOON DRAGON CRANKS] I havent spent much time at all over the past five years thinking about the movements of dimensionless points
Nate says:
either is translating per the definition of a translation (any line between two particles does not change its orientation) or it has two rotations operating in the exact same rate of rotation in opposite directions.
Or it is driven by a clockwork with 92 gears with different rotations
Why do you guys harp on OPR, then imagine that there are undetectable cancelling rotations at work?
———————————
how did you arrive at what we ostensibly believe from the paragraph you quoted? i have made clear you are not going to find any MOTR’s in nature. they can’t translate because friction is ubiquitous and they aren’t going to rotate in opposite directions at the same rate coincidentally per accepted hypothesis rejection criteria in statistics. that leaves intelligent design of the universe. are you embracing that? don’t fear both myself and dremt have said whatever you want to believe is just fine with us.
Is a dimensionless point an “object”? Did I actually say you can’t rotate one? Does any of this really matter?
Well by SIR you can’t rotate a dimensionless object as you can’t draw a line between two particles in it to determine if it has rotated.
[ME, A MERE DOODLER] Starting with a simple dot would do.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, A NEW MICHELANGELO] I have no doubt that after some furious Googling
> you can’t rotate a dimensionless object
You actually can, Gill. Just like you can turn it into an energy-balance model (EBM).
You haven’t figured out why we call your favorite one a zero-dimensional EBM yet, have you?
Willard obviously you don’t even understand the physics of working on your own car.
You can’t turn a bolt of 1/4″ head with a 1/2″ head wrench. And you can’t have a wrench with head of zero. In fact you won’t even be able to locate it so you could pound it with a hammer.
Gill you don’t even own a clown car.
Enjoy:
https://math.nyu.edu/~kleeman/zero_dim_ebm.html
You’d need to work on your act before I can consider you a clown.
For now you’re just an angry buffoon.
Don’t be a sore loser Willard. After all you really tried your best and that’s all that counts.
Bill,
“or it has two rotations operating in the exact same rate of rotation in opposite directions”
This was given by you as one of two options, Bill.
Also what DREMT has been promoting throughout this thread and for last 5 y.
My point is two cancelling rotations are equally as likely as 92, since none are detectable.
So it is pure fantasy.
The OPR of the MOTR is that it has no measurable rotation, and that is ALL that we know.
“i have made clear you are not going to find any MOTRs in nature.”
You think it would violate a law of physics? Which one?
I can’t think of any, and thus there is no reason to declare it impossible, and of course, not practically falsifiable.
As a matter of fact, one of the planets, Venus, has retrograde rotation, and when it slows and reverses, at some point it will have zero rotation.
not true at all. extinct in nature for planetary bodies as none have motors driving the counter rotation. but dremt provided a video of how to engineer one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564959
Why did you link to my comment refuting your point, Gill?
i am working parallel to dremt to at least get the spinners on the same page.
How you deny that an external rotation is a translation plus an internal rotation may not be “parallel” to anything Gaslighting Graham holds, Gill.
When will you discuss the question with him?
No Willard I am completely on board with DREMTs take. Namely he believes that an orbit without spin is as the MOTL.
I do also and simply make arguments for why.
You and Nate and Bob and et al are all welcome to believe whatever you want.
Nate argued against the idea that the MOTR had two motions to produce the illusion of one motion.
Nate argued: ”Hmm, so since a car driving west at 60 mph looks like a picture of car driving west at 60 mph, that means a parked car is actually a car driving west at 60 mph while simultaneously driving east at 60 mph.”
Nate’s argument here is brilliant but its been misapplied. DREMT’s video demonstrates the MOTR can entail two simultaneous motions on two different axes.
But a translation requires any line between any two particles must not change orientation. Yet you claim that and claim these same particles are not locked in the same orientation but are at the same time rotating at 13 revolutions/year on the moon’s local axis. Sounds like a parked car going west at 60mph.
Now thats very possible. After all you can park a car on a truck autocarrier going west at 60mph.
So do you believe the moon is being transported around the earth on an invisible truck with the moon mounted on the truck like a teacup on the Disneyland Tea Cup ride?
Not sure what Little Willy’s problem is, Bill. I think he thinks that when the CSAItruth equipment replicates movement like the MOTR, because the clockwise rotation on an internal axis offsets the change in orientation of the moon from the anti-clockwise external axis rotation, that clockwise rotation somehow stops existing! No, Little Willy, both movements still exist. For bob to be correct, the CSAItruth equipment would have to replicate movement like the MOTR with only one single motion. Obviously, it cannot do this. Obviously, bob is wrong.
“So do you believe the moon is being transported around the earth on an invisible truck with the moon mounted on the truck like a teacup on the Disneyland Tea Cup ride?“
That is essentially what they think, Bill. The invisible truck moves around the Earth remaining oriented as per the MOTR, whilst the moon, mounted on the truck, rotates on its own internal axis.
“But a translation requires any line between any two particles must not change orientation.”
Exactly that is the MOTR, and all we can say about it.
“Yet you claim that and claim these same particles are not locked in the same orientation but are at the same time rotating at 13 revolutions/year on the moons local axis.”
Different particles on a DIFFERENT Moon yields different behavior. Why is that so difficult for you, Bill?
Did you hit your head recently?
“So do you believe the moon is being transported around the earth on an invisible truck with the moon mounted on the truck like a teacup on the Disneyland Tea Cup ride?”
Again Bill uses hallucinogenic logic to determine what his opponents are thinking.
Gill, Gill,
Gaslighting Graham accepts that an external rotation is an internal rotation plus a translation.
You don’t.
Please discuss that issue with him.
Nate says:
”So do you believe the moon is being transported around the earth on an invisible truck with the moon mounted on the truck like a teacup on the Disneyland Tea Cup ride?”
Again Bill uses hallucinogenic logic to determine what his opponents are thinking.
———————-
Hallucinogens? Are you taking drugs? This was your argument. While I thought it was brilliant it falls on its face when you have two axes or more as did The Disneyland Teacup ride. But it fits perfectly in your one axis world. Congratulations Nate you just dynamited your entire argument for us. Welcome to the non-spinners!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565073
“This was your argument.”
Not at all.
You seem to be aware that you cannot rebut my actual arguments, so you shamelessly keep creating fake ones for me.
Clearly you have no real answers. Clearly you have lost the debate. And are now just tr.oll.ing.
Your argument against 2 motions for the MOTR was that a parked car can’t be a car going 60 miles an hour west and east at the same time.
The corollary to that brilliant observation is that two cars can’t be both parked on a north/south line and parked on a rotating line at the same time.
So yeah I took your argument and reapplied it.
And seeing as how its obviously you need a little help here and I need to bring it back around to agreement with DREMT as I am in agreement with him.
Part I
Its important to note that a rigid object cannot have two motions at the same time. As noted by Madhavi if you have a motion that is neither a translation or rotation its called a general plane motion. . . .a single motion. But that means zero rotation and zero translations for that rigid object but instead a general plane motion that can be explained as a combination of the two other motions as a single motion. Any rotation on an external axis ccould also be explained as a general plane motion but its not generally accepted to view it that way.
So the question is the motion of the moon more like a rotation on an external axis or is it more like a general plane motion. Well the spinners have claimed the moon has two motions now consistently for years. But it is for certain a single motion as maintained by the non-spinners. Score one point for the non-spinners.
The earth is more like a general plane motion but according to science it is gradually increasing its orbital angular momentum term out of the spin motion term in the equation for the motion of spheres moving around external axes. This is a process of moving it closer to a rotation on an external axis.
Part II
So the question is whether there is any more energy for the moon to lose spin energy and contribute it to orbital energy. I would say no based upon what we know so its energy profile matches that of a rotation on an external axis as one can use the equations I have frequently pointed to at the Hyperphysics site.
So we know non-tidal locked general plane motions of planets are not stable.
Further you have already conceded that last point by claiming even non-rotating objects skating in one direction has angular momentum. I don’t agree with that because the ”r” value must be a moment arm that has the energy to divert the path from a straight line and that sort of thinking on your behalf just shows all you know about physics is what you learned by rote memorization.
The last point is we know the gravity of other objects have an effect on the eccentricity of the orbits but we don’t know a lot about it and how they may change over time. It is predicted that earth’s orbit will be less eccentric than the orbit of Venus in 30,000 years. How that was figured out I don’t know.
Certainly this is an area of research that a number of people could make a career out of. . .if they are open minded enough to be both skeptical and inquiring rather than so certain. Being certain is inversely correlated with intelligence.
Bill, You’ve discovered that doing mushrooms can be entertaining, but not very helpful for reading people’s minds.
You still have no answers for my ACTUAL arguments, clearly you have lost the debate. And are now just getting silly.
“Further you have already conceded that last point by claiming even non-rotating objects skating in one direction has angular momentum. I dont agree with that because the r value must be a moment arm that has the energy to divert the path from a straight line and that sort of thinking on your behalf just shows all you know about physics is what you learned by rote memorization.”
We have already determined that mathematical facts like this, that you clearly don’t understand, will be labelled as merely opinion or belief.
Just more baiting on your part. No substantive response to my post.
You are making no clear, specific points here Bill.
“a general plane motion that can be explained as a combination of the two other motions as a single motion.”
Define ‘as a single motion’.
A combination of two motions, such as a rotation and a translation is indeed two motions by one rigid body.
“Well the spinners have claimed the moon has two motions now consistently for years.”
Again, we have always claimed it is a combination of translation and rotation.
You are imagining a contradiction with Madhavi when there is NONE.
“So the question is whether there is any more energy for the moon to lose spin energy and contribute it to orbital energy. I would say no based upon what we know so its energy profile matches that of a rotation on an external axis as one can use the equations I have frequently pointed to at the Hyperphysics site.”
This is again a bunch of gobbledegook assertions, where you MIX UP energy and momentum, then conclude that your model is right.
Just stop misusing physics arguments, because you just have no idea what you are talking about!
Hmmm, i guess this math is too complex for you as well.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/how-to-find-kinetic-energy-from-momentum.html#:~:text=We%20can%20solve%20the%20momentum,KE%20%3D%20p2%20%2F%202m.
They are related but not the same. But you keep liberally substituting one for the other.
And still you do not understand angular momentum. Thus you keep getting confused.
so are you trying to tell me you are incapable of understanding what energy i was talking about here?
”So the question is whether there is any more energy for the moon to lose spin energy and contribute it to orbital energy.”
Every explanation of tidal locking involves angular momentum, its conservation in a two-body system, and the transfer of angular momentum from one body to the other explains what we observe.
No one is doubting tidal locking happens when bodies are close enough together, requires billions of years, but does not apply to bodies too far apart, such the solar system planets, or bodies whose orbits are very eccentric.
Of the planets, only Mercury is locked in a 2-1 spin-orbit resonance. It does not always keep the same face to the sun.
So tidal-locked orbits like the Moon’s, are well understood to be a resonance phenomenon between orbit and spin, and are one type of orbit, among several types.
Again, astronomy explains orbits with a universally applicable, physically-motivated model, that describes Newtonian orbits as a separate motion from spin (rotation), which can, however, become synchronized over a long period of time.
And if this approach did not work well it would not continue to be used. I don’t see why anyone needs to have a problem with it..
“and the transfer of angular momentum from one body to the other explains what we observe.”
And FYI, while angular momentum is conserved in the two bodies, energy is NOT.
The tidal force stretches and compresses the crust of the Moon and Earth, and sloshes around the ocean on Earth, and thus creates frictional heating that is ultimately lost to space.
Thus the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, reducing the gravitational energy in the pair.
Nate says:
Of the planets, only Mercury is locked in a 2-1 spin-orbit resonance. It does not always keep the same face to the sun.
———————-
Mercury is not locked in a 2:1 spin orbit resonance. It is currently in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. But this is a unique situation of the non-uniformity of the features of Mercury combined with high variability of the elliptical shape of Mercuries orbit. Mercury is believed to change its resonance from time to time:
”In our numerical integrations of 1000 orbits of Mercury over 4 Gyr, the spin ends 99.8% of the time captured in a spinorbit resonance, in particular in one of the following three configurations: 5/2 (22%), 2/1 (32%) and 3/2 (26%). Although the present 3/2 spinorbit resonance is not the most probable outcome, we also show that the capture probability in this resonance can be increased up to 55% or 73%, if the eccentricity of Mercury in the past has descended below the critical values 0.025 or 0.005, respectively.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222430686_Mercury's_capture_into_the_32_spin-orbit_resonance_including_the_effect_of_core-mantle_friction
It seems likely to me that Mercury isn’t tidally locked but it is perturbed by tidal forces into various resonances that have and may maintain a higher spin rate than the orbit rate. As you zoom around the internet looking for stuff to argue with you should slow down and read more carefully. Wiki talks about Mercury having a day that lasts 2 years. thats a completely different concept before it talks about its spin orbit resonance. Oops! Ol Nate is running around with his head cut off trying to find something to make his case.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
So tidal-locked orbits like the Moons, are well understood to be a resonance phenomenon between orbit and spin, and are one type of orbit, among several types.
——————
Whats the difference between a 1:1 tidally locked spin resonance and a rotation around an external axis?. . . None! You are just spewing stuff off the top of your head hoping something will stick.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Again, astronomy explains orbits with a universally applicable, physically-motivated model, that describes Newtonian orbits as a separate motion from spin (rotation), which can, however, become synchronized over a long period of time.”
——————
Sorry Nate an object can’t have two motions going on at the same time. You can rotate a horse (one object) on a rotating merry-go-round (2nd object). Sure you can try to analyze the horse as having two motions by ignoring the merry-go-rounds motion.
But if you ignore the Merry-go-rounds role in the horse’s motion(s) you can’t use that ignorance to call the motion related to merry-go-round as a separate motion of the horse. Thats simply not objective physical reality. And you are just overly in love with the analytical tools they taught you in school to the extent they change from a close approximation of reality into reality totally contrary and object not being able to go in two directions at one time. And heck Nate you know thats true you used the argument yourself.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”So do you believe the moon is being transported around the earth on an invisible truck with the moon mounted on the truck like a teacup on the Disneyland Tea Cup ride?”
That is essentially what they think, Bill. The invisible truck moves around the Earth remaining oriented as per the MOTR, whilst the moon, mounted on the truck, rotates on its own internal axis.
————————
definitely true for Willard and Bob.
Nate though has actually argued against the case for 2 motions going on simultaneously with respect to a single rigid object.
Yet that’s where we are at.
Nate knows thats where we at. (Willard and Bob though are probably still throughly confused) and Nate is such a jerkwad he will continue to argue his completely lost cause and argue that indeed a single rigid object can go in two different directions at the same time.
“It is currently in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance.”
Correct. My bad.
You recognize here the diversity of planetary orbits. The Moon’s orbit is but one type of several.
“Whats the difference between a 1:1 tidally locked spin resonance and a rotation around an external axis?. . . None!”
“You are just spewing stuff off the top of your head hoping something will stick.”
Not ME making this up. Astronomy uses this terminology.
The reason is that it is two motions that have a common period.
One (rotation) has a uniform speed and the other (orbit) has variable speed and is elliptical (not circular).
As much as you would like them to be, these are two motions not one, and NOT equivalent to a rotation on an external axis.
The real question is why can’t you just accept that they are what they are?
“Sorry Nate an object cant have two motions going on at the same time.”
So you declare.
But a rigid body has several degrees of freedom: It can rotate around several axes, at different speeds. It can translate at variable speed and change direction.
Again, all we are talking about here is how humans can best describe motion.
It takes more than one variable to mathematically describe the Moon’s motion.
It rotation can be described with an equation
Theta = omega*t, where omega is a constant angular velocity.
Its angular position in its elliptical orbit CANNOT be described with the same equation, because it does not have constant angular velocity.
Nste says:
The reason is that it is two motions that have a common period.
One (rotation) has a uniform speed and the other (orbit) has variable speed and is elliptical (not circular).
———————-
You are the one making stuff up. The wheels on your car rotate and they are capable of acceleration and deceleration so they don’t have uniform speed. You are just making stuff up, throwing it at a wall and hoping it sticks. It didn’t stick and the fact you keep harping on this is the very definition of insanity.
Nate says:
”But a rigid body has several degrees of freedom: It can rotate around several axes, at different speeds. It can translate at variable speed and change direction.”
Indeed Nate but claiming it can go two different speeds or directions at the same time is. . .uh. . .insane.
the definition of degrees of freedom.
”each of a number of independently variable factors affecting the range of states in which a system may exist, in particular any of the directions in which independent motion can occur.”
Notice the use of the words ”may” and ”can”. No where in that definition does it say a rigid object can have two motions at the same time. If you find a source for that by all means provide it because all of us here with sufficient grey matter in our skulls will really get a kick out of it.
“One (rotation) has a uniform speed and the other (orbit) has variable speed and is elliptical (not circular).
–
You are the one making stuff up. ”
No I am not. And you should know better.
You know very well that the orbit of the Moon is elliptical, don’t you? It has eccentricity 0.05.
And you should know very well that in elliptical orbits the body speeds up and slow down. Don’t you?
So that you don’t recognize this is VERY strange indeed!
“Notice the use of the words may and can. No where in that definition does it say a rigid object can have two motions at the same time.”
Well Bill, a rigid body has several degrees of freedom. Glad you looked that up.
It has orientation. And it has position in space.
They don’t need to be doing the same dance!
Orientation could be fixed, while position is changing at constant speed, accelerating, or oscillating back and forth!
Or position can be fixed, while the orientation can be changing, accelerating, or going back and forth!
So these two degrees of freedom can do completely different motions!
Now again, we are talking about how humans can best describe that motion.
I don’t see how, in general, to describe the motion of the orientation and position as ONE MOTION.
Bill, I don’t know how you have the patience!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Bill, I dont know how you have the patience!
————————————
Some has to call out BS as BS.
Now it appears that Nate is trying to make a case that the moon translates a bit, stops, then rotates a bit, then goes back to translating a bit and so on.
It is entertaining at least.
“Now it appears that Nate is trying to make a case that the moon translates a bit, stops, then rotates a bit, then goes back to translating a bit and so on.”
Nope. What I said was very clear, Bill, and yet it wasn’t THAT, was it.
Again, you can’t rebut my actual arguments, make fake arguments for me.
A quite dishonest habit you’ve developed.
Meanwhile DREMT snuck in a read of my post, and had no answers either, just insults.
Well, I’m certainly glad you respond to him. I gave up responding to him some time ago, and quit even reading his comments recently. Someone has to set him straight, though. Keep on keeping on!
Yeah its not easy. After all he really gets sore when you use a little satire.
Then most of your posts are satire now?
Riiiight…
I don’t know. I haven’t counted.
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. I will always have that victory over you, no matter what. Ah, the glorious, eternal ecstasy of being correct.
Gaslighting Graham may always believe that when the CSA Truther turns the Moon clockwise to cancel the change of orientation imposed by turning the arm’s clock he’s not cancelling anything…
Who cares?
You are cancelling the change in orientation imposed by the external axis rotation. Simple.
> cancelling the change in orientation imposed
Astute readers ought to ask –
Q1. The changed in orientation of what?
Q2. Imposed by what?
Q3. Does “imposed” imply some kind of dependence relationship?
You are cancelling the change in orientation of the moon imposed by the external axis rotation. Simple.
You used the word "imposed". I just borrowed it, because I hoped that using the language you were using yourself might help you finally understand the unbelievably simple concept I’m explaining.
Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to omit to mention what is that change in orientation of the Moon that is being cancelled. A hint as to what that is comes from the counter-rotation itself. Hence is current amphibology.
I give up trying to reason with Little Willy on this.
yep you are dealing with the thinking of science teachers who are teaching our kids that if the don’t empower the government we are all going to die from the planet overheating.
Gill epilogues about educamation while Gaslighting Graham gaslights over geometry facts that could be turned into a nursery rhyme:
External rotation equals internal rotation plus translation.
External rotation minus internal rotation equals translation.
The CSA Truther cancels an internal rotation Moon Dragon cranks pretend does not exist.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
The OPR for the CSAItruth equipment when recreating movement like the MOTR is that there are two motions, "orbit" and "spin".
Quick! Gaslighting Graham needs to hide the inner rotation of the Moon that the CSA Truther cancels behind his usual “orbit without spin” gobbledigook!
"External rotation equals internal rotation plus translation.
External rotation minus internal rotation equals translation."
Note that the above means Little Willy agrees with me on my point 2), and disagrees with bob.
willard the moon per science does not translate around the earth as it is known that the angular momentum of a sphere rotating around a external axis equals Lorb+Lspin (L=angular momentum).
Lorb is the rotation of a point mass and Lspin is a rotation on the internal axis.
but all this is is a brilliant simplification of a very difficult calculation of the sum the angular momentum of each individual particle of a sphere with dimensions.(i.e. not a point mass).
a perfect situation where inexperienced minds misidentify a point mass as the object in question and they fail to build the arrays necessary to show where the error of their thinking
arises from. and by not doing that mathematical proof they simply continue to substitute the SIR equation form, as they always have, for the OPR which is the true substance of the moon’s motion.
now probably a year or so ago i provided a simple array example of a dimensional object that shows the sum of the orbital angular momentum of an array of particles is equal to the equation Lorb+Lspin
Gill’s rigmarole is incredibly funny.
When I make a geometry point, he switches to physics.
When I make a physical point, he switches to geometry.
Contrarians are basically perpetual “but but but” machines.
And Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
He still portrays an equivalence as an incompatibility.
That explains why he still refuses to see that the CSA Truther cancels an inner rotation!
"He still portrays an equivalence as an incompatibility."
False, Little Willy. bob’s wrong, I’m right…and you agree. That’s the funny thing.
Let’s put it this way. If Gaslighting Graham interpreted the notion of equivalence properly, he would have no disagreement with Bob.
Besides, he keeps misrepresenting Bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565124
bob’s wrong, I’m right…and you agree. That’s the funny thing.
And now Gaslighting Graham gaslights me!
The cycle is complete.
One day he might get my points about equivalence and independence.
These statements show equivalences:
"a) External rotation equals internal rotation plus translation.
b) External rotation minus internal rotation equals translation."
This statement:
1) "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTR.
is incompatible with both of them. 1) is incompatible with a). 1) is incompatible with b).
That’s how we know you disagree with bob, and agree with me.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
With his contraption, the CSA Truther shows how an external rotation minus an internal rotation equals a translation. Is Gaslighting Graham throwing the CSA Truther under the bus?
Perhaps he misunderstands what an absence of rotation means.
1) is incompatible with b).
Gaslighting Graham holds that the CSA Truther’s contraption is incompatible with basic geometry.
He’s wrong, but I can live with that.
Little Willy shamelessly misrepresents, as usual.
b) is compatible with the statement, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL. So is a).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther’s contraption can easily cancel the change of orientation of the Moon. It can thereby simulate what would happen if the Moon did not spin. This satisfies both Bob’s claim and my nursery rhyme.
Could it be possible that Gaslighting Graham is just misreading Bob’s claim?
bob’s 1) is incompatible with a) and b), Little Willy.
If “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” were movement like the MOTR, then the CSAItruth equipment would simulate movement like the MOTR without the “moon spin” motor engaged.
If Bob’s claim can be expressed using Gaslighting Graham’s pet contraption but is incompatible with basic geometry, what does it tell us about Gaslighting Graham’s pet contraption?
“If Bob’s claim can be expressed using Gaslighting Graham’s pet contraption…”
It can’t, as I just explained. With the “moon spin” motor not engaged, the CSAItruth equipment moves the model moon as per the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham’s mistake is right here:
The CSA Truther already pointed out the error behind that mistake.
Can astute readers find it?
No mistake, Little Willy.
An obvious one, to boot.
There is no mistake, Little Willy. Except the mistake of basic geometry that bob has repeatedly made for five years, which is so fundamental I don’t think Little Willy can even bring himself to accept that his hero was so wrong for so long.
Let’s help less astute readers and pinpoint the error:
Any takers?
Without the "moon spin" motor engaged, the model moon is only rotating about that external axis. It moves as per the MOTL, thus we know that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTL. Well, that’s another reason we know that’s the case. It’s been confirmed in a dozen different ways, over the years…
…and Little Willy’s own statements about geometry confirm he agrees (or should, if he is logically consistent).
But, he is going to drag out the reveal of his point for as long as possible. When it comes, it will probably be something along the lines of "if I change the motor to one that only locks in the ON setting rather than the OFF setting, blah blah blah…"
…to which the response is, if you need to change the equipment in some way to try and make your point, you are actually just making my point for me. bob’s claim can’t be expressed using the CSAItruth equipment. If you have to change that equipment, it’s no longer the CSAItruth equipment.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
The CSA Truther can easily make the Moon translate. All he needs is to counteract the external rotation with an opposite internal rotation. Two motions that cancel cease to exist.
Let’s make it a principle:
(CMCE) Cancelling Motions Cease to Exist.
Gaslighting Graham spent FIVE FREAKING YEARS on this!
“The CSA Truther can easily make the Moon translate. All he needs is to counteract the external rotation with an opposite internal rotation.”
Indeed. Two motions, not one. Thus, bob is wrong. Since for bob to be correct, the CSAItruth equipment would have to replicate movement like the MOTR in only one single motion.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his “orbit without spin” crap once more. At least he just agreed that his
was false.
There is hope.
With the “moon spin” motor not engaged, the CSAItruth equipment moves the model moon as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. Obviously. Just watch the video again.
If Gaslighting Graham wishes to cling to
[GG1] With the moon spin motor not engaged, the [contraption] moves the model moon as per the [actual Moon], not the [Moon always facing the same side].
then he needs to discard
[GG2] If “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” were movement like the [Moon always facing the same side], then the [contraption] would simulate movement like the [Moon always facing the same side] without the “moon spin” motor engaged.
for we just proved that the CSA Truther cancelled the rotation about an internal axis with the motor engaged.
“Since for bob to be correct, the CSAItruth equipment would have to replicate movement like the MOTR in only one single motion.”
This takes us back to the argument supported by the OPR that the axis the Moon spins on is not parallel to the axis the Moon revolves around.
Yeah, as I have said before, the CSAItruth equipment needs three motors the model the Moon’s orbit and spin.
One to rotate the Moon clockwise to cancel it’s rotational axis.
One to rotate the Moon counterclockwise at the correct angle.
One to revolve the Moon around the Earth.
No, Little Willy, I do not need to discard anything. How do you get yourself so confused? Or are you just trolling me?
“Yeah, as I have said before, the CSAItruth equipment needs three motors the model the Moon’s orbit and spin.
One to rotate the Moon clockwise to cancel it’s rotational axis.
One to rotate the Moon counterclockwise at the correct angle.
One to revolve the Moon around the Earth.”
…and, that means you agree that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, not the MOTR. bob is the King of arguing with himself.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again.
Cancelling a rotation means two things.
First, there is no rotation anymore. So Gaslighting Graham is wrong about his interpretation of what Bob says.
Second, the CSA Truther needs active motors to do the cancelling. So Gaslighting Graham is wrong about GG2.
I’m not wrong about anything, Little Willy. bob has two “moon spin” motors in opposing directions, the net result of which will be no change in orientation of the moon. He then has an “orbit” motor, to rotate the moon about an external axis. Thus we know that the “orbit” motor is responsible for the change in orientation of the moon that we’re familiar with in the MOTL. So, bob tacitly agrees that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL.
Both GG1 and GG2 are obviously correct. If the CSAItruth equipment must engage the “moon spin” motor to replicate movement like the MOTR, then clearly the model moon is spinning. Whereas for bob to be correct, it would have to be not spinning.
It’s like talking to a child.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again. When Bob says:
he’s saying the same thing that the CSA Truther demonstrated. The motor needs to be “engaged” to do the cancelling. And it is only by cancelling the rotational axis that the Moon can keep its orientation.
Thus GG2 is wrong.
LW1) Little Willy has a learning disability.
LW2) Little Willy is just trolling me.
I’m not sure which is correct. To refute your comments another time, I would just be repeating myself. No point.
Gaslighting Graham simply has no access to the last Piagetian stage.
Whether the rotation is external or internal, a rotation changes the orientation of an object.
So whether that rotation is provided by the Earth motor, like the CSA Truther’s contraption, or Bob’s counterclockwise motor, the result is the same.
In both cases that rotation can only be cancelled by a clockwise spin. Which means that to keep the Moon facing the same side at all times, the CSA Truther’s motor needs to be engaged.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham does not get that the CSA Truther’s motor can’t work bidirectionally in both directions whereas Bob has two motors to insure bidirectionality?
“Which means that to keep the Moon facing the same side at all times, the CSA Truther’s motor needs to be engaged.”
Exactly…and for bob’s statement that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement as per the MOTR to be correct, the “moon spin” motor would need to not be engaged. So, bob’s wrong. Thank you.
> cant work bidirectionally
in both directions… at the same time.
The CSA Truther’s motors don’t work bidirectionally in the same simulation. It’s possible to reverse the direction of the Moon’s motor, but only by stopping the simulation and reversing the switch.
So the motor can’t cancel its own motion, say by working in opposite direction simultaneously.
bob’s wrong, and his own idea for a CSAItruth-type contraption confirms it yet again.
And so Gaslighting Graham keeps misrepresenting Bob:
The “statement” is Gaslighting Graham’s, for Bob rightfully disbelieves that the Moon rotates around the Earth, and the “MOTR” refers to Gaslighting Graham’s own petty game.
Gaslighting Graham is still wrong, for cancelling the Moon’s spin means there’s no Moon spin, and to cancel the Moon spin the CSA Truther’s motor needs to be engaged.
One of Bob’s motors could be disengaged, or all the motors could be engaged. Bob’s motors can do more things than the CSA Truther’s.
I have no idea why Gaslighting Graham can expect to gaslight a guy who worked with motorized machinery in a professional capacity, but there we go.
bob’s wrong, your own statements about geometry confirm that you agree he’s wrong, and bob’s own contraption demonstrates he’s wrong.
Hilarious!
Bob pwns Gaslighting Graham over and over again, and Gaslighting Graham comes for more!
Bob’s model does what the CSA Truther’s contraption does, and more!
Yes, it also proves me right.
“the CSAItruth equipment would have to replicate movement like the MOTR in only one single motion.”
So now the semantics of the mechanism of a specific tabletop contraption is deemed crucial, while the Moon’s motion, which it was meant to simulate, is lost in space…
I have two motors so I can change the axis of the rotation of the Moon to match the observed axis of rotation.
Wonderful, bob…and, what’s more, you also prove me right. Thanks.
Willard says:
Gills rigmarole is incredibly funny.
When I make a geometry point, he switches to physics.
When I make a physical point, he switches to geometry.
Contrarians are basically perpetual but but but machines.
———————————–
what is that you don’t understand about the fact that the moon is not a dimensionless point mass. And since it is not you cannot separate the moons motion equation into two separate moon motions.
if you actually go through the math exercise of the sum of mvr of the moon’s particles in orbital motion per the source below it should become apparent to you.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
> the moon is not a dimensionless point mass.
I’m not the one who tried to argue that the path of the Moon as a point object could be described as a single translation, Gill.
It’s still funny that you just said that geometry facts about rotation was all that was needed to end the story.
But it’s in another thread, so it doesn’t count, right?
“if you actually go through the math exercise of the sum of mvr of the moon’s particles in orbital motion per the source below it should become apparent to you”
There’s no chance of Little Willy paying attention to this part of your comment, Bill.
” go through the math exercise”
You mean manipulate your SIR of the Moon’s motion?
“I have two motors so I can change the axis of the rotation of the Moon to match the observed axis of rotation.”
There’s no change Gaslighting Graham will pay attention to this part of your comment, Bob.
[Eye roll].
The TEAM is either discussing a SIR of the Moon’s motion or discussing the supposed OPR of motors and arms that are not involved in the Moon’s motion, at all.
Both are far removed from getting at the Moon’s OPR.
So it seems there is no hope for EVER receiving a true science rationale for TMDNS being the OPR.
Clearly it is just a religious belief.
…roll].
Hold it right there
“what is that you dont understand about the fact that the moon is not a dimensionless point mass. And since it is not you cannot separate the moons motion equation into two separate moon motions.
The problem is that dimensionless points do not have an orientation.
So you can model a points motion with one equation but if you place an object at that point, you need the second equation to model the objects rotation if it has one.
You got it backwards.
"you need the second equation to model the objects rotation if it has one."
…and if it doesn’t have one, you will no doubt be thinking of its overall movement as being like the MOTR rather than the MOTL…
…bringing us back to the beginning, asking whether that is correct, or not.
These discussions just go round in circles. No agreement on points 1) – 4) is the problem.
Gaslighting Graham seems to forget that when he says “..if it has one” he’s talking about the possibility for an object to have a rotation…something that should not be possible if one could simply translate every single dimensionless object!
Little Willy has got himself a bit lost. That’s OK.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Incorrect, Little Willy.
Why does Gaslighting Graham try to relitigate something Bordo did not quote?
I’m responding to bob, Little Willy. He said:
"Good then that you agree that the Moon’s orbit is not a rotation about an external axis."
I’m not sure why he cares, for the reason I explained.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Astute readers know that Bordo is a special Moon Dragon crank, for he believes that the Moon’s orbit is actually a translation. This could put him on Team Science’s side, as Bob rightfully observes.
So of course the captain of Team Moon Dragon Cranks has to peddle in his irrelevant pet GIF to deflect from Bob’s point.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564409
“a body like the Moon […] has to be rotating about the Moon”
Obviously Gordon meant “has to be rotating about the Earth”, as the rest of the comment makes clear…
“That is caused by the Moon’s translation in its orbit. It has no local rotation.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2019-0-38-deg-c/#comment-386616
"In other words, the reason the Moon rotates about the Earth is Earth’s gravitational field holding the Moon in an orbital path about the Earth."
“The Moon is adjusting nothing, it has only instantaneous linear momentum. Gravity does not turn the Moon, it simply redirects the linear momentum.
If you look at any circle or ellipses, they are nothing more than a series of instantaneous tangent lines. At any instant, the Moon is moving along one of those tangent lines. There is no angular rotation involved about a local lunar axis.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-722189
…and by “local axis” Gordon means an internal axis, within the moon itself.
“A horse on a track is not rotating about the centre of the track. It is merely running in a straight line that has some curves. At each instant it is moving along a tangential path on the curve, which is an instantaneous straight line.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-378341
OK, Little Willy.
willard has entered desperation mode to deal with the differing definitions of translation and rotation. but i will remind him that the difference between curvilinear translation and rotation is that a line drawn from any two particles does not change its orientation.
Gill is following in his guru’s footsteps and gaslights again.
His belief that angular momentum is created as the string is cut is truly magical!
No matter what happens after the string is cut, the OPR is that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis beforehand.
Gaslighting Graham gets confused about his own invention and treats it as ROOMBA.
Fabulous.
No confusion here, Little Willy.
(COMEF) Change of momentum equals force.
When it comes to angular momentum, I tend to leave it to the other "Non-Spinners". When you have a concept that’s defined as the rotational analogue of linear momentum, but which supposedly still exists even when an object is moving in a straight line, or translating in a circle, I quickly lose interest as it’s obviously just some essentially meaningless mathematical abstraction.
A true classic:
WAITING FOR GODOT ON THE MOON
[G] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[G] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[G] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[G] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity rigid, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[G] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this.
Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[G] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of rigid enough. How you you calculate rigidness and what value constitutes rigid enough?
[G] Think what you want. Orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the MOTL.
https://tinyurl.com/tim-and-graham-on-torques
Yes, it was funny how Tim acknowledged there was a torque about the external axis, but decided it didn’t lead to rotation of the cannonball about that external axis. I guess "torque" is another thing that has been rendered essentially meaningless. There was me thinking it was a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. Apparently not.
yep tim argued that dremt doesn’t rotate around the center of the earth with the planet because he has enough strength in his legs to do a back flip. he then claimed the moon doesn’t rotate around the center of the earth because the moon might grow such legs. yep i got it!
Silly willy is so confused that he can’t be straightened out, so this is just for responsible adults.
Silly willy doesn’t understand how angular momentum is transferred: “His belief that angular momentum is created as the string is cut is truly magical!”
Before the string is cut, the ball is NOT spinning, but it has angular momentum due to the string. After the string is cut, the angular momentum becomes spin. Angular momentum is conserved.
Moon has NO angular momentum because there is no physical attachment. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off in a straight line, still NOT spinning.
Watch as silly willy STILL won’t be able to understand!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights, Gill cautions the gaslighting, and Pupman pontificates:
Let’s see:
Earth has NO angular momentum because there is no physical attachment.
Particles have NO angular momentum because there is no physical attachment.
Gliders have NO angular momentum because there is no physical attachment.
A baseball has NO angular momentum because there is no physical attachment.
Pupman is REVOLUTIONIZING physics!
Silly willy proves me right once more. He can’t understand science, so he just throws crap against the wall.
He claims: “Earth has NO angular momentum because there is no physical attachment.”
Earth has spin angular momentum because it is spinning. Earth has NO orbital angular momentum. If Sun’s gravity were turned off, Earth would go off in a straight line, spinning.
Keep proving me right, silly willy. I can take it.
Pupman becomes a spinner:
Moon has spin angular momentum because it is spinning too!
There is hope.
Quoting me is a good way to learn, silly willy.
Yes, Earth spins. Viewed from its host (Sun), you would see all sides of Earth. We only see one side of Moon from Earth. That’s why we know it is NOT spinning.
Keep quoting me, without your usual childishness, and people might believe you’re an adult.
“Yes, it was funny how Tim acknowledged there was a torque about the external axis, but decided it didnt lead to rotation of the cannonball about that external axis.”
Certainly so.
And why not? If the firing of the cannon applies a force thru the COM of the ball, then no torque about the COM of the ball will be applied. Then it it will not have differential tangential velocity, and thus no ROTATION as it comes out of the cannon, with momentum mv.
Though it could orbit the Earth, and it will have orbital angular momentum mvr. And this came from the torque applied on the ball by the cannon ABOUT the center of the Earth.
But still it acquires NO rotation, no spin, IOW, no orientational change as it orbits.
“I guess “torque” is another thing that has been rendered essentially meaningless. There was me thinking it was a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. Apparently not.”
Not meaningless for those who understand the basic physics.
Pupman is simply going through the motions while revealing he’s just an ordinary IT guy:
Would the Earth orbit as fast as it spins, you would only see one side.
"yep tim argued that dremt doesn’t rotate around the center of the earth with the planet because he has enough strength in his legs to do a back flip. he then claimed the moon doesn’t rotate around the center of the earth because the moon might grow such legs. yep i got it!"
Yes, Bill…pretty much. They know that the cannonball, if fired without spin, will orbit the Earth without spin. There is nothing to apply a torque about the cannonball’s own internal axis to cause it to spin. However, Tim agreed that the force from the cannon would apply a torque about the external axis, i.e. the axis within the Earth. Yet, even though the cannonball goes on to move in a circle around the Earth, he claims that the torque will not result in the cannonball rotating about that external axis, i.e. rotating around the Earth (thus changing orientation as it does so).
Tim’s reasoning seemed to be…it won’t because it won’t. Or, it won’t because if it did, the "Spinners" would be wrong.
Exactly, Nate.
Gaslighting Graham demonstrates that he got NOTHING.
The cult children STILL can’t understand any of this.
Newton’s cannonball CHANGES orientation, Nate. It’s leading face always follows its orbital path, with one side always facing Earth. It is NOT spinning. It’s the same motion as Moon.
You cult kids can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Pupman *still* goes through the motions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352707
He learns NOTHING.
What we are discussing here is a thought experiment, and both sides agree that the cannonball is fired without spin.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Pupman clearly says that “it’s the same motion as Moon.”
And Mighty Tim rightfully observes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-878443
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565326
Why Gaslighting Graham Stopped Discussing Torques and Angular Momentum, Part 3:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-877149
“Both pennies are initially stationary. Now start moving C2 in a circle around C1. This is “orbital motion”…”
…sure, if you believe “orbital motion” involves some giant cosmic hand moving the object that’s orbiting around the object being orbited.
Back to Newton’s Cannonball, please…
Mighty Tim Schools Gaslighting Graham Part Four:
Silly willy desperately throws endless crap against the wall. All in a failed effort to counter the simple ball-on-a-string.
Without a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, they’ve still got NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
And so Pupman returns to his safe space – the Ball On String, or the BOS mode.
If only he could do the Pole Dance Experiment…
[LITTLE WILLY] As if Bob was onto something after all.
[TIM] Orbits are NOT rotations.
[BOB] A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
(Estr) A contradiction between two opposite claims with different interpretations of the same word is actually an equivocation.
(Vlad) You’re arguing with yourself!
(Estr) How?
(Vlad) You said “a contradiction […] is.”
(Estr) Yes, I did.
(Vlad) But you also said that an equivocation may not be a contradiction.
(Estr) That’s right.
(Vlad) So you’re arguing with yourself!
(Estr) Ah, I see. What I mean is that what appears to be a contradiction isn’t one.
(Vlad) Too late!
(Estr) To be a real contradiction, the relevant terms need to keep the same interpretation.
(Vlad) I don’t care. *Calls Lucky* Hey, Lucky!
(Lucky) What can I do for you, my dear Vladimir?
(Vlad) Check this guy – he says that an equivocation is both a contradiction and not a contradiction!
(Lucky) Oh…Wow.
(Vlad) Now, throw him under the bus!
(Lucky) I would prefer not to.
(Vlad) Coward!
(Estr) *To Lucky.* He’s been like that for five years now.
(Lucky) Tell me about it.
(Vlad, dancing in the ditch) I WIN! I WIN! I WIN!
I do love it when Little Willy has a meltdown. All logically-consistent “Spinners” would argue that “orbit without spin” is translation in a circle/ellipse, by which they would mean movement like the MOTR, however. No logically-consistent “Spinner” can argue that “orbit without spin” is a rotation about an external axis, or a general plane motion. That would mean movement like the MOTL. Making them “Non-Spinners”.
Astute readers may have noticed that Gaslighting Graham’s parser seldom goes beyond surface grammer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565647
Here is what Mighty Tim actually said:
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is suggesting that an elliptical path due to gravity cannot be described as a general motion?
At this point, nothing will surprise me.
The mind of Moon Dragon cranks wander.
1) You don’t need rotation and translation to describe a “path”. Translation alone works fine.
2) “An orbit is just a path-ers” completely sidestep the entire debate. Both “Non-Spinners” and “Spinners” can accept that an orbiting object moves along a path. That definition of “orbit” thus resolves nothing. What we need to establish is, how does an object that orbits, but does not spin, remain oriented? That’s if we actually care about resolving this mostly pointless dispute, of course.
After kinematics, Gaslighting Graham reinvents graph theory:
(TAWF) You don’t need rotation and translation to describe a “path”. Translation alone works fine.
What will it be when he’ll discover Manhattan geometry?
Of course Little Willy skips point 2). Naturally! I shouldn’t have even bothered with 1). Oh well.
Both Non-Spinners and Spinners can accept that an orbiting object moves along a path. That definition of orbit thus resolves nothing.”
Well that would be a NEW development, if non-spinners accepted that definition.
Because the old non-spinners insisted that an Orbit was a rotation around a another body.
Thus orbiting was doing more than just following a path. It was following a path whilst rotating with the orbital period.
Of course no one but them imagined this condition was in the definition of Orbit.
Everyone else understood that if a body was orbiting it was following a path, and rotation was left unspecified.
“An orbit is just a path-ers” completely sidestep the entire debate. Both “Non-Spinners” and “Spinners” can accept that an orbiting object moves along a path. That definition of “orbit” thus resolves nothing. What we need to establish is, how does an object that orbits, but does not spin, remain oriented? That’s if we actually care about resolving this mostly pointless dispute, of course.
Gaslighting Graham once again gets stuck on surface grammer, this time by trying to cling to “path”.
One motion alone may not suffice to describe moving from one node to another in a tree-like structure.
“What we need to establish is, how does an object that orbits, but does not spin, remain oriented?”
Well, before we do that, why don’t we determine how an object that does not spin remain oriented?
You can do as you please, bob. The debate is about how an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remains oriented. Anyone that still doesn’t get that has some sort of learning disability.
Gaslighting Graham pretends he’s the Toastmaster once again:
No, the debate is about whether the Moon spins.
This subthread started with Bordo’s typo. Then Gaslighting Graham took issue with the concept of “revolution.” Then he tried to exploit an equivocation between two meanings of rotation. Then he tried to suggest that general motion wasn’t necessary to describe the path of a point object.
Now that he realizes how path-etic this idea is, he peddles his ridiculous concept of “orbit without spin.”
Here we are.
Here we are, with your false summaries and terrible understanding of what the debate is about.
“The debate is about how an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remains oriented”
I’d like to know what the non-Spinner answer to this would be for Halley’s comet, in its highly eccentric orbit.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The path of a point object that traverses a complex path still requires general motion. That implies both rotation and translation. Gaslighting Graham would have a better chance with a rotation system, but enough pearls thrown at Moon Dragon cranks.
The need for rotation has NOTHING (h/t Pupman) to do with the spin of the object under consideration.
> The path of a point object that traverses a complex path
Let’s rewrite that one:
The complex path that traverses a point object etc.
This thread is a great example of how Little Willy’s scatter-brain thrashes around from one random tangent to the next, whilst he baits for others to follow him down whatever rabbit hole he wants to go down.
“The debate is about how an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remains oriented.”
Yes, sometimes though, we need baby steps.
Orbital motion and object rotation are independent.
So we can dispense with the orbital motion and just determine if something is spinning or not.
This thread is another great example of Gaslighting Graham losing his marbles over trivial points.
Yes, a revolution can be described as a motion that includes some rotation, but it also needs some translation.
No, a revolution can’t be described using a *pure* rotation.
No, it’s not possible to reduce the general motion of a point object using *pure* translation.
Yes, to determine if or how an object rotates we need to determine orientation.
Yes, it’s because a rotation is an orientation change.
Gaslighting Graham relies on truly path-etic word plays to get the game going.
You won’t be baiting me into it. Make your point, don’t make your point. Up to you.
"Orbital motion and object rotation are independent."
Good to see you agree with my point 4).
Anyone not frothing at the mouth with "I hate DREMT" tattooed on their foreheads can see that it’s Little Willy, throughout this thread, who is constantly changing the subject, and constantly baiting others to try to get them to follow his wildly tangential thought processes.
After having gaslighted long enough with his silly Let-Bob-and-Tim-fight which was utterly ridiculous, and after having tried to escape by invoking point objects, Gaslighting Graham rips off his shirt.
A celestial body that changes orientation spins. Gravity is too weak of a force for another celestial body to spin it from afar. Gravity is related to orbital paths, not spin.
We have a shit ton of numerical models to describe the Earth-Moon system. Moon Dragon cranks have toy models, toys that only emulate a complete lock.
Bob has the right of it when he says that orbit and spin are independent. And no – he’s not talking about the silly notion of “orbit without spin” that Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to make relevant. It’s not.
Well, bob and Tim do directly disagree with each other…and, you brought it up. Can’t even be bothered to correct the rest of your seething, hate-filled nonsense. Other than to say that yes, of course “orbit without spin” is relevant…as bob just agreed:
[DREMT] The debate is about how an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remains oriented.
[BOB] Yes…
And I would say oriented on a distant object.
The same thing I said 5 years ago.
Which means the Moon on the right.
Which is the one whose individual particles do not transcribe circles as it orbits.
Which is the only valid criteria for determining if an object is rotating on an internal axis or not.
[Bob] Which is the one whose individual particles do not transcribe circles as it orbits.
[Bob] I need to add that the circles are within the object.
For Halleys comet, in its highly eccentric orbit without spin, do the non-spinners think it would keep the same side pointed to the sun throughout, or what?
Does it then rotate quickly as it goes around the sun, then slow to almost no rotation at all at its farthest from the sun?
That seems implausible and would require an explanation.
If astronomers want to measure Halley’s comet’s spin, why do they have to think at all about its orbit?
I agree with Bob, ‘we can dispense with the orbital motion and just determine if something is spinning or not’.
bob, you’re more than welcome to think of the MOTR as translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis. That’s your prerogative, as a “Spinner”. What you can’t do is think of the MOTR as “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. That’s what you’ve been wrong about, for five years.
“bob, youre more than welcome to think of the MOTR as translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis. Thats your prerogative, as a Spinner. ”
You have mistaken my position. The Moon doesn’t move in a circle.
“What you cant do is think of the MOTR as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Thats what youve been wrong about, for five years.”
Fine, that’s also not my position.
The Moon on the right is orbiting with no rotation about an internal axis.
For a while I did not object to your argument that the Moon is rotating about an external axis, because that is irrelevant to the question whether the Moon rotates or not.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
I just spent a whole day showing that this was false!
“You have mistaken my position. The Moon doesn’t move in a circle.”
The MOTR does. Which is what I was talking about.
bob quotes me:
“What you can’t do is think of the MOTR as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. That’s what you’ve been wrong about, for five years.”
Then says:
“Fine, that’s also not my position.”
Glad to hear you finally accept your error.
And of course Gaslighting Graham will create another equivocation.
His notion of “orbit without spin” is irrelevant.
That’s not the same thing as the question of what happens to an object that is orbiting without spinning.
That question is already resolved. Since Gaslighting Graham still clings to his silly ideas about reference frames, he soldiers on.
An object like Halley’s comet has a measurable rotation, around some axis. Suppose astronomer’s measure it.
Do non-spinners think they need to subtract it’s orbital ‘rotation’, whatever that is, to determine its ‘spin’, whatever that is?
Of course, they will see no point in it. And none do that.
“Glad to hear you finally accept your error.”
Seems that my error was a figment of your imagination.
Thanks for non-correcting me.
Halley’s comet rotates, but it might be complex.
That’s what observations show, but the pronunciation is under dispute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet
OK, bob, if you’re now going to deny what you’ve said for five years, you’re welcome to disgrace yourself.
Exactly, Nate.
[TIM] Orbits are NOT rotations.
[BOB] A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
I’m sure Little Willy will now waste another day of his life putting words in bob’s mouth to try and make it look as though he doesn’t directly disagree with Tim.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time by equivocating.
When Tim says that a revolution isn’t a rotation, he is not saying that a revolution is a straight line!
When Bob says that a revolution is a rotation, he is not saying that a revolution is *only* a pure rotation!
There is no incompatibility between saying that a revolution is not a (pure) rotation but also involves a rotation, say because it can be described as a general motion!
I’ve seen people on the spectrum with better abilities to go beyond surface grammer.
Let’s see bob say that “orbit without spin” is a general plane motion then, Little Willy. I can then add him to the “Non-Spinners” list.
Gaslighting Graham tries to gaslight Bob again.
An orbit can be described using general motion. An orbit without spin *could* be described with a pure translation. It can also be described as a general motion, for any motion can be described as a general motion. That’s what general means!
Yes, “orbit without spin” could be a general plane motion. “Non-Spinners” would agree. Logically consistent “Spinners” would not.
The argument about whether orbits are rotations was and still is irrelevant to my position.
What you cant do is think of the MOTR as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Thats what youve been wrong about, for five years.
I didn’t care about the first part then, and I still don’t.
The key question has always been does the Moon on the right or the real Moon rotate on an internal axis.
Which is the second part, which you DREMT have always been wrong about.
OL I was wrong to allow you to argue that orbits are rotations, and I took that back a while ago, you need to keep up.
Bob asked a good question circa 2021:
Why can’t he be a sociopath like Gaslighting Graham?
Sure, bob. Pretend that we never had lengthy arguments where you would say that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was like the MOTR, and I would correct you and say it was like the MOTL. That will make you look really honest and not at all like a sociopath.
Here is what the prophet Mahdavi says
“A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
I would invoke the identity law of mathematics and say a translation and no rotation is a general plane motion.
Well you have been wrong about that for the whole time.
Let me google that for you
“Does the Moon rotate around its own axis”
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+moon+rotate+around+its+own+axis&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=Does+the+Moon+rotate+around+its+own+axis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgAECMYJxiABBiKBTIMCAAQIxgnGIAEGIoFMgYIARBFGEAyCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB7SAQsxMjE0NDVqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
So, despite what you said earlier, you’re now saying that it’s still your position that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTR?
No, this is my position.
https://www.google.com/search?q=synchronous+rotation+of+the+moon&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=synchrounous+rotation&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgCEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEKMTE0NDFqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The Moon is orbiting, not rotating on an external axis, and rotating on an internal axis with the same period as the orbital period.
“No“
Great, so you do stand corrected on that point. Thank you.
Gaslighting Graham tries to gaslight Bob again, once again equivocating between the Moon and his silly GIF game.
Is this what you are correcting me on?
rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis was like the MOTR, and I would correct you and say it was like the MOTL.
Because it has always been my position that the MOTL is rotating on an internal axis.
And I am correct.
bob keeps playing dumb. Guess it comes naturally to him.
When you can’t win on the facts, and you can’t win on the theory, then you resort to insults.
Well, bob…the facts are that you could describe movement of the MOTL as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
and, you can not describe it as rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis.
However, you don’t accept those facts. So, what am I supposed to do?
Well, DREMT…the facts are that anyone could correctly describe movement of the MOTL as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis as viewed from the inner circle.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis as viewed from the frame,
and, anyone can also describe it as rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis as viewed from the frame.
However, DREMT doesn’t ever write the position of the observer. So, what are the more astute commenters supposed to do other than continually over many years point out DREMT’s failures?
"Position of the observer" is always "from the frame", Ball4. With that in mind, the facts are that you could describe movement of the MOTL as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
and, you can not describe it as rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis.
What will you try next?
Good DREMT, just keep writing that observer position.
The observer on the frame sees all sides of the MOTL as MOTL changes orientation wrt the frame each orbit, so the MOTL is seen rotating on an internal axis & DREMT remains incorrect at 1:43 pm writing for MOTL “with no rotation about an internal axis” since DREMT writes “Position of the observer” is always “from the frame”.
I don’t need to write it, Ball4. It’s a given.
"The observer on the frame sees all sides of the MOTL as MOTL changes orientation wrt the frame each orbit, so the MOTL is seen rotating on an internal axis"
Wrong, Ball4. The observer on the frame sees all sides of the MOTL as MOTL changes orientation wrt the frame each orbit, so the MOTL is seen rotating on an external axis. Not an internal axis.
DREMT, correctly the observer on the frame sees all sides of the MOTL as MOTL changes orientation wrt the frame each orbit, so the MOTL is seen rotating on internal (radius=r) AND orbital external (radius=R) axes.
Rather than take the opportunity to learn, Ball4 spits in learning’s face and remains ignorant.
Oh well, not my problem.
Can I talk to bob, and bob alone, possibly!?
Sure, if DREMT does so physically correctly; otherwise DREMT is subject to correction from commenters.
Most “Spinners” are capable of watching this video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
and understanding that if an object rotates about both an external axis and an internal axis (as in the first and third experiments) it does not move as per the MOTL.
Sure, the experimenters can find an infinity of ways for an object to rotate about both an external axis and an internal axis such that it does not move as per the MOTL as observed from the frame.
When they make the object as observed from the frame, rotate about both an external axis and an internal axis such that it does move as per the MOTL then the experiment will move as the MOTL.
Second experiment, Ball4. As observed from the frame, the model moon is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis, and moves as per the MOTL. We know it’s not rotating about an internal axis, because the “moon spin” motor is not engaged.
Sure, the observer on the frame sees all sides of the model moon as model moon changes orientation wrt the frame each orbit, so the model moon is seen rotating on internal (radius=r) AND orbital external (radius=R) axes forced by the motive motor.
The motive motor, starting from zero rotation wrt the frame, must impart the necessary added linear and angular momentum (wrt the frame) to the model moon both on radius r and radius R (orbital).
It’s really simple.
“Moon spin” motor on = model moon is spinning.
“Moon spin” motor off = model moon is not spinning.
In the second experiment, it’s off, and the model moon moves as per the MOTL.
In the first and third experiments, it’s on, and the model moon moves unlike the MOTL.
It’s really simple, sure. Here, DREMT again avoids mentioning the position of the observer since that position is against: “Position of the observer” is always “from the frame” and moves to the moon spin motor:
“Moon spin” motor on = model moon is spinning wrt to the model motor.
“Moon spin” motor off = model moon is not spinning wrt the model motor.
In the second experiment, moon spin motor is off, and the model moon moves as per the MOTL as observed from the frame rotating on an internal axis radius r and an external axis radius R (orbital).
In the first and third experiments, moon spin motor is on, and the model moon moves unlike the MOTL as observed from the frame, and there is an infinity of other motions for which the model moon can move wrt the frame & unlike the MOTL.
Puts a tick in the "ineducable" box, and awaits a response from bob…
Puts a tick in the DREMT “ineducable” box, and awaits a response from bob to correct DREMT some more…
Except I’m right and you’re wrong.
No DREMT, all motion is relative so you always need to include a wrt especially when DREMT changes observer location without warning as DREMT did at 3:10pm.
I didn’t change location of the observer. "Position of the observer" is always "from the frame", Ball4.
DREMT 3:10pm:
“Moon spin” motor off = model moon is not spinning.
when model moon IS seen changing orientation thus rotating on internal radius=r axis in orbit on radius R from “Position of the observer” which is always “from the frame” with the “moon spin” motor off.
Hence, DREMT indeed DID change observer location to the moon spin motor to observe the “model moon is not spinning” in the 2nd experiment &, most importantly, without informing the reader.
"…when model moon IS seen changing orientation thus rotating on internal radius…"
You just made the same mistake as last time. You see a change in orientation, and then to you that means it must be internal axis rotation. Wrong. It’s rotation about an external axis. Not an internal axis.
Now you’ll reply it’s both, again…
…and we’ll go on and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on…
There is no mistake by me, DREMT simply mistakes the two radii of the orbit and model moon.
Observer sees a change in model moon orientation on r positioned on the frame in experiment 2, and then that means it must be model moon internal axis rotation on that radius r. That is different rotation about an external axis on radius R (orbital) which is also seen observed from the frame in experiment two.
The only way the observer sees no rotation of the model moon on radius r is when positioned on the stopped motor in experiment two: “Moon spin” motor off = model moon is not spinning.” i.e. wrt to the moon spin motor not wrt the frame.
Sure, commenters seem willing to correct DREMT on, and on, and on….
"Observer sees a change in model moon orientation on r positioned on the frame in experiment 2, and then that means it must be model moon internal axis rotation on that radius r"
Incorrect. There is only one axis of rotation in experiment 2, and it is within the model Earth. External to the model moon. Which is why the model moon changes orientation. It’s rotating…about an external axis, only.
More exactly, keeping R and r not mixed up:
There is only one axis of rotation in experiment 2 on R, and it is with the model Earth orbiting on R. External to the model moon on R. Which is why the model moon changes orientation on r. Model moon is orbiting about an external axis on R, only, & spinning on r as observed from the frame, not the spin motor.
I’m right, you’re wrong.
This will be repeated until you stop responding to me.
“Well, bobthe facts are that you could describe movement of the MOTL as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
and, you can not describe it as rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis.
However, you dont accept those facts. So, what am I supposed to do?”
Admit you are wrong.
Because the Moon doesn’t move in a circle, so you can’t describe the Moon’s movement as a rotation about an external axis or translation in a circle.
So your facts a and b are wrong.
But you can describe it as orbiting in a ellipse while rotating on an internal axis.
That’s just a dodge, bob. I was talking about movement as per the MOTL, which is circular motion. If we can’t agree on these basics, we’re never going to get anywhere. Though, I’m starting to suspect, that’s what you and certain others want.
It’s no dodge, it’s and accurate description of the Moon.
> It’s rotation about an external axis. Not an internal axis.
That’s wrong, and Gaslighting Graham knows it.
One day he’ll have to Round tuit to get the notion of equivalence right.
The OPR for experiment 2 is that it’s rotating about an external axis, not an internal axis. I know that’s right, and always will.
… as observed from the model moon spin motor & not the frame.
No, as observed from the frame. You’ll never understand, and that’s OK.
DREMT once again mixes up model moon radius r and orbital R, which DREMT demonstrates can never keep straight.
The objective physical reality for experiment 2 is that model moon is rotating about an external axis R, not an internal axis r once observing the model moon spin motor is stopped.
“The objective physical reality for experiment 2 is that model moon is rotating about an external axis R, not an internal axis r”
Exactly. Thank you.
> I would invoke the identity law of mathematics and say a translation and no rotation is a general plane motion.
Exactly. Thank you.
[Eye roll].
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham finally get why most if not all celestial objects spin:
There is hope.
There is no hope that Little Willy will ever stop trolling.
From the wiki
” For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, although there is some variability because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular. ”
The Moon on the left is not moving in a circle.
That should be that.
GI Joe kung-fu death grip.
Wow. DREMT 7:13am now changes to realize the moon motor is not spinning on r in experiment 2 when observed from the spin motor but continues rotating on R in orbit!
This is progress as DREMT previously wrote: “Position of the observer” is always “from the frame”. Good job DREMT. I knew you would eventually figure out how to use a different position of observer seeing model moon rotation on r and R axes. Now if only DREMT would state the model moon observation position reliably, no need to keep correcting DREMT as has been the case for years.
bob, whenever you want to stop commenting, that’s fine with everyone. Absolutely nobody is asking you to continue. You’ve decided that "the ultimate revelation" is that the moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular. Incredible. The best thing about it is, it gets you out of admitting you were wrong for five years about rotation. Wunderbar!
DREMT,
Stop lying!
[DREMPT] Can I talk to bob, and bob alone, possibly!?
[DREMPT] Absolutely nobody is asking you to continue.
Take your meds dude.
That was a while ago, bob. I got bored of waiting…and now, I’m certainly not asking you to continue responding.
It was just yesterday and the other one today.
I can’t sit around all day waiting for the opportunity to tell you you are wrong.
It may seem that way, but I do have better things to do.
You should take a break and maybe play your ******* guitar.
Me and Willard like guitar players, if they are any good.
You got to practice a ******* lot.
Yeah, you take too long to respond sometimes, it gets boring waiting. Then when you did respond, you just dodged everything completely, as I said.
No need for you to keep responding to me.
I notice your "putting me on ignore" went well.
> The Moon on the right is orbiting with no rotation about an internal axis.
Exactly. Thank you.
bob simply asserts his belief that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, and Little Willy laps it up without question. Though, one time I tried to argue with Little Willy that the "Spinners" believe "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, and he actually argued against me! For hours and hours on end!
Hilarious.
> What you cant do is think of the MOTR as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Exactly. Thank you.
“bob simply asserts his belief that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, and Little Willy laps it up without question.”
That is not correct, I don’t “believe” orbit without spin is the MOTR, I know it is true because the particles of the MOTR do not trace little circles within the MOTR and they maintain an orientation to a distant fixed point.
And I have explained that point so many times in many different ways that you should know that it is not just a “belief”
So you are resorting to lying again.
bob resorts to more silly arguments and false accusations of lying. One of the least intelligent, and least effective “Spinners”.
Anyone who is following knows you are a liar.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1566829
bob, please stop trolling.
> the particles of the MOTR do not trace little circles within the MOTR and they maintain an orientation to a distant fixed point.
Exactly. Thank you.
In other words, the MOTR doesn’t “look like” it’s the one that’s rotating on an internal axis! Well, duh…
…what an amazing argument.
Exactly. Thank you.
Little Willy (aka Barrier to Progress) carries on doing his trolling thing.
> A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Exactly. Thank you.
Barrier to Progress, please stop trolling.
[ISAAC] A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, FIRST OF HIS NAME] Barrier of Progress, shut up.
OK, one response a day.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
If a body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line unless acted upon by a force, what is the force that makes the Moon change orientation?
i said two actions. throw the ball with a string attached, tug back on the string and if your angles and timing are right the ball will rotate above your head withhold slowing the speed of the thrown ball. if you want to turn this into your point of view you will need a third action.
It was a simple question, Gill.
Little Willy is JAQing off and baiting. Nothing new.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time trying to downplay the only question that matters:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568227
More baiting.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Why would Gaslighting Graham pretend he responds to Bob when he is not even replying to him?
bob began replying to me again yesterday, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564251
Why would Gaslighting Graham equivocate about the meaning of “replying”?
No idea what you are talking about.
How many replies to Bordo’s comment directed at Gaslighting Graham will I need to do before he gets the point?
Oh, you were being that petty. Got it.
“It has nothing to do with math or conic sections and the ellipse varies all the time with its major axis rotating through 360 degrees over time.”
Conic sections describe the path and its properties.
If by varies all the time, you mean it rotates extremely slowly over a period of 26000 years, then sure.
So, not much progress there, as usual. Points 1) – 4) are correct, as always, regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue. Once "Spinner" musters up the integrity to argue against "Spinner", we may have some hope of progressing beyond the 1) – 4). Until then, we will always be held back by the same people. Oh well.
==THE NEW SPACE RACE: Chinas Landspace aims to build a stainless steel rocket. The Zhuque-3 (Vermillion Bird 3) will use stainless propellant tanks and clusters of Tianque methane-liquid oxygen propellant rocket engines, according to a presentation by Landspace CEO Zhang Changwu at the Mingyue Lake Aerospace Information Industry International Ecosystem Event in Chongqing, China, Nov. 21. The two-stage launcher will have a payload capacity of 20 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO) when expendable. Recovery of the first stage downrange will allow 16.5 tons to LEO, while a landing back at the launch site will offer a capacity of 11 tons to LEO. A render of the rocket shows grid fins and deployable landing legs on the first stage.
This all sounds . . . familiar somehow.
Posted at 9:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds==
Does China have a chance?
It seems if New Glenn rocket starts launching, it going to be harder to copy both of them. There also other American launch companies and I am even optimistic but other countries launch start ups- maybe India will have something happening in couple years. Or if Putin dies, maybe even Russia.
Melting ice reveals dozens of 7,000-year-old artifacts in Canada.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/23/melting-ice-reveals-dozens-of-7000-year-old-artifacts-in-canada/
“Archaeologists surveyed melting ice patches in Canada and uncovered dozens of ancient artifacts spanning 7,000 years. Photos show the unique and perishable finds.”
It wasn’t very warm 7000 years ago and sea level weren’t 1 to 2 meter higher as they were earier, but we are in danger with present level of global temperature- the alarmists are not only wrong, they are lying {and they know it}.
gb,
Maybe they are fools rather than frauds. Just ignorant, rather than intentionally lying. Scientists are notorious for fooling themselves.
Your ‘slowly cooling earth’ hypothesis comes to mind.
Ken,
Not my hypothesis. Just basic physics, backed by geophysical measurements, as published in prestigious peer reviewed journals. You dont have to believe anything you find inconvenient.
You probably believe in a GHE which nobody at all can describe in any way that agrees with reality.
[laughing at SkyDragon cultist trying to be clever]
7000 years ago was the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which was especially warm in the Arctic, Greenland and NW America.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09622-y
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4296/cwrj2804531
HCO was just after the climb out of the previous glacial period, when there was much more insolation over the Northern Hemisphere.
Sorry, this talking point doesn’t bust AGW.
Barry you suggest that the climb out of the previous glacial period has a well defined beginning and ending. Looking at ice core data for previous periods in the current ice age doesn’t at all suggest that such a climb is all there is to natural climate change. Since we don’t know much at all about what has caused the fluctuations seen in the era of AGW that are ubiquitous in the pre-industrial ice core data you can’t make the case nor bust the case for AGw.
What science has so managed to do to keep the current Holocene Climatic Optimum for perpetuity was arbitrarily create a new Epoch. the question at hand for the Anthropocene is when or if things in the Anthropocene are going to be Optimized or if the meddling of governments screws everything up like it has so often historically.
> Although an ellipse can be claimed to be part of a conic section, that is not the definition of an ellipse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Here you go –
“In mathematics, an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two focal points, such that for all points on the curve, the sum of the two distances to the focal points is a constant.”
Any advance?
Mike Flynn,
I am glad you asked –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You posted an irrelevant link. It you believed it was relevant, you would no doubt tell me, and quite the relevant parts.
You’re not terribly bright, are you?
Mike Flynn,
You asked an irrelevant question. You got served.
Cheers.
willard-t-roll admits to his real identity
Gill fails to understand how cryptography improved our understanding of elliptic curves.
Witless Wee Willy,
If your link contains the word “ellipse” I would be surprised.
Have you beclowned yourself yet again?
Mike Flynn,
If?
Your link?
Contains?
What are you braying about?
Witless Wee Willy,
If your link contains the word “ellipse” I would be surprised.
Have you beclowned yourself yet again?
Yes, I know, you have to be told many times before you understand. That’s the nature of your mental insufficiency, I suppose.
Maniacal Mike,
If?
Your link?
Contains?
What are you braying about?
Witless Wee Willy,
If your link contains the word “ellipse” I would be surprised.
Have you beclowned yourself yet again?
Yes, I know, you have to be told many times before you understand. Thats the nature of your mental insufficiency, I suppose.
Monomaniacal Mike,
If?
Your link?
Contains?
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Deepest Spot On Mars – Hellas Planitia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHAYqjc0luk
It’s an interesting video. Hellas basin or Planitia is very deep and big crater.
In terms crew or settlements is could thought as a very high and very long cliff which where the south pole is to your back, is good place to get solar energy.
Anyways I wondering if there any lava tubes anywhere near this, and there are suppose to some in basin, but basin is very big, and they not close to where I would put a base. But it’s suppose to very interesting place to explore and near the top of list of where NASA does want to explore, first.
The Green Energy Wall Gradually Coming Into Focus
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/25/the-green-energy-wall-gradually-coming-into-focus/
“Renewables arent reliable and many companies are discovering they dont pay for themselves even with unsustainably high subsidies. . . . The inconvenient truth is that the clean energy transition is not unfolding as foretold. Three decades and trillions of dollars in subsidies later, wind and solar still represent single-digit percentages of global energy demand, which continues to grow. . . . Our governments holding forth sanctimoniously about imagined climate-driven severe weather events while imposing large-scale use of wind and solar is insanity with serious consequences.”
“wind and solar still represent single-digit percentages of global energy demand, which continues to grow. . .”
Part of energy demand growing is “renewable energy”. Which everyone knows, or part of “panic” is –do “renewable energy” now, while we have the energy to waste on it– crazy reasoning.
Of course, solar energy works fine on Mars.
Solar energy doesn’t make sense on Mars either.
Solar power might make sense for super engineered Mars exploration robots only because millions of pesos have gone into the engineering.
Without such an extravagant budget, solar on Mars would be too costly to efficiently power a toaster.
Mars nuclear power vs Mars solar power.
Nuclear power on Earth makes a lot waste heat and water is used
as way to deal with this waste heat.
Mars is said to be a cold dry desert. But normal car engine fed oxygen, would over heat quickly on Mars- a radiator and it’s air
is not going to able to cool the engine. Electric cars would have problem cooling. You might think to use liquid CO2 as way to cool cars or nuclear powerplants. One could get a lot CO2 air and/or frozen CO2.
But I end to think you should make lakes on Mars and use lake water to solve a nuclear powerplant waste heat, but also use that heat so, it’s not exactly “waste heat”, it heat one could sell at reasonable price. You pipe hot water, hot water is used to warm living areas and greenhouses. But what cools house or greenhouse on Earth is convection heat loss, and you don’t much of that on Mars.
[Of course moderately warm water on Mars can boil, though the higher the temperature the more efficient it is.]
On the Moon a nuclear meltdown, is not a big issue other losing the nuclear reactor. On mars it would be slightly greater issue, but you might have better regulations regarding nuclear power on Mars which large factor in the higher costs nuclear energy on Earth.
But main issue with Solar power on Earth is the short period of time you get solar power and the total of solar energy you get from it per average day- Mars can get solar energy and get in more hours per day as compared to Earth {the best locations on Earth- get more than Germany by factor of 10}.
On topic of Mars exploration.
It’s unclear when NASA will explore Mars.
But US governmental policy is for NASA to first put crew on the polar regions of the Moon and in order to determine how much water is in the lunar polar regions, and then explore Mars.
It seems to me, that for NASA to start explore Mars within a time period of 10 years {by 2034} it seems they need the Starship/SpaceX
to able make their rocket be able to do, what it’s planned to do.
Which includes lifting payload of more than 100 tons to low Earth orbit. And be able to land about 100 tons on Mars surface by having Starship refuel in orbit and be able to safely re-enter Earth and/or Mars atmosphere. Which is roughly similar to how the Space Shuttle
re-entered safely to Earth but a lot more payload and getting to Mars. And no one has yet refueled in Earth orbit, before.
But SpaceX has about 3 billion dollars contract to land crew on the Moon, and Starship needs to lift more than 100 tons of payload to Earth orbit and refuel Starship before it could get the 3 billion dollars for putting the first US crew on the lunar surface, since it did it, more than 50 years ago {with the Apollo Lunar program}.
And this suppose to happen within couple years also within planned schedule, Blue Origin, will land the second lunar crew to the Moon, it’s contract is about 1 billion dollar more than then SpaceX contract. And Blue Origin was competing to get first contract, but lost to SpaceX {because SpaceX was a lower bid and NASA wants to go to Mars, and if Starship works, they could send crew to Mars surface.
But after more funding from Congress, they offered another contract to anyone other than SpaceX, Blue Origin won that.
So NASA likes having private companies providing rocket launches which gives them redundancy [or “competition”].
In terms of redundancy, NASA has been paying more than couple billion per year to develop SLS for more decade {though no one knows, the total cost of SLS to date but it is about +40 billion dollars.
SLS delay and high costs tends to make Space Cadets not like SLS {they want it cancelled, and have wanted it cancelled for many years- I wanted it cancelled, but I don’t want it cancelled now- I like redundancy- and SLS is redundancy. And SLS has already successful did a test launch going around the Moon, and going to send crew around the Moon within a year or two.
And after this crew test of going around the Moon, SLS is going to send crew to Lunar orbit. And crew will be first crew to land on the Moon- using Starship as lunar lander {and perhaps later, Blue Origin’s lunar lander.
Or SpaceX won lunar lander contract, by entering the massive Starship as a lunar lander, in contract competition. And Lunar Blue Origin offered a more “normal” kind of lunar lander for the contract.
The September EEI data is now available from CERES.
Data: https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
Image: https://imgur.com/a/QFaA0lF
Video: https://youtu.be/9lkCCNblIMM
Due to changing weather, especially clouds, affecting the EEI each year, it’s better to use a 36-month running average. Also, from November to March (when days are longer in the Southern Hemisphere), the EEI is mostly positive, while from May to August (when days are longer in the Northern Hemisphere), it’s mostly negative.
Looking at the EEI data from February 2003 to September 2023, the 36-month average reveals a warming rate of roughly 1.50 W/m^2. Also, in the last two decades, there’s been a whopping 3.94-fold increase in the warming rate.
Ark, your “EEI” is bogus. The cult attempts to estimate, assume, and guess two values of flux. Then, they subtract one value from the other, when fluxes can’t be simply subtracted.
Two bogus values, wrongly subtracted, just result in another bogus value!
Learn some science. Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
A,
Unless you know the temperature of the emitting sources, you are just adding numbers to no effect. Rather like claiming that W/m2 represent temperatures, so you can just add temperature 1 and temperature2, and pretend you have done something wonderful and new!
It doesnt work that way. If you add water at 20 C to water at 30 C, you don’t get water at 50 C. Climate scientists gaily add the W/m2 equivalent of both, and cry “Eureka! It’s worse than we thought!”
Go on, show everyone that adding fluxes from objects of different temperatures accomplishes anything except demonstrating that you don’t understand physics at all.
Just because your brain resembles a walnut doesn’t mean you are equally as smart.
Carry on.
[Richard Feynman] The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.
[Me] If someone says you can’t do it, do it two times and post it.
Feynman – .”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. Feynman said that once.”
Presumably, you claim to have posted some experimental results twice.
Only joking, you believe that the contents of your fantasy are “experiments” – just like those other fantasists Mann, Schmidt, Hanse, et.al.
Good for you!
re Earth’s energy balance…propaganda.
The focus of the debate is heat, not radiation. We are measuring temperatures, not radiation fluxes, which tell us nothing. So, how much heat is created by incoming solar and how much is dissipated. That is your true energy balance.
A bigger question is how much heat is dissipated by radiation to space and how much by conduction/convection from the surface via thermals? Heat dissipated by the latter is dissipated by natural processes created by our gravitational field. There is no need to radiate it away, it simply disappears as heated air molecules rise into ever decreasing air pressure.
We know far more heat is dissipated via conduction/convection, yet the energy budget supplied by Ark references only radiation.
Trenberth/Kiehle had to manufacture fictitious means of warming and heat dissipation to create their equally fictitious energy budget. Without trace gases returning more energy than solar energy, it cannot work.
Gordon, incoming solar is NOT heat! Incoming solar is SW radiation.
Ball4, that’s what he said.
“So, how much heat is created by incoming solar and how much is dissipated.”
Seems clear enough to me.
Now hear this, at least to Swenson, it is “clear enough” (Swenson terms) from where the heat in the earthen GHE “is created” (Gordon terms). Good job.
Ah, the ever bumbling Ball4 creates a fantasy, hoping nobody will catch him out.
He wrote Now hear this, at least to Swenson, it is clear enough (Swenson terms) from where the heat in the earthen GHE is created (Gordon terms). Good job.
I can’t see where either Gordon or myself referred to an “earthen GHE”. Ball4 just makes stuff up, and then agrees with himself that it exists!
There is no GHE, “earthen” or otherwise. Ball4 is simply off with fairies (I mean no disrespect fairies of course, Ball4 just prefers their company). Reality is too much for his tiny brain to cope with.
” There is no need to radiate it away, it simply disappears as heated air molecules rise into ever decreasing air pressure.”
Gordon has a lot of funny ideas.
Energy just disappears…tee hee hee!
It must appear again in all those ‘free energy’ videos.
https://youtu.be/FFTju7B4q1Q
Nate,
You wrote –
“Energy just disappearstee hee hee!”
Pea brain. If you’re so clever, tell me where the IR energy from a block of ice totally submerged in water goes.
Or the energy radiated by the Earth after four and a half billion years of cooling?
Do you think it might suddenly “appear” to you? Maybe you really meant to say that energy cannot be destroyed. Not the same as disappears, is it?
Do try to sound more intelligent, and less sarcastic, if you wish your opinions to be valued. Even by other knotheads.
Uh oh, Flynnson also has trouble with figuring out where energy went, and weirdly thinks it might just be vanishing!
Obviously Team Denial got the last picks.
https://rumble.com/v3x5mzv-the-elephant-in-the-climate-change-space.html
The Elephant in The Climate Change Space
Will global CO2 levels lower in the Solar Grand Minimum?
“October 2023: 418.82 ppm”
It’s seasonal starting to go up, it’s average is more than 420 ppm,
will go below 420 ppm during the Solar Grand Minimum.
Or Seasonally will ever drop below 415 ppm?
“October 2022: 415.74 ppm”
I guess it depends on why you think it drops seasonal. If think it has to with land plant life. I don’t think Solar Grand Minimum will
improve the growth of plants. And if economy is badly effected people will resort to burning a lot of trees {an inefficient way make energy and less trees}.
I doubt China will burn less coal, unless they run out coal- which is unrelated to Solar Grand Minimum. And if have more wars, wars would result in higher CO2 emission.
ENSO anomalies by region for week ending Nov 25.
1.2 … 2.0 (no change)
..3 … 2.3 (+0.2)
3.4 … 2.1 (+0.2)
..4 … 1.5 (no change)
November’s average for ENSO3.4 should be around +1.9, making the Sep-Oct-Nov ONI about +1.7.
bill h…”Nate a symbolic idealistic representation of an idea can only be in a mind”.
***
This is the problem with any science or any human observation, the observer is observing with a faulty instrument. Steps can be taken to reduce the faultiness but in the end, the observation is still faulty.
There is a concept in awareness studies called ‘the observer and the observed’. Anything observed by a human mind is tainted by biases built into the observing mind through a lifetime of conditioning. Certain researchers have gone deeply into this, like Jiddu Krishnamurti and physicist, David Bohm.
Max Planck touched on this in a book he wrote in the early 20th century. He pointed out at one point, that many of our definitions in physics, like temperature, time, density, linear measure, pressure, etc., are not based in physical reality, like mass, but in the use of fundamental phenomena to define them. In other words, they have no separate physical reality.
Temperature is based loosely on the freezing point and boiling point of water at STP. Density is based on the mass per unit volume of water which has been designated as 1. All other densities are rated in comparison to water. Pressure is defined as a measure of the cumulative forces of gas particles on the walls of a container.
Linear measure was once based on the length of a king’s foot. It was later redefined, as the metre, a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
Time is in a class of its own. It was officially defined based on the rotational period of the Earth’s rotation. Prior to that, it was based loosely on the position of the Sun in the sky (sundial) which is directly related to the Earth’s rotational period. Note that a period in this context has no definition of time. The period is established by the Earth’s rotational momentum which is fairly constant.
In other words, the human mind is closely woven into physics and other disciplines. We have imposed those illusions on the universe, some defining the fabric of the universe as being based on the human inventions of time and space. I would call that an example of the colossal arrogance of the human mind imposing itself on reality.
dremt…”When it comes to angular momentum, I tend to leave it to the other “Non-Spinners”. When you have a concept thats defined as the rotational analogue of linear momentum, but which supposedly still exists even when an object is moving in a straight line, or translating in a circle…”
***
Here’s how I see it. Momentum is defined as a mass moving with a velocity. The question is, how can a mass move in a non-linear path based on the natural motion of the mass? It requires a force to change the motion of a mass from a straight line, but does that force affect the natural momentum of the mass?
In order for a mass to have an angular momentum, it need to be attached to an axis/axle. If you have a lever arm attache to an axle, and you have a ball attached to the level arm, then both are forced to rotate about the axle/axis as a unit. In that case, you can claim the ball has an angular momentum since it is driven as part of a rotating body.
How can you claim an angular momentum in any other scenario? The Moon is always moving with a linear momentum and at each instant, Earth’s gravitational field bends it out of that linear path. But. is that the same as a rotating lever arm attached to a ball? I don’t think so.
An orbit is the product of a centripetal force pulling a body a certain amount off its linear path in a certain time. The deviation required from a linear path must be just enough to compensate for the change in curvature of the body about which it is orbiting. With the Earth, that curvature change is roughly 5 metres per 8000 metres.
Note that there is no force acting in a tangential direction at any time, The tangential force is replaced by the natural linear momentum of the body and the orbit is a resultant of the effect of that momentum and the centripetal force. The Moon’s momentum/(velocity is just enough to keep it turning at its present altitude.
Angular momentum implies that a lever arm is changing the angle it makes with a coordinate system. If a lever arm is rotating about 0,0 on an x-y plain, then the radius drawn through the lever arm is changing the angle it makes with the x-axis.
If you examine the Moon’s orbit using the same coordinate system, is there anything real changing its angle wrt the x-axis? You can draw an imaginary radial line connecting the Earth and Moon centres but it has no mass, even though it changes the angle it makes wrt to the x-axis.
I don’t see how the Moon can be claimed to have an angular momentum based on the strictest definition of momentum. There is no force acting in an angular direction about the Earth. On the other hand, with a ball attached to a lever arm, there is such an angular force. The forces applied at the ball are a centripetal force pulling the ball inwardly, and a driving force pulling the ball in a circle. No such angular force exists with the Moon.
Gordon, you are using standard physics up to here, when for some reason you veer off it:
“I dont see how the Moon can be claimed to have an angular momentum based on the strictest definition of momentum.”
The definition of angular momentum is L = rxp where r is a vector distance to the axis point, and p = mv, with a vector v.
So if r and p are perpendicular that just becomes L = mvr. If r and v are not perpendicular but have some angle theta, then it becomes L = mvr*sin(theta)
And indeed this angular momentum is observed to be conserved.
So if a skater is skating past you, at a short distance r away, she will have angular momentum, mvr. And if you grab her hand, you will both end up spinning, so her angular momentum was transferred to you and turned into rotation of both of you.
looks like nate is endorsing the Tesla theory today as the skater generally maintains the same face toward you. just skates in and has her angular momentum converted into the lighter skater rotating around the heavier skater and both conceptually circling a common barycenter. i like that description from nate as he sheds his normal disguise of believing he possesses secret knowledge of photons, sources of heat, and the moon that he gleaned from the gaps of SIR physics.
Nah, this is just basic angular momentum physics which you still need to get straight.
Why do you need to anthropomorphize planets and moons?
Planets don’t skate, have no front or back, and lacking arms, cannot grab hold of each other.
Well they planets don’t often grab a hold of each other but they do with most of their moons. You seem to be in denial here Nate. Do you have one set of physics for skaters and then a completely different one for planets and how the affect each other by gravity?
Nate refuses to accept Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Good for him! There’s no law requiring anybody to be sane, luckily for Nate, and his fellow travellers.
The Moon doesn’t care, and just keeps keeping on.
Actually, Monomaniacal Mike, it’s Gill who rejects FLOM, the First Law Of Motion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558006
I call it GRAM, for Gill Returns to Aristotelian Motion.
“Do you have one set of physics for skaters and then a completely different one for planets and how the affect each other by gravity?”
Absolutely. While the law of conservation of angular momentum remains the same, forces can behave differently from each other.
A ball can spin freely in a gravitational field. Watch several 3 point shots in basketball to see how the ball spins in various ways.
But grab hold of someone with an arm, they cannot spin freely.
Why is reality so hard for you to understand?
So physics really doesn’t care if something is a translation or a rotation?
Its only something that the inferior class of engineers has to deal with.
Physics isn’t a care bear, Gill.
It doesn’t care about anything.
uh i think you are talking about a sizable number of its practitioners, not physics itself. so you are confirming my claim that many physicists operate in self interest and that they don’t have an ounce of altruism in their body (i.e. no care bear at all).
so we are in agreement here.
> uh i think you are talking about a sizable number of its practitioners
No, Gill. I’m talking about physics.
Remember: you’re the one who enjoys glittering generalities about institutions, societies, and other large groups of people.
“So physics really doesnt care if something is a translation or a rotation?”
Angular momentum is defined the way it is for good reason: it works well to predict motion, such as predicting that the skaters coming together would end up spinning.
You don’t like it? Then don’t use it or bring it up.
how do you explain that as the female skater approaches the male skater her velocity and mass remains the same and ”r” is getting smaller in light of the conservation of angular momentum rule?
Sure Angular is defined as rxp = r*p*sin(theta)
And r*sin(theta) = r(min), the r at closest approach.
Sure Angular momentum is defined as rxp = r*p*sin(theta)
And r*sin(theta) = r(min), the r at closest approach.
well now you are full on stu-pid BS. so now you are saying the skater only possesses angular momentum at a particular value for sin (theta). namely, when skaters direction is tangent to a circle around the axis. that doesn’t solve your conservation of angular momentum problem except instantaneously one time along the skaters path. all you have done is elevate the problem.
this approach to sin (theta) provides a constant angular momentum for a skater traveling in an unlimited number of elliptical paths.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
“well now you are full on stu-pid BS. so now you are saying the skater only possesses angular momentum at a particular value for sin (theta).”
Again, you are unable to read my plain English, and tell me I am saying something I never said.
There something F*d up in your brain!
As I made clear, the skater has constant angular momentum all along, rxp.
This turns out to be mvr where r is her minimum distance, the point when v and r are perpendicular.
Nate says:
”As I made clear, the skater has constant angular momentum all along, rxp.
This turns out to be mvr where r is her minimum distance, the point when v and r are perpendicular.”
Well its certainly your choice to believe what you want to believe Nate.
And if facts don’t work for you, you can label them ‘beliefs’. That is your choice.
there are beliefs and there are facts. Until you produce the evidence that they are facts then they remain beliefs (and that says nothing about whether the beliefs are correct or not).
Since you haven’t done that they aren’t facts but still beliefs.
Even if your beliefs are correct they still are not facts as facts are things that have been established as being true.
“Until you produce the evidence”
Oh just stop being ridiculous.
You have posted the definition of angular momentum many times.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Is it wrong?
That is all the evidence you need.
That and the ability to do simple math, or look it up. Do you have that?
The problem is the spinners live on an island that where they don’t concede the uncertainty.
Both DREMT and I say you can look at it in various ways. What you can’t look at it as is two motions. Its either a rotation or its a general plane motion.
First you having been claiming for years that a particle can move in multiple directions at the same time via rotating and translating at the same time.
Then you made an argument that a particle can’t do that in your critique of the possibilities of the MOTR via an engineered motion that involves two axes.
Then you tried to reinforce your original position by claiming no force is necessary and only a projected minimum distance is necessary for there to be angular momentum to explain the value science assigns to the rotation of the moon’s orbit of the earth.
that sucked Dullard into that vacuum. And you did all this without any sources to back up any of your arguments.
So you can’t do the math. Then that is that, as they say.
Now you are off down another rabbit hole…I will not follow.
You already went down the rabbit hole Nate when you decided that reality was the symbolic idealist representation (SIR) you were taught in school and you failed to understand that is merely a symbolic form which you already admitted was only a close approximation of reality. Now you have gone all in on SIR and elevating form over substance. Thats something successful professionals never do as their success depends upon it. Obviously you never got beyond the apprenticeship level.
“you were taught in school”
Yes, and learned it well, and used it successfully it in my work for many years, and taught it to others.
Why do you feel the need to denigrate anyone with more expertise in the subject being discussed than you?
Are you really so insecure?
Nate says:
” ”you were taught in school”
Yes, and learned it well, and used it successfully it in my work for many years, and taught it to others.
Why do you feel the need to denigrate anyone with more expertise in the subject being discussed than you?
Are you really so insecure?”
———————
No we need teachers too. I didn’t say you didn’t learn the tools of science well. You would be a lousy teacher if you didn’t.
What I am saying here is getting an education has in modern society been bifurcated largely from getting experience.
In the old days people learned from what today we call OJT. On the job training. When you take your education and instead of teaching others, you go into research, construction, engineering, etc. You face an entirely different learning curve.
That’s why professions have apprenticeships, after getting degrees at all levels. And to gain a license you need both experience and an education.
You get your advanced degree in accounting for example. To qualify as a certified auditor you have to have an additional 2 years of one the job experience and get that experience signed off in a good number of specific categories of experience by your supervisors, plus pass an examination but the exam really only covers the tools you get in your education so you can take the exam before you get the experience.
I came in with excellent educational credentials. Found out within days how little I actually knew about accounting and auditing.
For the first time I was actually introduced to the concept of elevating form over substance, though I studied this very topic in school from a high level and had not seen how it permeates virtually anything you can call a skill. I am sure teachers go through the same thing in learning to relate to students and the parents of juvenile students if they are to be successful in actually teaching students. For mentally healthy students they need both a healthy environment at home and a healthy environment in school and a meeting of all the minds between the two.
Something isn’t necessarily what you name it, there are plenty of ingenious people out there who will name something that you treat a special way in a College textbook but the actual thing being accounted for is one of different substance than the name.
What that means is professional auditing is at an entirely different level than what you learn in school and actually a majority of the ”important” work goes into that other level of what is the substance of these transactions.
And by ”important” I mean the work on issues that are ”material” to the job. There is a good deal of grunt work in handling files, crunching numbers, running logic checks on computer programs, and in some areas of accounting a good deal of widgets that the substance of is well understood. But if you are going to get promoted you have to develop a hawkeye for real substance and they don’t teach any of that in college.
So there is no insult here. There are no ”higher” jobs that are better than others. I am a multiple career guy whose main interest in life has been learning new stuff as opposed to climbing a ladder somewhere. I have done a lot from blue collar hand labor to professional white collar each is different each has rewards and what somebody prefers to do for a living they should be very proud of. One of my favorite shows is ”Dirty Jobs” as Mike Rowe understands the satisfaction that comes out of having a skill no matter what that skill is.
I have always maintained that the true measure of success is how much you like your job. If you don’t like it, get off your butt and change jobs.
Your experience is all well and good, Bill. But you ASSUME that your opponents such as me, don’t also have experience in their chosen fields. That only your experience is valid.
That is wrong.
Im my field, the subject matter is difficult and very mathematical, and thus requires education. There certainly are technicians who do fine work but not at a high level because they never learned the math.
math is what computers are good for. but also they will reliably spew out garbage if you put garbage in. math is easy whats hard is to figure out when to use it and when not to. for example the skater’s angular momentum.
“math is easy whats hard is to figure out when to use it and when not to. for example the skaters angular momentum.”
Not easy for you apparently, because you STILL can’t do the simple math to see why the angular momentum for the translating skater is constant.
So you need to deny the mathematical facts and put down wnyone who gets it.
Nate you said the angular momentum came when the radius became minimal. But the skater doesn’t stay the minimal distance when skating by her partner in a straight line.
You guys must get a kick out of making stuff up to support your political agendas. But I won’t tell you what you look like as I get a kick out of you guys who constantly go on claiming stuff is science and never coming up with anything in support of your positions.
“Nate you said the angular momentum came when the radius became minimal.”
Bullshit. I never said that. Have you been drunk for this whole discussion or what?
“But the skater doesnt stay the minimal distance when skating by her partner in a straight line.”
Duh.
“You guys must get a kick out of making stuff up to support your political agendas.”
Angular momentum is conserved even for conservatives!
You deny a mathematical fact because you can’t do the math, and now try to claim mathematical facts must be politically motivated!
Quite sad, Bill.
Nate says:
” ”Nate you said the angular momentum came when the radius became minimal.”
Bullshit. I never said that. Have you been drunk for this whole discussion or what?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1565712‘
So if a skater is skating past you, at a short distance r away, she will have angular momentum, mvr. And if you grab her hand, you will both end up spinning, so her angular momentum was transferred to you and turned into rotation of both of you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1566751
Sure Angular is defined as rxp = r*p*sin(theta)
And r*sin(theta) = r(min), the r at closest approach.
Its very clear that the angular momentum doesn’t exist until the moment arm is in place. Yet you claim it to be there with just linear momentum and a predicted minimum distance.
the problem is Nate that mvr only equals mv mathematically when r=1 exactly. And that is just a quirk of mathematics that doesn’t work out in an infinite number of cases. You can’t call that reality as much as you would like to at this moment.
My quote November 30, 2023 at 9:27 AM
“Sure Angular is defined as rxp = r*p*sin(theta)”
And r*sin(theta) = r(min), the r at closest approach.”
This is a mathematical fact. It is saying that however large r is for the skater, whatever theta is,
r*sin(theta) = rmin.
You:
“well now you are full on stu-pid BS. so now you are saying the skater only possesses angular momentum at a particular value for sin (theta).”
Of course I never said that. You really have no reading comprehension!
then I immediately clarified it for you:
“As I made clear, the skater has constant angular momentum ALL ALONG, rxp.
This turns out to be mvr where r is her minimum distance, the point when v and r are perpendicular.”
That is absolutely plain english, so that you wouldnt be confused.
But you still manage to be!
“Nate you said the angular momentum came when the radius became minimal.”
Are you trying very hard to be incompetent? You are succeeding beyond all expectations.
Unless you can keep your opponents arguments straight, you have no business arguing.
Nate,
You mention skaters. Why can’t you just address the subject – the Moon? Too hard for you?
Or cant you communicate your thoughts clearly?
The quote “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” is attributed to Einstein. Are you sure you understand what you are talking about?
What is it you are trying to say? If you can’t even say clearly what you are trying to communicate about the Moon, then you obviously are going to have difficulty explaining what you cant even describe.
Rather like some knucklehead trying to “explain” a GHE that they cannot describe!
You, for example.
[GILL] I dont see how the Moon can be claimed to have an angular momentum based on the strictest definition of momentum.
[NATE] The definition of angular momentum is L = rxp where r is a vector distance to the axis point, and p = mv, with a vector v. […] So if a skater is skating past you, at a short distance r away, she will have angular momentum, mvr.
[MONOMANIACAL MIKE] You mention skaters. Why cant you just address the subject the Moon? Too hard for you?
Flynnson is like a 3 year old. He demands attention, even when he has no idea what the discussion is all about.
Willard says:
”The definition of angular momentum is L = rxp where r is a vector distance to the axis point, and p = mv, with a vector v. [] So if a skater is skating past you, at a short distance r away, she will have angular momentum, mvr.”
Indeed Willard (and I suppose Nate to) is completely living inside of the SIR shell.
They figure they can just dispose of the notion of torque to describe a rotation and all you need is a linear velocity the male skater merely exudes gravity at will.
Further they have set a dynamite charge on the notion of translation, either that or they don’t see an OPR differences at all.
Bill, angular momentum is a mathematical symbolic construct that helps humans mathematically model motion.
If you don’t like SIR, why do you keep bringing up angular momentum!
> Willard says: “The definition […]
False.
Willard brought it up by ostensibly quoting you. seems as if you now want to start cherry picking between rotational SIR concepts as your only refuge to defend your position on the arbitrary science definition of rotation that crosscuts the common definition. seems that you are in essence agreeing that science here is way way out of its lane.
> brought it up by ostensibly quoting you
Better.
> they can just dispose of the notion of torque to describe a rotation
A rotation is a change of orientation.
There. Mission accomplished!
after denying rotations on an external axis Willard asserts a definition that confirms the opposite.
> denying rotations on an external axis
Gill just says stuff once more.
a rotation on an external axis meets your definition of a change in orientation. end of story.
> end of story.
If it was a story about geometry, Gill, you’d have a point.
nope! its a story of you trying to make it about geometry rather than OPR physics.
[GILL] a rotation on an external axis meets your definition of a change in orientation. end of story.
[ALSO GILL] its a story of you trying to make it about geometry rather than OPR physics.
both are true.
Both are actually false, Gill. Not only false, but very confused. When you speak of “OPR physics” looks a lot like what we usually call naive or folk physics. And I keep saying that the silly GIF won’t solve a physics problem. By contrast, your “end of story” seems to indicate that geometry suffices.
And note that both claims were made as switcheroos, just like I said earlier.
Willard says:
”A rotation is a change of orientation.”
that was your only test willard. i don’t care how you got there. just that you got there. lets just say that a rotation on an external axis is consistent across geometry and physics. SIR and OPR once one strips away all the irrelevancies.
Gill, Gill,
Here is the definition of a rotation right before the theorem I keep telling you about (i.e. rotations are isometries):
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
I’ll let you find out if these properties involve a torque.
As far as tests are concerned, you keep failing upward, perhaps like in your career.
Thats just a beginning course Willard with training wheels.
Here is another theorem for you Willard. Every ellipse is a circle from a perspective. Every circle is an ellipse from many perspectives. Lets use your favorite perspective, the stars in the sky. So every orbit is a circle and an ellipse.
Your theorem uses rotation as circle as a condition for the theorem to be true. Since isometry is a form of drawing perspective is important. The advanced class could develop a theorem that didn’t need the training wheels, but the students need to be brought along at the pace of the slowest in the class. . .I guess thats you here.
Gill, Gill,
Theorems don’t change in graduate texts. Besides, you recently thought that isometric views preserved isometries.
Perhaps you need those training wheels!
"And I keep saying that the silly GIF won’t solve a physics problem"
I couldn’t agree more. However, people need to understand what the physics problem actually is, first. The physics problem is, "does an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remain oriented as per the MOTL or the MOTR"?
We then need to use physics to solve that problem. Since we can’t get past the points 1) – 4), that will never happen, however. People like Little Willy make any sort of progress impossible. Ball4 buzzes along to vomit up the same one-note crap as always. bob’s just a confused old man. God only knows what Nate’s contributions are. Entropic Man doesn’t really bother any more, but when he did, he’d probably just say something, get immediately refuted, then disappear without acknowledging it, as he does on absolutely every subject. Tim doesn’t even have a seat at the table until he can acknowledge he’s wrong on point 2). Swanson occasionally moans something about elliptical orbits. Bindidon just rants about authority figures, whilst agreeing with a lot of the points 1) – 4) but never backing me up at any point. A lot of the other "Spinners" don’t really bother any more.
Oh well, never mind.
willard if the theorem said a rotation must be perfectly circular then he could discuss why thats true based on the evidence presented in support of the theorem.
but when must first define a rotation as being a circle before stating the theorem that means this particular low level theorem is true if the rotation is circular.
since circularity is a premise to the theorem the theorem does absolutely nothing to prove rotations must be circular and of course that won’t change at the graduate level where theorems can be developed using perspectives to use the lower level theorem on eccentric ellipses. thats essentially the process that software uses. you just need some rudimentary knowledge of logic regarding how to use subroutines within other subroutines to achieve an unlimited number of mathematical routines to accomplish anything you want to accomplish..
> willard if the theorem said a rotation must be perfectly circular then he could discuss why thats true based on the evidence presented in support of the theorem.
Theorems don’t discuss, Gill.
thats why there is no theorem that says circular theorems are the only possible rotational theorem. all that the theorem you provide has is limited utility. . .why else would they need to define rotation for the theorem?
You’re just confusing yourself with your wording, Gill. You could argue that all theorems are circular, but they’re not. Check kiting is circular, writing checks is still fine.
theorems being subroutines does not mean they are circular. And isometry isn’t a banking operation so stop using crappy analogies.
Gill, Gill,
You mentioned “circular theorems,” and now you’re into subroutines.
An ellipse is a conic section. When that section isn’t parallel to the cone, it’s not a circle. To get it back to a circular shape, you’ll have to “unstretch” it. This breaks isometry.
But please, do continue. That you keep asserting that ellipses are only appearances of circles while harping about O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y is quite funny.
It’s the other way around, BTW – ellipses are generalizations of circles.
Willard says:
”An ellipse is a conic section. When that section isnt parallel to the cone, its not a circle. To get it back to a circular shape, youll have to unstretch it. This breaks isometry.”
you don’t break it. tilting the plane is a change in perspective which is different than an isometry but can be done with geometry equations.
By that logic, Gill, you could tilt the plane so that your ellipse becomes a line. Or you could look directly at your glass so that you only see a circle. Alternatively, you could look at Penrose Stairs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_stairs
As I already told you, the human eye is not well trained for isometric projection.
You’re just conflating isometry with axonometry.
No I am not. I clearly said that the geometry of perspectives isn’t isometry. So I am not conflating that at all with isometry. Can’t you read?
And I am not talking about projections so I am not talking about axonometry. I clearly said ”perspective” not ”projection”. But on that topic I have been a big fan of M.C. Escher for almost 60 years.
Yes, Gill. You are.
Do you really want to do astronomy with a projection in which objects drawn do not appear larger or smaller as they extend closer to or away from the viewer?
Bill uses carnival mirrors to ‘see’ OPR, it seems.
nate mocks Euclid and Giovanni Cassini geometry as carnival mirror stuff.
Funny you mention Euclid, Gill:
Does that ring any bell?
yep, seems rather consistent with any rotation.
I suppose you have noticed the word “circle,” right?
Oh I am into forgiving Euclid considering the technology he had to work with and the fact he predated Cassini by almost 2 millennia. But you have no excuse Willard.
By the technology that offers a “perspective” that is not a projection, Gill, are you referring to blogs?
The name’s Autolycus of Pitane.
The technology is the tools available to astronomers between Euclids time ~300BC and Cassini’s time late 17th century. Cassini had a telescope 11 meters long.
Science of Sport – Baserunning and Angular Momentum
https://youtu.be/pUD4eLXrKT8?si=FOW1Ug3bPe8hxjB8
Silly willy found another link he can’t understand. He’s sooooo desperate.
A runner has no angular momentum! Running in a circle is NOT angular momentum.
These cult children have NO knowledge of physics.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Poor Pupman:
https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jab/3/3/article-p242.xml
Always one step behind.
Silly willy, there’s no need to keep proving you don’t understand angular momentum.
But, it does add to the fun….
Riddle me this, Pupman –
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/20373/Thesis_Richard_Betzel.pdf
Did you have to write a physics thesis to get your IT job?
The ball starts out in contact with the pitcher’s arm, child. So angular momentum can be transferred.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
Now throw some more crap against the wall.
Pupman suddenly realizes he must try something:
The Moon started out in contact with the Earth.
What will he try next?
Sorry child, but that’s one of your cult’s beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science.
Now throw some more crap against the wall.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-did-the-moon-form.html
Do you eat something else than microwaved pizza pockets between your IT shifts?
I only occasionally waste time with silly willy anymore. It’s important for people to learn what he is. He never has any science, just searches for nonsense on the web. Most of his cult uses that same technique.
This discussion is about the fact that Moon does NOT spin. Here, silly willy is off on a tangent trying to claim we know how Moon got here. He doesn’t realize even wiki knows the “Great Impact” hypothesis fails:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
But silly willy can’t understand the links he finds. He’ll be here days, searching the Internet to find crap to throw against the wall. He has NO viable model of “orbital motion without spin”. So, he’s got NOTHING.
Enjoy his ongoing attempt to pervert science. That’s what he does.
Pupman did not clock on the link once more:
Op. Cit.
The three theories are compatible with the idea that the Moon got spun at first by…something. Since Pupman does not need any evidence for his proclamations in between his IT breaks, NOTHING prevents him to posit a God-like intervention instead. But if God formed the Moon like we make snowballs, He had to touch it, right?
I only occasionally waste time with silly willy anymore. It’s important for people to learn what he is. He never has any science, just searches for nonsense on the web. Most of his cult uses that same technique.
This discussion is about the fact that Moon does NOT spin. Here, silly willy is off on a tangent trying to claim we know how Moon got here. Now he claims: “The giant-impact theory is most widely accepted today.”. Silly willy doesn’t realize that “consensus” ain’t science
But silly willy can’t understand the links he finds. He’ll be here days, searching the Internet to find crap to throw against the wall. He has NO viable model of “orbital motion without spin”. So, he’s got NOTHING.
Enjoy his ongoing attempt to pervert science. That’s what he does.
Willard,
You wrote –
” did not clock on the link once more:” Somebody else is exercising common sense. Maybe using commonsense will become more widespread.
You also wrote –
“The evidence returned from these missions gave us todays most widely accepted theory.”
That’s nice. Did you quote Feynman elsewhere, as saying “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.”
Yes, theories are speculations, or guesses.
You love a good speculative guess – who can possibly dispute a guess which cannot be disproven by experiment?
What do you guess a good description of the GHE might be? “Not cooling, slower cooling” as some dreamer wrote?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Empirical science is a bunch of conjectures. Most of them were rejected at some point. In that way, you are like empirical science.
Conjectures that withstood the test of time are what we got. If you don’t have any to offer, you don’t do empirical science. In that way, you are not an empirical scientist.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
There you go again with your silly semantic word games.
You can’t even provide a generally acceptable definition of “empirical science”, can you? Go on, make one up.
Conjectures are just conjectures. You can have as many conjectures as you like. Add them all together, add five dollars, and you can buy a five dollar cup of coffee – with any luck.
I believe you quoted Feynman at one point “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.”
Experiment, you see.
You burbled “Conjectures that withstood the test of time are what we got. If you dont have any to offer, you dont do empirical science. In that way, you are not an empirical scientist.”
You can’t even say what “empirical science” is! Am I supposed to value your opinions about me? Why would that be?
The definition of science from the Oxford dictionary is good enough for me –
“the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.” If you don’t like the definition, tough cheese. Create your own. Good luck.
Maybe I could be a bit more systematic, I suppose, if someone could tell me how, but I seem to be doing OK. You could always try convincing someone that I’m not doing OK. Give it a try, and let me know how you got on.
Tell me, Monomaniacal Mike –
Why does the Earth spin?
Willard wrote –
“Tell me, Monomaniacal Mike
Why does the Earth spin?”
No, I won’t tell you. Not until you admit you don’t know, grovel in mortification ,then bow down repeating “I am not worthy”, while poking yourself in the eye with a hot needle.
Can’t say fairer than that, can I?
[willard the gift that keeps giving]
Monomaniacal Mike,
What is the biggest clue that tells us from where the moon comes?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Oxygen, Monomaniacal Mike.
Oxygen.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Lunar samples have a very similar oxygen isotope makeup to the Earth.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 457.0 km/sec
density: 6.98 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Nov 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 159
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 187 sfu
“MULTIPLE CMEs ARE COMING: Yesterday’s canyon of fire eruption (described below) sent a CME toward Earth. Make that three CMEs? Follow-up eruptions of two more magnetic filaments may have also hurled CMEs in our direction. Their collective arrival on Nov. 30-Dec. 1 could cause G2-class geomagnetic storms.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.84×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
CMEs should bump up thermosphere. Neutron counts seem they are currently low enough radiation in terms of ISS or Mars.
Moderate spot {and might grow or fade} coming from farside {south} and will get numbered, and number spot leaving to farside.
It seem coming couple weeks we will low spot count and solar
activity. And I guess Dec will be lower than Nov. And it seems Nov will be low monthly sunspot number.
What do you classify as “low” for November?
Oct was 99.4 and Oct was low. For Nov crossing curved line value of
90.6 would be low, and I thought it was possible/likely it could do this. The current count and current situation indicate it’s unlikely to cross this line- but I am not counting or summing the current numbers- I don’t know the sum for yesterday or now. And there is some
institution which apparently does this- to give the official number for month {or it doesn’t make much sense for me, to do this, and I will wait for it}.
But around 100 for Nov I count as low, but I am guess over next few months is lower than 100. But being at Max, around 50 is very low. The range for graph is 64.7 to 115.3 and as I said curved line is 90.4.
Low is relative what happened so far, and so far, it hasn’t crossed the curved line and have bounced way above range given/indicated by:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
A metric I have taken, is when does it cross the line and does it stay below the line, if does this for 6 month it’s low.
So seems now, Nov won’t cross line as I guessed but seem likely to me it will next month.
In fact your prediction for November was 50.
It could be as low as 50, and it spent a lot time around 50 and went even lower. My prediction was about whether I could guess when month spot number would first cross the curved line, I thought Nov was more likely than Oct.
but that was a month or two ago. Before this {about 6 months ago I guessed by Nov it would crash {dramatically crash- and in Oct it looked like started to dramatic crash in Oct or I could say I was off by 2 or 3 weeks. But at moment it’s dramatically crshed- which it not vaguely important unless it stays low and I am guessing Dec will be lower. But I doubt Dec will be 50 or lower, but could be around 90 or could be in range of 80 to 100. But within next year it probably will drop to 50 or less in one or few months.
So what are pros saying:
Highlights of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
20 – 26 November 2023
–Solar activity ranged from low to moderate levels. Low levels were
observed on 21-22 and 25-26 November. Moderate (R1-minor) levels
were observed on 20 and 23-24 November. During the period, a total
of 55 C-class and 4 M-class flares were observed from 13 different
regions. Region 3492 (N19, L=345, class/area Ehi/380 on 24 Nov) was
the most active region producing 23 C-class and 1 M-class flare.
No proton events were observed at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit was at
low to moderate levels during the period.
Geomagnetic field activity was at mostly quiet to unsettled levels
on 20 and 23-24 November. Active, minor storm (G1-minor) and
moderate (G2-moderate) levels were observed on 21-22 and 25-26
November. Quiet to minor storm levels were observed on 21-22
November due to positive polarity CH HSS influence. Minor to
moderate storm levels were observed on 25 November due to CME and
positive polarity CH HSS influence.
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
27 November – 23 December 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels on 02-12
December, with a chance for moderate (R1-minor) levels on 27-30
November, 01 December and 13-23 December.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach moderate to high levels on 30 November, 01-04
December and 07-09 December due to CH HSS influence.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be at unsettled to active
levels on 27-28 November, 05-07 and 12-13 December. Unsettled to G1
(minor) levels are possible on 18-20 and 22-23 December. All
activity is due to a variety of positive or negative polarity CH HSS
influence. —
In comparison, it doesn’t seem I am far into the wilderness.
Another metric is spotless days, I thought we might of had a day or two of spotless days in Nov {and we didn’t}.
To say or guess we going to spotless days in next year, isn’t fun or interesting game. So focus on nearer term time period like next month or with a week.
Since the pros say: “Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels on 02-12 December”
Saying we could have spotless day in beginning of Dec, it not fun, cause they sort of said it’s possible.
But to make it more of game, I guess 3 spotless days in Dec.
Anyone going to say there no chance of spotless day in first two weeks of Dec?
Solar wind
speed: 403.3 km/sec
density: 4.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 130
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 182 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.91×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
“Sunspot AR3500 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that poses a threat for strong M-class solar flares.”
And it’s facing at us.
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH (G3): Three and perhaps four CMEs are heading for Earth following a series of explosions on the sun this week. Estimated time of arrival: Nov. 30th and Dec. 1st. The biggest of the CMEs, launched on Nov. 28th, could sweep up some of the earlier, lesser ones, forming a Cannibal CME capable of sparking strong G3-class geomagnetic storms with mid-latitude auroras.”
Moderate size spot coming from farside {northern} so should add to sunspot number when given a number, but might lose a numbered spot. 3499.
Oh, I just noticed we a big and oddly shape coronal hole which just starting it’s journey across the near side. closest spot number to it is 3505, southern hemisphere.
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/29nov23/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
Solar wind
speed: 423.2 km/sec
density: 0.94 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 138
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.67×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
“A CME JUST HIT EARTH: However, it might not be the “Big One.” A CME hit Earth’s magnetic field on Dec. 1st at 0021 UT, jolting the USGS magnetometer in Frericksberg, Virginia, by 36 nT. This could be the first of two CMEs en route to Earth. NOAA forecasters expect a significant Cannibal CME (composed of multiple storm clouds) to reach Earth midday on Dec. 1st, possibly sparking strong G3-class geomagnetic storms. ”
Well Nov done and in the books.
So, this is appointed time to say something about Solar Grand Min.
Well, it went roughly how I guessed it would, but it hasn’t been as dramatic as imagined it would be, I guess I am still waiting for the dramatic, which could happen in Dec.
Since climate change science denial is a lost cause, might as well discuss Mars exploration…
No, it’s not unclear when NASA will explore Mars.
NASA’s exploration of Mars has been a multifaceted endeavor that evolved over several decades. The agency’s interest in the Red Planet began in the early 1960s with the Mariner program. Mariner 4, launched in 1964, successfully conducted the first flyby of Mars in 1965, providing the first close-up images of the Martian surface.
Subsequent missions, such as Viking 1 and Viking 2 in the 1970s, marked the first successful landings on Mars. These missions conducted experiments to search for signs of life and furthered our understanding of the planet’s geology and atmosphere.
In the late 1990s, the Mars Pathfinder mission, featuring the Sojourner rover, demonstrated the feasibility of surface exploration with mobile robots. The 2000s saw a series of Mars rovers, including Spirit and Opportunity, which greatly expanded our knowledge of the Martian surface.
The Curiosity rover, launched in 2011, provided unprecedented data on the planet’s geological history and the potential habitability of its past environments. Furthermore, the Perseverance rover, launched in 2020, aims to explore Jezero Crater, searching for signs of ancient microbial life and collecting samples for potential return to Earth.
NASA’s Mars exploration efforts have been complemented by orbiters such as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and MAVEN, contributing to our understanding of the planet’s climate, atmosphere, and mineral composition.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”Since climate change science denial is a lost cause, might as well discuss Mars exploration”
It’s really big of you to accept your loss so gracefully. Perhaps some day science will advance to the level where you can find a paper that honors the scientific method and supports your case.
Many have claimed Mars is most habitable planet other than Earth.
NASA has given that as reason for tax payer to tens of billion of dollars robotically exploring Mars, and such efforts have not confirmed their claim that Mars is the most habitable planet {other than Earth}.
Now, I could claim that Mars might be a more habitable planet than Earth, but we have explored Mars enough and we need crewed exploration to determine if Mars is habitable at all.
And it’s possible, NASA could spend less tax payer money, now, on crew exploration as compared to money spent on ineffective robotic exploration. Because we on the brink of getting a long NASA goal, lower the cost to get to orbit. A Goal NASA has wasted a lot money and lot time working to towards {and failing}.
Who was more successful at lower launch cost was the Europeans who did not want to depend of the success of Space Shuttle program, and instead focused on the commercial launch market.
But NASA is coming around to the obvious that the commercial is important, and they have commercialize getting crew and cargo to ISS.
Which could point to as a fundamental change that allow SpaceX to exist. Before this “insight” it was US miltary space which focused on this obvious thing, because national security concerns, demanded it.
Or US miltary did problem that saved entire US launch market from NASA’s hideous and dumb ideas.
“did problem”
Did program.
I was thinking what it was called. EV…
I look it up “(EELV) program,” -Wiki
“Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, the former name of the National Security Space Launch program”
Mars isn’t habitable. You wouldn’t be able to stand outside a pressurized structure for even a few seconds before being killed.
You got about 30 seconds. Under 5 meter of water it similar to swimming under water on Earth. Hold your breath, use scuba, and have air trapped in diving bell/moon pool type thing. Of course less pressure under water as compared Earth, you need to travel further up before getting bends. Or if like to do stuff underwater, Mars is better then Earth {And our Moon is better than Mars- under water cities best on the Moon}.
If Mars doesn’t have mineable water, it’s not habitable.
“The Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) is the world’s largest known fossil water aquifer system. It is located underground in the Eastern end of the Sahara desert and spans the political boundaries of four countries in north-eastern Africa. NSAS covers a land area spanning just over two million km2, including north-western Sudan, north-eastern Chad, south-eastern Libya, and most of Egypt. Containing an estimated 150,000 km3 of groundwater, the significance of the NSAS as a potential water resource for future development programs in these countries is extraordinary. The Great Man-Made River (GMMR) project in Libya makes use of the system, extracting substantial amounts of water from this aquifer, removing an estimated 2.4 km3 of fresh water for consumption and agriculture per year.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
If on Mars one have something similar, one get 2.4 cubic km of water [or 2.4 billion tons] per year, then Mars has mineable water.
And such vastness of water, would make Mars water as cheap as Earth water. And beginning first decade the water could start at about $1 per kg {$1000 per cubic meter} if only drawing .001 cubic km {1 million tons] per year but as yearly production increases to .01, .1 and 1 cubic km per year, the price of water would drop and more if mining billion tons for decades.
And applies to the Moon, but with Moon you might only start with 1000 tons of water per year and get up to 20,000 tons within a decade.
But there was a lot water, it would like Mars have Earth prices of Water. The beginning price of lunar water could be as high as $500 per kg. Another way to look at this, is that if Moon had 1 trillion ton of water [1000 trillion kg] it’s not worth $500 times 1000 trillion, it’s not even gross worth of 1000 trillion dollars. Maybe
about as 100 trillion dollars or perhaps 10 trillion dollars.
Related to this, a gram of lunar dust is worth about $1000 per gram.
It’s not that that the moon has trillions of grams of dust. It can reduce the price of lunar dust to less than $1 per gram on Earth.
Silver on Earth is worth 81 cents per gram.
The only way to get lunar dust on Earth to be the price of silver on Earth, is to lower the launch cost on Earth and on the Moon. But lower launch cost on the Moon is more significant. Or Earth launch could twice as expensive as they are now, and you sell lunar samples
at the price of silver- if lunar water was cheap enough, lunar water at $500 per kg, is almost cheap enough. So one start off with price much higher than silver, and within a decade or two get it, to be less than price of silver.
If Moon had mountains of solid gold, it’s worthless with the Moon not having low launch cost. Though mountains of gold, might motivate some way to lower lunar launch cost, invest hundreds of billions of dollars to do it. But lunar water mining is investment of about 5 to 10 billion, and without counting profit for mining lunar water, the company could have value of tens or billions- as long as it mine lunar water and make lunar water cheaper- which in open market means price of lunar water becomes, cheaper.
But govt or monopoly “in charge” and water becomes more expensive.
So, I am not worried about China mining lunar water. But I am worried that NASA will try to mine lunar water- it’s waste of time.
If Mars doesn’t have an atmosphere in which humans can breath and with temperatures above zero for enough of the time to grow crops then its not habitable.
It’d take millions of years to terraform it into a habitable state; not worth the trouble, even if your condition of minable water is met.
gb…about 30 seconds of an agonizing death. People not fully acclimatized near the peak of Everest suffer a debilitating slow death because the air pressure at 1/3 sea level affects them both in the lungs and in the brain.
The conditions are called HAPE and HACE. High altitude pulmonary edema and cerebral edema. Basically the brain and lungs fill with fluid due to the pressure differential. I simply cannot begin to imagine the terrible death that would follow because it would not happen all at once. You would slowly experience an agonizing death.
“People not fully acclimatized near the peak of Everest suffer a debilitating slow death because the air pressure at 1/3 sea level affects them both in the lungs and in the brain. ”
A lot people die climbing that mountain.
Number people die climbing Mt Everest:
–322 people
According to the Himalayan database, at least 322 people have perished on Mount Everest since records began in 1922, averaging out to about 4.4 deaths per year and that number slowly ticks up each year. —
Maybe a little longer.
“In a pair of papers from NASA in 1965 and 1967, researchers found that chimpanzees could survive up to 3.5 minutes in near-vacuum conditions with no apparent cognitive defects, as measured by complex tasks months later.”
Go on, you don’t want to be outperformed by a chimp, do you?
Do you think you’ll explode or something? Reality is not always reflected in movies.
I would recommend you as volunteer.
Ken’s answer to the question was an obvious ”yes”.
ken…many Europeans had the same opinion of North America before it became fully inhabited.
Mars is just a gravity hole. Its only value to NASA is to try out new gear. Even if the planet were solid gold there is no cost-benefit ratio.
But what if it was made of Mars bars?
Imagine if you had any worthwhile comments to make instead of filling the website with yards of pointless drivel?
ken…my comment re Mars bars was intended as a light-hearted joke. As I stated earlier, I have nothing against you or your theories, regarding you as a kindred spirit in the fight against hysteria as in the truckers convoy an the covid misinformation.
Perhaps if you understood basic physics you might understand that drivel to you is science to others. Not once have you offered a coherent rebuttal of my so-called drivel and we know it’s because you lack the scientific background to rebut it.
You were the one who originated the idea that the Moon is orbiting the Sun rather than the Earth, even though the article you cited claimed the Moon orbits the Earth.
The proof upon which your skepticism is based is itself based on one scientist’s theory, Happer, who actually supports the anthropogenic theory. I have nothing against Happer, only his presumptions that the GHE is valid.
The solar system is a gravity hole and we traveling about 30 km/sec within the Sun’s gravity hole {in terms of mph, an average of 67,000 mph].
If in sun’s gravity hole, it’s good to be near smaller gravity holes.
One of best gravity holes is the Venus gravity. Mars gravity hole isn’t very useful and it’s small. So to go Jupiter distance from Mars, go to Venus and then go to Jupiter distance. Of course also, gravity hole allows gravity assists {“free” energy {though the Sun or planets will lose velocity- or can have velocity added, and could have vector losses also, which counts velocity lost or gain depending which direction you want the sun or planet to go {sort of a subjective gain or loss- or nothing is free}.
But sunlight on Earth surface is not close to free, where if in high orbit, such L-1 {Earth or Venus or whatever planet} sunlight is more free. Of course if want Venus hot, getting a lot solar energy in Venus L-1, could cool the planet which is a gain if you want Venus colder.
Living on Venus, does not much advantages, unless you want to live in cities in the sky.
Elon Musk says we’ll have boots on Mars in 2029 and a million-person
city is possible by twenty or thirty years later.
Setting aside the fact that you’d be crazy to leave Earth for Mars, there is the fact that you’re likely going to be living underground to keep the environment from touching you. Survival for a million people will require a very good seal-in, enormous amounts of electricity, an insanely large structure, and hardest of all, an artificial ecosystem to sustain everyone inside.
Can we do this? The biggest such system ever built was Biosphere 2, created in the 1990s, which sustained a total of eight people for two hungry years. Nobody is spending the kind of money necessary to get answers in a hurry, perhaps because there’s no obvious profit in things like orbital obstetrics or airtight greenhouses the size of two Singapores (Biosphere 2 was about 3.14 acres for eight people; if we scale that to a million people, you’re at around 1,600 square kilometers of greenhouse.)
When you discuss technical stuff like rocket sizes or if Mars has water and carbon, everything seems clear. But when you dive into the nitty-gritty of human life, it gets a bit fuzzy.
Something needed for Mars settlements {or than mineable water} is to use Venus orbit.
Venus is better hub of solar system than Earth is. Venus is shorter travel from Mars as compared to Earth. Venus also quicker and slightly less delta-v to get to from Earth compared the Earth to Mars.
Everything faster with the orbit of Venus.
We will start being a spacefaring civilization once we use Venus orbit- which require artificial gravity to work as imagine it does and need rocket fuel depots at Venus orbit. And/or lots of water in Venus orbit.
What ‘Elon Musk says’ these days is almost always NUTS.
Gee, if a million people want to live in a highly unforgiving difficult environment they could much more easily move to Antarctica, where at least there is air to breathe.
But so far, there seems to be little interest.
Gee Nate I thought you thought that mankind can control the climate. is your negativity arising from the don’t mess with nature attitude of the preservationists?
Nate says:
”What Elon Musk says these days is almost always NUTS.”
the same was said of the pioneers wherever they have pioneered.
There is only one thing I find nutty about his comments and I am hopefully wrong. Musk seems to defend the anthropogenic theory and the current craziness involved.
–Gordon Robertson says:
November 29, 2023 at 6:33 PM
There is only one thing I find nutty about his comments and I am hopefully wrong. Musk seems to defend the anthropogenic theory and the current craziness involved.–
I think he worried about a big space rock hitting Earth and/or the sun exploding. He sees that governments are slow [or move backwards rather than is good direction]. And he see population collapse- due women not liking babies very much- as a bigger threat, in term threat to humanity [and all life on planet Earth].
Yes, the Nazi’s were pioneers in a way. And the neo-Nazi’s that Elon applauds are following in their footsteps.
the only nazis around today are the ones prosecuting their competition and restricting free speech in the name of public safety which they alone define.
Bill denies that there are actual neo-Nazis.
one thing nazis were really known and hated for was their youth programs and making them compulsory. do we see any of that emerging here? how about systemic governmental efforts at eliminating skeptical voices? how about sponsoring huge and expensive efforts at spreading propaganda? how about duplicity and selectivity in the enforcement of laws? how about regulations to seize powers from the
private sector? there are lots of early indicators of the nazi/communist (two peas in a pod) mindset and they are all always couched in terms of the public good.
The Silver Shirts did not have brown shirts, so they were not Nazis.
Gill is a freaking genius.
since the silver shirts were dissolved in 1941, the point you are making isn’t at all clear.
Something like “one thing nazis were really known and hated for was their brown shirts.”
yes willard the brownshirts were a politically oriented criminal organization. i know little of the silver shirts which disbanded before i was born primarily due to their leader being convicted of sedition almost immediately after the us entered wwII so i can’t speak to the crimes of that gang.
but i do recall supporting the ACLU in 1964, both in spirit and cash, for their defense of free speech. while my support arose over issues of indoctrination by a government run education system. that included nazi groups to enjoy the protections of the first amendment as well. in the late 1950’s my high school still taught that free speech actually means tolerating speech you personally find abhorrent.
Cool story, Gill.
A pity it has nothing to do with the argument you first failed to exist, and now try to dodge.
You are being obtuse again Willard. I agreed with Nate that there are neo-Nazis. But Nate never named any and I did. So where is the argument that I didn’t address? I suppose you think the Silver shirts are neo-Nazis, which would only go to show out of touch you are.
You didn’t address the irrelevance of your request that we find some kind of Hitler’s Youth, Gill. It’s just a spin-off the One Single Proof.
I could not care less for how Nazi are fascist forces exactly.
where did I say all the conditions must apply? each condition adds another layer of evidence.
Elon just told his main sources of revenue for his company X, advertisers, to ‘go fuck yourself’.
As I noted, what he says is almost always NUTS.
No he didn’t Nate. He told a specific individual who wanted to tell Musk how to run his business to ”GFY”.
You are always exaggerating like Trump. That’s politics not business. Sure there are a lot of political nazis out there trying to force businesses to conform to the nazi creed. And its not just Nazis. It was the Spanish Inquisition, Its the River to the Sea Palestinians, It’s the Chinese not being tolerant to the Uyghurs or any institution critical of Chinese authoritarianism. It is the democrats pressuring social media to suppress voices.
It goes on an on all the time. You just need to figure out who the Nazis really are. What is you basis of calling Elon a Nazi?
“told a specific individual”
Who was that?
He was talking to advertisers who have pulled their ads.
The advertisers naturally do not want their ads to appear next to the posts of neo-Nazis.
Thus advertisers who pulled their ads from X, are making business decisions.
what you fail to grasp is that nazis are folks that think somebody is a nazi without that person having done anything that nazis do.
in other words nazis are narcissists. they inhabit forums trying to ostracize anybody who disagrees with their world view. which is precisely what musk is opposed to. it doesn’t matter who you are and if you are paying money (musk called it a bribe to induce him to support the elimination of anybody disagreeing with the politics of advertiser) you are the one acting like a nazi.
smarter people realize that to the extent that nazis exist its better to hear from them so you can know who they are.
hopefully all the so-called woke advertisers are heard from so they can experience that which Disney recently experienced in telling parents what they think sucks.
0
> which is precisely what musk is opposed to
Elon ostracizes people all the time, e.g.
https://gizmodo.com/10-times-elon-musk-censored-twitter-users-1850570720
Yeah if you want to believe everything you hear.
Who’s your daddy, Gill –
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-hypocrisy-rcna81961
According to the article all X is doing is complying with the laws regarding posts within a country to stay legal. No reports of the US government continuing to censor. The democrats got the message as clearly as Disney got theirs.
You’re rediscovered the Nuremberg Defense.
Congratulations!
Bill continues to deny that neo-Nazis exist, and presumes they must be imaginary. How does he know this? No one knows.
It is safe to assume that “what you fail to grasp…” is going to be nonsense, if it comes from Bill.
no nate as i itemized above you are only a nazi on the basis of your actions and not on the basis of how others perceive your thoughts.
tell me what somebody has actually done to brand them as a nazi, not what you imagine they are thinking. imagining the thinking of a person to be immoral is exactly what nazis will use to justify action against that particular person.
Willard says:
”Youre rediscovered the Nuremberg Defense.”
no i haven’t. how can you be so ignorant?
social media doesn’t commit violence on anybody. nor should it advocate for violence against the innocent.
but your examples in your only source does not in a single case accuse X of doing that.
in the us it is not illegal for platform owners to limit free speech. but it is illegal for government to coerce platform owners to limit free speech. and additionally government should not provide legal protections for social media platforms that do limit legal speech. so the only criminal involved here in the us is the government.
so basically what you are saying here incorrectly imo, is all of the us social media companies in following the laws of other nations are all a bunch of nazis.
> no i havent
Oh yes you did, Gill. Right here:
“I’m only following orders” is exactly the Nuremberg Defense.
Is Elon or Sheikh Mohamed your daddy?
Willard, the Nuremberg Defense is a defense for committing acts in violation of International law. you can only argue that is a defense being used when there is a violation of law.
but you now have your foot stuck in your feed bucket as your claim here is effectively all the social media companies are in violation of laws you only imagine. just how narcissistic are you going to get on the point you are trying to make?
No, Gill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
You really are punching above your weight right now.
you left out the law you are accusing x of violating willard.
That’s fine, Gill.
At least you tried.
willard is an infantile narcissist. therfore X, but not Facebook or google, is guilty of violating Willard’s sensibilities by virtue of not spewing the tenets of willard’s religion so x cannot in willards eyes have the same rights that willard grants other social media companies.
Gill keeps talking about daddies, but obviously like to lick the boots of the Freedom Fighters *he* himself adores.
Roy’s Kissinger.
willard is projecting.
*likes to lick
“no nate as i itemized above you are only a nazi on the basis of your actions and not on the basis of how others perceive your thoughts.”
Bill, I get it, you always have to be contrary. Even when your wrong.
It is always: ‘but, but, but…’.
Neo-Nazis state or publish their beliefs that align with the original Nazi beliefs. They adopt names, like Aryan Brotherhood, or Atomwaffen Division. In some cases they promote violence or are violent.
So it is not other’s perceiving their thoughts at all. That is your specialty projected onto your opponents.
Where did I say there were no Nazis/
I just think its even lower to stereotype and brand people without being willing to defend why than it is to do so and try to defend why.
That makes you lower than low Nate.
“I just think its even lower to stereotype”
Endless ‘but, but, but’, straight out of your butt, Bill.
When people join a group with a Nazi-based name, I take that at face value.
As I said, Bill, advertisers who pulled their ads from X, are making business decisions.
It is advertising 101, to not want your ads to appear next to neo-Nazi diatribes, and be associated with them, but they do sometimes on X.
It is business 101 to not have your product associated with people with large megaphones promoting racist tropes, as Musk did recently (and admits that it was his biggest blunder).
Nate says:
”As I said, Bill, advertisers who pulled their ads from X, are making business decisions.”
Well that’s a bald faced lie because it only applies in your mind when the liberals do it.
You obviously failed Advertising 101.
What?
Does any university have a class called Advertising 101? Did you take it? Where was it offered? Sounds like a Junior College or Trade school course.
I passed Marketing 300 with an ”A”. Its simply not the case that only liberals pass the course.
“I passed Marketing 300 with an A.
Well, you mustve forgotten the section on not associating your product with racial hatred.
How about you giving a single specific example before instantaneously devouring that anchovy with a hook in it as you seem to always do in here?
Your claim here amounts to you know more about business than Elon Musk much less assuming business profits are his objective over all else.
And you are slurring him on details you know absolutely nothing about. Its obvious that Musk’s only crime is not being as big of a sucker nut as you are.
The only people in the room guaranteed of being a victim of the Nazis, but for the action of others to prevent it, are the ones that were complying with government extortion in censoring online content. That has always been true. Never Again!
Having started in social media back in the days of Compuserve and Prodigy there always has been friction between advertising and online content. Users mocking products, customer service, and return policies being the primary one. the smart ones dealt with it put their customer service on line and took action to create legacy customers. The lousy companies not willing to put the effort in have fallen by the wayside. The world of customer relations has changed tremendously over the past 25 years. the government needs the same treatment if we are to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
So lets hear exactly what you are concerned about because its clear you are not concerned about elon musk. give us the full story in detail. . .that is in the unlikely situation where you actually have something.
Would you kindly explain the meaning of ‘climate change science’ and what is being denied.
What you really mean is ‘alarmist climate science’, which is synonymous with science fiction. And yes, we skeptics do deny such fiction.
Sure ‘climate change science’ is Climatology. And you have been visiting the blog of a self-described Climatologist for many years.
So if you don’t know by now what that is, you have been coming to the wrong place.
I don’t think you answered the question. Isn’t our climatologist considered a denier by some?
What is the official definition of ”climate change denier” does it include the many highly regarded climatologists that aren’t going along with the special interests?
Bill you missed the point, no surprise.
The point was that visiting the blog of a Climatologist for years should have educated Gordon on what is Climatology, by now.
He is a skeptic about the strength of climate change, not a denier.
well that no doubt is relative to how big of a nut you are. i guess you are an unstated sized nut since you aren’t skeptical at all.
Bill did you hit the ‘be contrary’ button by accident, without having an actual point?
Its pretty nutty to not be skeptical considering how bad the models are at projecting warming.
I realize that to defend the lack of skepticism of this non-congruence of model output among themselves and in average output from actual climate variation; every deviation is assumed to be a temporary deviation rather than a variation of expected output from a theory nobody can explain in detail.
LMAO! IMO, that approaches the insanity line.
Obviously though there is an ulterior motive underlying all this. Thank goodness for the luke warmers and skeptics who everyday of their lives fight against the elites taking ever more from public who still lack adequate protections from these poachers.
notice how the original point is long gone…you are off to who knows where.
this would be a good point in time to set the record straight on your skepticism regarding the model output. but i guess that suggestion is way too complex for you to understand.
Nate says:
”Obviously Madhavi doesnt bring up ellipses at all because”
she is describing the general definitions.
Left to readers to recognize that an ellipse is curvilinear translation.
—————————
Well finally you endorsed the readers deciding. DREMT and myself have been saying that as long as I can remember.
You guys keep wanting to respond to our opinion and argue it and now you admit you have no argument.
Nate says:
She is describing motion, that is the first required step (as Kepler did) then a cause can be determined (as Newton did).
———————
Great Nate! Lets go! Is the moons curved path determined by the COM of the earth as in a rotation. Or is does the moon roll around the earth like a tire on the axle of a car? Given Madhavi’s examples and all of course as you suggested.
Looks like Nate bailed out.
“Would you kindly explain the meaning of ‘climate change science’ and what is being denied.”
The scientific process of understanding and attributing global warming based on empirical data and analysis.
1/ Formulate the hypothesis.
2/ Measure baseline GHG levels and establish a baseline for global temperatures before the widespread influence of human activities.
3/ Gather contemporary GHG concentrations, and record temperature changes over time. Utilize atmospheric monitoring stations, satellite observations, ice core samples, surface temperature measurements, and climate models.
4/ Analyze the relationship between the observed increase in greenhouse gases and the rise in global temperatures and evaluate other potential drivers of climate change.
5/ Identify human influence and show that the observed changes exceed what can be attributed to natural climate fluctuations.
6/ Use climate models to project future scenarios.
Example:
A,
You wrote –
“Formulate the hypothesis.” What phenomenon needs a new hypothesis?
What are you puzzled about?
Maybe you need to describe what bothers you, and cannot be explained by known physical laws. Only joking, of course you can’t.
You live in a scary fantasy world, where reality frightens you.
Not much I can do about that. Maybe you could seek help from someone who specialises in mental aberrations.
You don’t need to thank me. It’s my pleasure.
Ark, the first thing you need to understand about REAL science is that it runs parallel to reality. If it ain’t reality, it ain’t science. Learn that first and it will keep you off the wrong paths.
“1/ Formulate the hypothesis.”
A hypothesis must NOT violate the laws of physics. If it does, you MUST scrap it and start over. Your cult GHE nonsense begins with a non-physical equation and an imaginary sphere. Right off, you should recognize that ain’t science.
To understand what is wrong with the GHE, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Which law of physics does an imaginary sphere break, and what’s the difference between that imaginary sphere and a ball on string?
Further to my points Ark, your 6 steps would result in ice cream stores causing global warming! Note the correlation of the number of ice cream stores to global temps. Can you see the “hockey stick”?
At some point responsible adults must realize the GHE is pure nonsense. But children will be children….
Riddle me this, Pupman –
How can Science be Reality if it “runs parallel” to it?
Keep giving tells that you’re that IT guy everybody dislikes!
Willard, science is not reality. Nate agrees that science at its best is a close approximation of reality. which is essentially running roughly parallel depending upon a nummber of fctors such as the reliability. climate science is far from reality it changes course to try to continually run parallel. you are all by yourself in denying that.
[PUPMAN] If it aint reality, it aint science.
[GILL] science is not reality
Careful Wild Bill, that shooter was loaded. Looks like you just shot off another one of. your toes.
Those things won’t grow back….
Speaking of shooting toes, Pupman, riddle me this –
Why are confusing Science and Truth?
wee willy…science is not realty it is a debate about the meaning of reality. Due to the limitations of the human minds debating the reality, the truth about reality may never be realized.
Jiddu Krishnamurti spent a lifetime examining thought and the distinction between thought and intelligence. In discussions with physicist David Bohm, they agreed that reality as observed by the human mind could take on different meanings so they decided to use the word ‘actuality’ to describe the physical reality being discussed.
During a discussion on time, which Krishnamurti associated with thought, the two being interchangeable, Bohm pointed to the obvious, that time was invented by humans, therefore it is entangled in human thought. The puzzling factor for me was why Einstein missed the obvious and redefined gravity as a space-time continuum. It is even more puzzling that so many scientists have bought into the theories of Einstein without going into the meaning of time, and why Einstein was so wrong about it.
clint the best you can do is science that runs consistently close to reality. if its not close its not science.
Clint,
Wild Bill Willard is a contortionist as well.
He puts his foot in his mouth, then shoots himself in the foot.
Exactly Bill. That’s why you don’t want to go around stating “science is not reality”
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
Cranks dealing with concepts they never really studied is not new.
Science is not reality. Truth is not science.
Start here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
You’ll find the name of your favorite philosopher on that page.
Cheers.
if you don’t understand the limitations of science then you might make the mistake of listening to scientists and believing what they say. in fact there probably isn’t another group of academics as nutty as institutional scientists. we have a whole bunch of them in this forum.
If cranks don’t understand the limit of what cranks can do raving and ranting about science, then we should expect more raving and ranting by cranks about science.
Science attempts to explain what we can observe and measure, and make predictions of it.
My point is science makes mathematical models of what we can measure. The model is not reality. Just an approximate representation of the measurements we can make.
So when some people here claim the reality is the Moon’s motion is a rotation around the Earth. This is simply a geometric model of its motion, and a rather poor representation of it.
What you choose as a model, rotation on an external axis or rotation on an internal axis makes no difference whatsoever to moon models.
to be clear.
A model based on Lorb + Lspin is a complete model of the moon’s primary orbital motion.
Lspin is a model of the moon’s motion after control is established by the gravity of the moon and you can ignore the moon’s orbit.
Lorb by itself isn’t useful for anything other than an estimate of the linear momentum that would be possessed by the moon if gravity was switched off, which of course doesn’t seem at all likely would ever happen.
Good grief, Gill.
Could you find a more confused way to insinuate that one external rotation is one motion less than a translation plus an internal rotation?
Parsimony comes at the expense of breaking independence, unless of course you want to play word games about “orbit without spin.”
Little Willy (aka Barrier to Progress), “orbit without spin” is not “word games”. The whole debate is about “orbit without spin”, and what it is. If you still don’t understand that, you have no place discussing any of it. So, stop being a barrier to progress and shut up about it for a change.
Since your point 4 says orbit and spin are independent, the whole issue resolves to determining what spin is.
bob gets it perfectly wrong, as usual.
> the whole issue resolves to determining what spin is.
Exactly. Thank you.
Little Willy shlurps along, as usual.
Continues to dodge the definition of spin with the kungfu death grip.
If you say so, bob.
Don’t forget Gaslighting Graham’s definition of “without,” Bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1566171
Willard says:
Good grief, Gill.
Could you find a more confused way to insinuate that one external rotation is one motion less than a translation plus an internal rotation?
———————————–
quite simply willard an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation (see madhavi et al), and such a concept is likely impossible without an additional power source engineered into the system to overcome friction in the system. since we can be rather certain that any such devices among the planets and their moons in the solar system don’t exist; we can be fairly certain that if we spot such an object behaving like the MOTR, that it would be a product of intelligent design. . .the only question remaining is whether you are intelligent enough to realize that.
> an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
A translation and an internal rotation, Gill.
Soon you’ll get there.
K.I.S.S.
Search for “composition of transformations.”
“A translation and an internal rotation, Gill”
Little Willy once again confirms that he disagrees with bob on point 2).
Your point 2 is not a translation and an internal rotation.
Your point 2 is wrong as are points 1 and 3.
But your point 4 is correct.
Points 1) – 4) are correct, bob. Always have been, always will be.
Point 2) is that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and it is motion as per the MOTL (not the MOTR). This is not to say that motion as per the MOTL can’t be described another way (translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis). Little Willy was saying that an external rotation was equivalent to a translation plus an internal rotation, thus he agrees with me and disagrees with you.
“we can be fairly certain that if we spot such an object behaving like the MOTR, that it would be a product of intelligent design. . ”
.
Leave it to Bill to regularly dismiss established facts and then bet the farm on wild speculations…
And of course Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again, this time equivocating on the meaning he gives to the independence of orbit and spin.
Since an external rotation on the Moon would impose a change of orientation, orbit and spin cannot be independent unless cranks detach the meaning of spin from meaning of change of orientation becomes
And of course Gaslighting Graham forgets that equivalence implies compatibility, so Bob is right about 2. For the same reason, come to think of it.
The Moon Dragon cranks house of cards is falling apart.
> becomes
Scratch that word. The idea that follows can wait.
“Points 1) 4) are correct, bob. Always have been, always will be.”
Well, you can’t argue with YECs and Flat Earthers either.
They won’t admit it either.
Despite Little Willy’s own comments showing to astute readers that he disagrees with bob, he still tries to assert bob is correct. Fun to watch. Plus, because he can’t work out how orbit and spin can be independent from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, he assumes they can’t! Hilarious. Little Willy is a force against progress.
[GILL] an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] …
bob, points 1) – 4) are correct regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue. So, the moon could rotate on its own axis, and points 1) – 4) would still be correct. This is what you fail to understand.
And out of sudden Gaslighting Graham understands the notion of independence!
There is hope.
Barrier to Progress pretends it’s anyone but him that is confused.
> Your point 2 is not a translation and an internal rotation.
Exactly. Thank you.
Already done it, already won it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1567748
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His comment has already have been refuted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1567921
” 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 below GIF (not the MOTR).”
Sorry but the Moon is rotating so this statement that the Moon is a rotation around an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is wrong, because the Moon is rotating around an internal axis.
Sorry Flat Earther you are wrong.
Try to focus, bob. The GIF is just an animation of two simplified motions. Neither of which are identical to how the moon moves. The MOTL is just closer to it. You can agree to a statement about the GIF without it having to mean anything regarding our actual moon.
And so Gaslighting Graham still fails to read his “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis exists as a motion” properly.
I can see it is just going to be a day of two bored cyber-bullies taking their frustrations out on their usual figure of hate. Despite the fact that they disagree with each other.
After having bullied just about everybody with any scientific training on this website for five years or so, and after having gaslighted me and others for three years or so, Gaslighting Graham has another meltdown.
Oh, poor defenceless Little Willy, did the nasty man make you question your own sanity for three years? How awful for you.
Gaslighting Graham, whom nobody invited in this subthread, continues his meltdown.
Gaslighting Graham, whom nobody invited in this sub thread, continues his meltdown.
Just calmly setting you guys straight, as usual.
Correcting your scientific mistakes is not bullying.
No, bob, your bullying is bullying. You and Little Willy know exactly what you’re doing.
And no, you’ve never "corrected any scientific mistakes". I’ve corrected you several times, though. The last time, even Tim Folkerts confirmed you were wrong.
That’s just wishful commenting by DREMT 10:05 am.
“The last time, even Tim Folkerts confirmed you were wrong.”
Yeah, that was because I was using a term the same way you were using it, if I was wrong, then you were also wrong.
Here you go, it seems you can’t handle it.
https://www.zazzle.com/super_sad_crying_face_emoji_towel-197130519568674903?rf=238840279726397180&tc=Cj0KCQiAyKurBhD5ARIsALamXaHfmrgztIlfp6phFFf2UhrbhJGC3r4EeGPkEa4Cc1nmKctR9nl7duYaAhemEALw_wcB&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=us_shopping&utm_term=z197130519568674903&ca_chid=2001810&ca_source=gaw&ca_ace=&ca_nw=g&ca_dev=c&ca_pl=&ca_pos=&ca_cid=547978540728&ca_agid=130517387951&ca_caid=6483200069&ca_adid=547978540728&ca_kwt=&ca_mt=&ca_fid=&ca_tid=pla-1428919316082&ca_lp=9022843&ca_li=&ca_devm=&ca_plt=&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAyKurBhD5ARIsALamXaHfmrgztIlfp6phFFf2UhrbhJGC3r4EeGPkEa4Cc1nmKctR9nl7duYaAhemEALw_wcB
Now there’s three of them! How many of you guys does it take to argue against one person?
"Yeah, that was because I was using a term the same way you were using it, if I was wrong, then you were also wrong."
Incorrect, bob. You were simply wrong, I was simply right. As usual.
Meanwhile the Moon is rotating on an internal axis, the green plate effect is real, as is the greenhouse effect.
While Team Science keeps explaining patiently and calmly why he is wrong, Gaslighting Graham continues his meltdown.
Maybe the moon is rotating on an internal axis. Who knows? We’ll never get round to settling that issue, because "Spinners" can’t agree between themselves on the points 1) – 4).
Bindidon, Norman, and others, have all agreed on point 1) before.
Little Willy and Nate agree on point 2).
Bindidon agrees on point 3).
You agree on point 4).
Why not just argue amongst yourselves until you all agree?
Because you are the author of the four points.
Why should we argue with anyone else?
More wishful DREMT commenting.
Maybe the Moon does not spin. Scientific institutions could be wrong. Space exploration could rest on mirages. Numerical models within minutes of accuracy could be all wrong.
Who knows?
Meanwhile, Gill holds that “an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation,” Bordo believes that the Moon translates, Pupman believes that REALITY speaks through him, and Gaslighting Graham just keeps repeating his crap about orbit without spin while ripping off his shirt.
"Why should we argue with anyone else?"
To demonstrate that you have a soul.
"an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation"
Yes, Bill is correct. "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" and "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis" are two completely different motions.
It’d be interesting to know when was the last time Gaslighting Graham and Pupman argued with one another on the Moon issue.
Or anything else for that matter.
Well I don’t believe I have a soul.
Being a lying hypocritical atheist.
Astute readers did not need to wait for long for Gaslighting Graham to show he has no soul:
No, Gill is not correct. An external rotation is equivalent to an internal rotation and a translation. So the claim that “an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation” is simply wrong.
A yellow bird is a bird. A sedan is a passenger car. Etc.
Yes, and Mr. obvious says
A bird is not a yellow.
A car is not necessarily a sedan and all sedans are not autos.
If you put words into Bill’s mouth, you can imagine he disagrees with Little Willy about the equivalence between an external axis rotation and a translation plus an internal axis rotation.
No need to put words into anyone’s mouths to show that Little Willy agreeing there is an equivalence between those things means he disagrees with bob on point 2).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Gill clearly stated that “an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation.”
Meanwhile, he still has to confront the absurdity of his “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis exists as a motion” when we consider the equivalence with which he still tries to bully Bob with the threat that he has no soul.
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” are two completely different motions.”
But I disagree that these are two completely different motions, for a point in rotation or translation they are completely equivalent.
So Willard and I are in agreement.
And have nothing to do with point 2 which is
” 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 below GIF (not the MOTR).”
Which Willard and I both disagree on.
Obviously point 3 is correct.
Every rotation or spin or whatever you call it has the same 2 perspectives with the same results. Inside the moon you would have to stand in the space between the molecules and be stationary while you observe the molecules closer to the surface move.
So obviously the frame of reference argument can’t be used if it doesn’t produce different results. All you are choosing with every rotation is whether your observation frame of reference is from inside or outside the rotational arc.
Alright. Let’s show once again some mercy, something Gaslighting Graham is absolutely incapable of. Take:
(SILLY TOLL BRIDGE) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis exists as a motion.
Apply the equivalence:
(EQUIVALENCE) An external rotation is equivalent to an internal rotation plus a translation.
(SILLY TOLL BRIDGE, ALTERNATE VERSION) An internal rotation plus a translation with no internal rotation exists as a motion.
If you select the proper rotating reference frame, the Moon is not rotating.
If you select the inertial reference frame the Moon is rotating.
So two selections of reference frames gives different results.
Sorry, bob. Little Willy’s comments reveal he agrees with me on point 2), and disagrees with you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568000
[ME, A HUMBLE BUTLER] (2) is absurd, for it implies that an internal rotation plus a translation with no internal rotation exists as a motion.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, THE UNINVITED GUEST TURNED TOASTMASTER, TO BOB] Sorry, bob. [H]e agrees with me on point 2), and disagrees with you.
bobdroege says:
If you select the proper rotating reference frame, the Moon is not rotating.
—————–
that of course is ridiculous. Every rotation has the same two observation points that have a fundamentally different appearances.
to realize that all you have to is imagine that the ball is hollow and you can stand on the axis.
So what you are saying is is if cherry pick fundamentally different observation points for two different rotations and you use that as an argument for a difference between the two rotations the only person you are really kidding is yourself.
I agree, it’s silly. It was Tim who suggested that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" does not even exist as a motion. So you can direct your criticism at him. Since you agree that the motion is equivalent to a translation in a circle plus a rotation on an internal axis, you disagree with bob on point 2).
Sorry, Little Willy!
Bill, what is the difference between an inertial and a non-inertial reference frame?
Maybe you should look it up, you seem to have problems with what I posted.
” It was Tim who suggested that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” does not even exist as a motion.”
Tim is correct, with the proviso that there are no such natural objects.
Though Voyager I and II, and the Hubble space telescope and other artificial celestial objects may have that property.
All the tidally locked moons in the solar system do rotate about an internal axis.
And so once again astute readers can see who’s trying to make minds meet (me and Bob) and who’s playing little games (Gill, Gaslighting Graham) here.
In fairness, Gill for once calls out Gaslighting Graham’s confusion:
He’s wrong, however. Gaslighting Graham also tries to gaslight, astute readers and Bob for instance.
bob, "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL, not the MOTR. As Nate and Little Willy agree.
Gaslighting Graham still has to correct Gill on his claim that an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation.
Besides, astute readers can notice how Gaslighting Graham distances himself from his (2) out of a sudden.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1566897
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568004
I’m sure Tim will take your point on board, Little Willy.
Here’s what I linked to:
[DREMT] What you can’t do is think of the MOTR as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
[LITTLE WILLY] Exactly. Thank you.
"Gill for once calls out Gaslighting Graham’s confusion"
I’m not confused about reference frames, Little Willy. I’ve explained time and time again precisely what I mean by my point 3). Take the wooden horse on the merry-go-round, for example. If you put the origin of your reference frame through the centre of the wooden horse itself, and keep the coordinate system axes aligned with compass directions, you could confuse yourself into thinking that it’s rotating on its own internal axis, sure. However, if you put the origin of your reference frame through the centre of the merry-go-round, instead, keeping the coordinate system axes aligned with compass directions, you gain the necessary perspective to see that it’s either:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, or
2) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Then, you need to consider the OPR…(guess which one turns out to be the correct description!)…
Sorry to burst you 5 year old bubble, but the Moon on the left is rotating on its axis as the caption says
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.”
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] What you cant do is think of the MOTR as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
[BOB] Fine, that’s also not my position.
2:11 pm: … gain the necessary perspective to see that wooden horse is either:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis wrt the mgr, or
2) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis wrt the inertial compass direction frame.
Thus DREMT’s point 3) is yet again proven wrong, thanks DREMT.
As Little Willy and bob neatly contradict each other, I’ll just deal with Ball4.
Ball4, you don’t need to add any "wrt" to my statements. The reference frame was given.
Sorry, you are wrong again.
DREMT writes 3:10 pm: “The reference was given.”
No, DREMT you gave TWO ref. systems “origin of your reference frame through the centre of the merry-go-round” and “origin of your reference frame through the centre of the wooden horse itself”.
Then in 1) and 2) DREMT did not specify which one was being used to observe motion. So I added the needed correct ref. frame in 1) and 2) which DREMT neglected to do and always does.
Thus DREMT’s point 3) is yet again neatly proven wrong, thanks DREMT.
Gaslighting Graham still fails to reconcile his viewpoint with Gill, whereas me and Bob have always seen eye to eye on that silly issue when one understands equivalence properly. He still holds that I agree with (2) when I showed it was contradictory!
Gaslighting Graham really has logical issues.
But that’s just casual gaslighting. It is when he interprets Mighty Tim’s physics points as geometry that he then translates back into his “orbit without spin” crap that he takes the cake!
Ball4 simply lies about what I posted, even though everybody can read for themselves that I specified the reference frame for the 1) and 2) – it was with the origin through the centre of the merry-go-round. Both reference frames had the coordinate system axes aligned with compass directions, in any case.
Little Willy is confused about point 2). "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is either motion like the MOTL (in which case, you agree with me), or it is motion like the MOTR (in which case, you agree with bob). It’s that simple. That black and white. Little Willy wants to hide in any grey area he can invent! He really is a shameless, spineless little weasel.
bobdroege says:
December 2, 2023 at 11:51 AM
Bill, what is the difference between an inertial and a non-inertial reference frame?
————————-
Its irrelevant because inertial and non-intertial frames aren’t identical as they are for rotations. So you have to choose a reference frame when trying to pick between say a centripetal force vs a centrifugal forcce. For rotations you don’t have reference frames you have the same set of observation frames with each one.
i.e. you can compare a rotation on an internal axis to one on an external axis from a distant star and the objects will look identical.
Likewise viewed from inside the rotation they both look the same.
If Gaslighting Graham is serious about the equivalence between an external rotation and an internal rotation with a translation, then he needs to drop his “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis,” for it amounts to say that there exists a motion that can be described as a rotation about an internal axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Little Willy comes out with some seriously ridiculous horseshit sometimes.
Gaslighting Graham still has to reconcile his position with Gill’s.
Meanwhile:
Here are Gill’s observation frames:
🤓
"Gaslighting Graham still has to reconcile his position with Gill’s."
If Bill states that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is not equivalent to "translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis" then I will dispute that with him. Until then, I don’t see that there’s a difference in our positions on that matter.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If Gill states that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is not equivalent to “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis” then I will dispute that with him.
[GILL] an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
That’s not clear enough, Little Willy. He could simply be saying that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is in no way the same thing as "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis".
After all, bob mistakes the two, frequently. He could just be trying to make sure that others don’t make the same ridiculously primitive mistake.
Astute readers should note that my most recent point about Gaslighting Graham’s (2) extends beyond logic. His failure to get that an external rotation is equivalent to an internal rotation and a translation leads him to misinterpret the CSA Truther’s demonstration, i.e.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1564533
Gaslighting Graham might very well be misinterpreting the CSA Truther’s demonstration because he fails to see that behind every outer rotation there is an inner rotation!
It’s the simplest, clearest, most straight-forward demonstration ever, Barrier to Progress. I’m not sure how you’ve got yourself so confused, but it sure is comical to watch.
To recreate movement like the MOTR, the CSAItruth equipment has to perform two motions. To recreate movement like the MOTL, the CSAItruth equipment only has to perform one motion.
Since that "one motion" can only be "orbit", for the MOTL, what does that make movement like the MOTR, Barrier to Progress?
a) "Orbit" and "spin", combined.
b) A Mexican sombrero.
Losing on the issue equivalence, Gaslighting Graham shifts to the issue of independence.
Here was the exchange, BTW:
[ME, A LOWLY SQUIRE, TO GILL] Could you find a more confused way to insinuate that one external rotation is one motion less than a translation plus an internal rotation?
[GILL, AN IMAGINARY AUDITOR] quite simply willard an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation (see madhavi et al), and such a concept is likely impossible without an additional power source engineered into the system to overcome friction in the system.
Barrier to Progress dances around, avoiding responding to the demolition of his ridiculous nonsense by switching the subject back and forth as he pleases.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Unless he has access to New Physics, that one motion can only be orbit and spin. Just like his pet GIF’s description puts it.
"Orbit" and "spin" are two motions, Little Willy. Not one.
The CSAItruth equipment performs motion like the MOTL in only one single motion. It’s not "spin", so it can only be "orbit".
Now, DREMT 3:59 pm, changes up yet again: “I specified the reference frame for the 1) and 2) – it was with the origin through the centre of the merry-go-round. Both reference frames had the coordinate system axes aligned with compass directions, in any case.”
Called out by commenters, DREMT simply drops & ignores DREMT’s 2:11 pm other “reference frame through the centre of the wooden horse itself.”
It is anybody’s guess what DREMT will change up & write next. With all this changing of reference frames, DREMT makes it obvious point 3) is proven wrong by DREMT himself, thanks DREMT.
Anyone can read my comments and see that you’re lying, Ball4.
Gaslighting Graham now switches back to the independence issue:
If one uses an external rotation to describe these two motions, then orbit and spin are not independent anymore. Which is why when the CSA Truther’s only spins the Earth he changes the orientation of the Moon.
Gaslighting Graham’s confusion is quite remarkable. His only way out is to redefine what an orbit is. And here’s where his “orbit without spin” comes in handy.
"If one uses an external rotation to describe these two motions, then orbit and spin are not independent anymore."
One doesn’t use an external rotation to describe both "orbit" and "spin", Barrier to Progress. One uses an external rotation to describe "orbit", and "orbit" only. "Spin" is independent from this motion. That is what the CSAItruth equipment demonstrates.
"his only way out is to redefine what an orbit is"
Dear me, Little Willy, back to the beginning again. It’s not, "my only way out"…it’s the whole point of the debate. How does an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remain oriented? What is "orbit without spin"? Is it movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
That’s the whole point of all this!
An "orbit" can’t just be a path…because that doesn’t resolve the issue.
With the CSAItruth equipment, "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL. That’s the OPR for that equipment.
With the XY plotter equipment, "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR. That’s the OPR for that equipment.
So which piece of equipment more accurately reflects the forces involved in "orbital motion"?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
One usually uses translation and inner rotation instead, which is equivalent.
Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to evade two constraints by switching between them. Just like he conflates geometry (e.g. rotation) and physics (spin) all the time.
"One usually uses translation and inner rotation instead, which is equivalent."
It would make sense to use them if there were two motions occurring, Barrier to Progress. With the CSAItruth equipment, for movement like the MOTL, there is only one motion occurring.
Geez Louise.
And by serendipity Gaslighting Graham proves me right:
That is the physics question.
This question is not the same as how how should we describe that motion using geometry concepts like rotation and translation!
"That is the physics question.
This question is not the same as how how should we describe that motion using geometry concepts like rotation and translation!"
Exactly. Glad we agree. Everything about points 1) – 4) is to get all that crap out of the way, agreed, so that we can go on to discuss the physics that need to be discussed.
"Everything about points 1) – 4) is to get all that crap out of the way…"
Well, not everything about points 1) – 4)…it’s one of the reasons why they need to be agreed by everyone, though. There’s a bit more to it than that, however.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
If the physics question is not the same as the geometry question, then why does he keep trying to switch to the physics question when he has no answer to the geometry points that I keep making?
Besides, here he is, begging the question:
These two motions are occuring – the Moon orbits and spins!
No, Little Willy.
We’re talking about the CSAItruth equipment, recreating movement like the MOTL.
Mechanically, the equipment does this in only one motion. That is what is actually, physically occurring with the piece of equipment.
One.
Single.
Motion.
Not "orbit" and "spin". Just "orbit".
"If the physics question is not the same as the geometry question, then why does he keep trying to switch to the physics question when he has no answer to the geometry points that I keep making?"
In the vivid and colourful fairy-tale land of your imagination, Barrier to Progress, you are making amazing geometry points that I have no answer to. In the stark landscape of reality, however, you’re just a ridiculously confused child who won’t shut up and simply needs to be instructed in what is happening by better people.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting:
We’re not talking about the CSA Truther’s his contraption. Here’s what we’re talking about:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568133
We’re talking about Gaslighting Graham’s failure to grasp what the equivalence relationship entails. His misinterpretation of the contraption is merely here to illustrate that cognitive failure.
Gaslighting Graham is an abject manipulator.
I’ve been talking about the CSAItruth equipment for the last several comments now, Little Willy.
Specifically. Mentioning the CSAItruth equipment by name, in just about every comment.
You’re the manipulator.
And here’s Gaslighting Graham’s semantic game in a nutshell:
He redefines the actual motion of the Moon as a mere orbit. Sometimes he also dares to call it an orbit without spin! In other words, the only way the CSA Truther demonstrates that the Moon cannot spin is by hiding the spin behind that outer rotation.
And since that outer rotation contains both the orbit and the actual spin of the Moon (at the rate of one inner rotation per orbit), the contraption does not make the two motions independent at all!
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting, this time trying to become the Toastmaster:
Every time Gaslighting Graham hears “contraption” he resorts to the same points, relevance be damned. What he’s been talking about is supposed to be responsive to what is being discussed!
Round and round we go, in Barrier to Progress’ little fairy-tale world of endless confusion.
The CSAItruth equipment, mechanically, recreates movement like the MOTL in one single motion. One single motion, Little Willy. That means that "spin" is then separate from, and independent of, that one single motion. This isn’t rocket science. It’s one of the most simple demonstrations I’ve ever seen.
"Orbit" and "spin" is independent with that equipment.
"Orbit" and "spin" is independent with the XY plotter equipment.
"Orbit" is different in either case. Obviously. That is the entire point of the overall debate. "Orbit without spin" being either like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Which is correct? We can’t move on to answer that question, because people like you are just barriers to progress. Endlessly holding up the blog with your confusion.
Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to deflect from the geometry point (about equivalence) by appealing to the mechanics of the contraption. The mechanics of the contraption are only relevant insofar as it shows how orbit and spin, as usually conceived by almost everyone except Moon Dragon cranks, are not independent anymore.
Sure, the CSA Truther puts a motor under the Moon to pretends they are independent. But that’s a con: when that motor is off, the Moon’s orientation is fixed to the clock’s arm. This allows him to turn the Moon by rotating the arm.
So when Gaslighting Graham redefines the concept of orbit as an orbit without spin (for the same motion), he puts the CSA Truther’s trick into words. It’s the very same trick. Only with words.
Barrier to Progress keeps trying to deflect from the geometry point (about equivalence) by appealing to the mechanics of the XY plotter equipment. The mechanics of the XY plotter equipment are only relevant insofar as it shows how "orbit" and "spin", as conceived by "Non-Spinners", are not independent with that equipment.
Sure, the XY Truther puts a motor under the moon to pretend they are independent. But that’s a con: when that motor is off, the moon’s orientation is fixed. This allows him to "spin" the moon in the opposite direction to the "orbit", at a rate of once per "orbit", by simply moving the moon in a circle.
So when Barrier to Progress redefines the concept of orbit as an orbit without spin (for the same motion), he puts the XY Truther’s trick into words. It’s the very same trick. Only with words.
___________________________________________
See how silly you’re being, Barrier to Progress?
Astute readers may give Gaslighting Graham an E for Effort.
Nothing in the material implementation of the XY plotter matters. It is only an example of a general motion. We only need it to emulate general motion.
Two motions are truly independent if and only if they do not affect one another. In the CSA Truther’s contraption, the motion of the Earth’s arm affects the motion of the Moon.
The equivalence between outer rotation and translation with inner rotation has no physical analogue. Gravity can only explain translation. It can’t explain outer rotation, nor can it explain inner rotation. This is why
Gaslighting Graham continue to run his con with a silly two-steps. First, he redefines orbit and spin. Second, he postpones indefinitely the only question that matters here:
That question has only one known answer: the Moon’s own momentum since its creation.
Moon Dragon cranks have no alternative to offer.
"Two motions are truly independent if and only if they do not affect one another. In the CSA Truther’s contraption, the motion of the Earth’s arm affects the motion of the Moon."
Which is like saying that the motions in the XY plotter equipment are not truly independent because when the XY plotter moves the moon in a circle, without the "moon spin" motor engaged, it’s spinning the moon in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, according to the "Non-Spinner" conception of "orbit". Your argument is equally flawed…
…and I’m not getting baited into the discussion you want to bait me into, which goes outside the scope of points 1) – 4).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again while dodging the question:
He just can’t resist redefining words as he runs his con. The actual concept of orbit is independent from any consideration for the inner rotation of the celestial body. So perhaps Bob was onto something when he said “the whole issue resolves to determining what spin is.”
One thing is sure: the actual concept of spin is independent from an outer rotation by any other celestial body!
The point of my last comment sails over Little Willy’s head.
It’s like talking to a brick wall.
As to your question, once everyone’s agreed that points 1) – 4) are correct, maybe then I’ll answer it. So off you go now, go and work on getting the others to agree on them.
And now that he won’t confront his lack of physical explanation, Gaslighting Graham returns to his trull bridge:
This is false. While his first two points are about geometry, his last two are about physics.
Orbit and spin are physical concepts. His first contribution in this sub-thread mentioned his pet “orbit without spin.”
Team Science have a fairly robust concepts of orbit and spin. An orbit is motion of a celestial body around another, and spin is motion of a celestial object around itself. Thus understood, orbit and spin are independent.
Now, how do we determine if a celestial object spins? For that we need to establish a frame of reference. And then everything else falls into place: change of orientation, rotation, spin, etc.
Instead of retreating to his trull bridge, perhaps our Master of Progress should dare to move forward and explain how gravity keeps the Moon facing the Earth.
"This is false."
Incorrect.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time simply denying that I have been attacking half of his trull bridge.
A True Master of Progress we got there.
"Now, how do we determine if a celestial object spins? For that we need to establish a frame of reference. And then everything else falls into place: change of orientation, rotation, spin, etc."
Careful, Little Willy. Remember the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. You wouldn’t want to go and "establish a frame of reference" that made you think that was spinning, would you!?
[This point will go over Little Willy’s head also]
"Team Science have a fairly robust concepts of orbit and spin. An orbit is motion of a celestial body around another, and spin is motion of a celestial object around itself. Thus understood, orbit and spin are independent."
…and "Non-Spinners" could agree with such vague concepts completely. Doesn’t resolve anything, Little Willy. What’s missing is the orientation that the orbiting body takes as it orbits the other celestial body, without spinning. How does it move? More like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
Gaslighting Graham is losing steam:
No spin, no change of orientation.
Next.
“Thats not clear enough, Little Willy. He could simply be saying that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is in no way the same thing as “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”.
After all, bob mistakes the two, frequently. He could just be trying to make sure that others dont make the same ridiculously primitive mistake.”
Mathematically for a point they are the same because both can be modeled by the equation:
Ax^2 + By^2 = C^2
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Thats not clear enough
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Bill is correct.
bob, if "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is equivalent to "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis", as you argue, then you’re saying that Little Willy is wrong. Since Little Willy argues 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".
_____________________________________________
And, Barrier to Progress decides that "orbit without spin" should involve no change in orientation because…
…well, no reason was given.
Perhaps one day Gaslighting Graham will be able to read what Bob is saying instead of trying to gaslight him with the things he imagine when he reads him.
Meanwhile, he complains:
Perhaps he’s trying to deny FLOM?
[BOB] The link supports my position that rotation on an external axis with no rotation on an internal axis is like the Moon on the right. DREMT, until you can figure that out, you are back on ignore.
Guess what else is like the MOTR, Little Willy, according to "Spinners"? "Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis".
So bob is saying that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is equivalent to "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis".
He’s wrong. Yet you still support him.
Instead of being honest about his denial of the First Law Of Motion, Gaslighting Graham returns to a word game he lost more than ten days ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562599
Little Willy links to a comment which purports to challenge my points 3) and 4). We’re discussing point 2), though.
This is futile. Barrier to Progress simply can’t admit that he disagrees with his hero, bob…and bob, likewise, can’t admit that he disagrees with Barrier to Progress.
Every astute reader can see that they are in disagreement, though.
I’ll respond to bob, I guess, but Barrier to Progress is going to have to go on ignore/automatic PST, for the rest of the sub-thread.
What a shame.
Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to play Toastmaster:
No, we’re not discussing. No, we are not discussing what Gaslighting Graham decides is the topic in a thread in which he is an uninvited guest. And yes, all his point are connected. His first two depend on his last two.
The First Law Of Motion states:
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
The default position should not be that the Moon rotates around the center of the Earth! Unless and until Moon Dragon cranks come up with…something, anything that would explain why gravity changes the orientation of the Moon, no cookie for them.
“So bob is saying that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is equivalent to “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”.
Hes wrong. Yet you still support him.”
I have shown them to be mathematically equivalent.
Translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis are equivalent, because, math.
Thanks for proving me correct, bob. I wasn’t putting any words in your mouth. You do disagree with Little Willy, completely.
And, he won’t do anything about it.
Hilarious.
Willard says:
”(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
The default position should not be that the Moon rotates around the center of the Earth! Unless and until Moon Dragon cranks come up withsomething, anything that would explain why gravity changes the orientation of the Moon, no cookie for them.”
Willard interprets Nate here. The problem for both of you is Nate maintains no force is necessary, just a minimum distance as one object passes another in order for there to be an angular momentum.
Yet that actually is wrong. Not because we don’t fully understand gravity but instead because the force acting on the body by gravity has been quantified. So ”r” has a force value and that force value is an amount that creates an orbit for an orbiting object and only may cause a temporary diversion in direction for a non-rotating object like a gust of wind acting on a projectile.
“Thanks for proving me correct, bob. I wasnt putting any words in your mouth. You do disagree with Little Willy, completely.”
No, I proved you incorrect, now all we have to figure out, but we have already, is which one is rotating on its axis the Moon on the left or the Moon on the right.
All we have to do is read the caption, it tells us which one is rotating.
No, bob, you proved me correct…you see, me and Little Willy were discussing how you and him disagree on my point 2). Little Willy was trying to falsely accuse me of gaslighting, and suggested that I wasn’t accurately relaying what you really thought. However, you really do actually completely disagree with Little Willy on my point 2). It’s wonderful that you confirmed that with your response to me.
Obviously, I knew that already, but it was nice of you to make it extra clear for any readers.
I’m not worried about refuting you for the 100th time on point 2), I think there’s been enough arguments over that for the last five years, and that was already conclusively settled in my favour a long time ago. I’m just content now with pointing out how you disagree with other "Spinners" on the subject, and generally laughing at your astonishing failure to understand basic kinematics.
Except that the MOTL is rotating on its axis as the caption under the GIFF states.
So your point 2 is incorrect and I have been telling you that for years.
If you can get Wikipedia to change the caption to state the MOTL is not rotating on its axis, you might have a point.
Till then.
For the twentieth time, the caption to the GIF mentions nothing about "rotation about an external axis". They just say the MOTL is "orbiting" and "rotating about its axis". So, by "orbiting", they presumably mean "translating in a circle/ellipse". Since that is what most logically-consistent "Spinners" define "orbit without spin" as. The caption to the GIF is basically irrelevant to whether "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL or the MOTR.
It’s been settled for quite some time now that it’s movement like the MOTL.
Keep the entertainment coming.
“For the twentieth time, the caption to the GIF mentions nothing about “rotation about an external axis”.”
Of course it doesn’t, no one uses that terminology when discussing orbits.
You are still wrong and Franco is still dead.
The caption also says which one is not rotating, namely the one on the right.
“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.”
So orbiting without rotation is the MOTR.
Gill makes me discover something new:
I thought it was Newton, but then that must explain why Nate is right most of the times!
Willard says:
”I thought it was Newton, but then that must explain why Nate is right most of the times!”
no doubt a thought that popped into your head after reading nate. i guess that means you don’t have a newton source supporting your thought. . .right?
More mind probing by Gill.
Let’s remind him of the First Law of Motion:
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Let’s compare that with his own interpretation:
(GRAM) Unless there is an active force maintaining the spin the rotation on an external axis will bring an end to the independent spin.
Stark contrast!
Just as I figured Willard doesn’t have a Newton source for his thoughts. All he has is Nate.
Just as I thought Gill says stuff to boss people around.
bob acts like it’s a surprise that "Spinners" think "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR. He keeps that entertainment coming, and I remain correct on point 2), as always.
Gaslighting Graham seems surprised that the idea that the Moon spins revolves around the concept of spin and not the concept of orbit without spin.
“Willard interprets Nate here. The problem for both of you is Nate maintains no force is necessary, just a minimum distance as one object passes another in order for there to be an angular momentum.”
Bill is seriously confused about angular momentum. And he is mixing up different discussions and subjects.
“Yet that actually is wrong. Not because we dont fully understand gravity but instead because the force acting on the body by gravity has been quantified. So r has a force value and that force value is an amount that creates an orbit for an orbiting object and only may cause a temporary diversion in direction for a non-rotating object like a gust of wind acting on a projectile.”
Physics put through a shredder and randomly pieced back together.
nate won’t admit it but he is actually denying that gravity provides both the moment arm and acceleration force that when combined with the moon’s linear momentum that creates the science recognized angular momentum of the moon rotating around the earth. he will play games and continue to obfuscate about the origin of that force and will claim the moon’s motion arose from some undefined force that nobody knows anything about that allegedly caused the moon to spin on its own axis and that a remanent of that spin still remains. and why does he believe that? well he claims his daddy told him that story but there is no record of that.
Gill knows that his New Physics will be ignored by Daddy Graham and Uncle Pupman.
Sad, really.
Nate will never breakthrough as all he cares about is finding approval.
bob randomly demands, in an attempt to shift focus:
“And he still won’t define what it means to spin on an internal axis.”
Forgetting that this definition has already been provided by his other half:
[LITTLE WILLY] spin is motion of a celestial object around itself
If that definition is good enough for his lover, it’s surely good enough for me.
[PUPMAN] If it aint reality, it aint science.
[GILL] science is not reality
*One week later*
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As the new toastmaster of this thread, I declare what is the topic, and Bob is OUT OF ORDER!
“nate wont admit it but he is actually denying that gravity provides both the moment arm ”
I admit that I don’t agree with Gibberish like this from Bill.
What do you even think a ‘moment arm’ is, Bill? It sure aint a FORCE.
No there is no gravity arm connecting Earth and the Moon.
Gravity pulls INWARD on orbiting objects, and that keeps them in orbit.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A robust concept isn’t a description isn’t a definition. He’s been asked how he defines spin. He simply handwaves to my own description.
The question he still evades is – how do Moon Dragon cranks determine a change of orientation?
Nate:
”The moment arm or lever arm is the perpendicular distance between the line of action of the force and the center of moments. The Center of Moments may be the actual point about which the force causes rotation. It may also be a reference point or axis about which the force may be considered as causing rotation.”
Source is MIT:
https://tinyurl.com/29yxmhhm
And of course in this case the force is gravity. Must have been a long long time ago you last studied physics. Retired?
The moment arm or lever arm is the perpendicular distance between the line of action of the force and the center of”
Yep, this is from a discussion about TORQUE.
“gravity provides both the moment arm and acceleration force that when combined with the moons linear momentum that creates the science recognized angular momentum of the moon rotating around the earth.”
Nope. Gravity provides a force, NOT a moment arm, which is a distance.
The Moon doesn’t require a gravitational torque to be in orbit or to rotate, because it has INERTIA (ie. angular momentum).
When are you going to get this straight in your head, Bill!
Now Nate retreats to his lying ways.
There is not a single mention of torque in the entire lecture Nate.
That the lecture was about architectonics should have provided a tell to Gill:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16389/torque-vs-moment
Willard joins the clan of ignoramuses and introduces a their new member to the clan from some blog site.
”Torque is the informal, practical man’s way of calling this thing; the moment of force is the more quantitative, scientific term which is better at expressing the formula”
The moment is an element to torque and orbits. the moment of gravity is an element of an artillery shell trajectories or a satellite.
that blog guy is funny. ”the moment of force is the more quantitative” than torque. LMAO!!!
Looks like Gill does not even recognize that our own Lubos himself provided an answer!
Nate says:
Nope. Gravity provides a force, NOT a moment arm, which is a distance.
——————–
It doesn’t matter. In medicine and biomechanics:
”One quantity of interest to biomechanical researchers and clinicians is muscle moment arm, a measure of the effectiveness of a muscle at contributing to a particular motion over a range of configurations.”
Very clearly the moon maintains a distance from the COM of earth and gravity acts on it like a muscle using the force you acknowledge.
You see that is also what is wrong with your skater skating straight past here partner and having angular momentum (simply because there is a minimum distance, a velocity, and a mass) without connecting the moment arm. . .literally. No moment arm, no angular momentum.
So that pretty much settles it unless you can dream up a different argument.
You see Nate experience with OPR isn’t a necessity to understand physics. But it is necessary to know the boundaries of physics and all its potential uses.
I learned about torque in high school physics. Later I learned about things like modulus of elasticity, moments, and moment arms in designing joist/rafter/beams/headers etc. in building construction in studying architecture while working in construction.
Immediately one should be able to identify a moment as a force or a momentum (like moment is the root word of momentum) and a moment arm as a distance and connection capable of specifying a rotation around an axis. that would be a rotation and not a translation BTW.
The gravitational moment arms control the motion of the moon. Now the short gravitational moment arm through connected particles in the moon can be viewed as a torque to create a rotation on the moon’s internal axis. DREMT and I have recognized that. But how you view something like our moon rotating on its own axis now requires one to look at the orbit as a translation which it is not. And the idea that an orbit collides head with the reality of the moment, moment arm and the fact they create a rotation around the earth’s COM.
I have mathematically proven that one can look at the moon as having a spin on its internal axis but to do so you need to ignore the rotation of the moon around the earth as linear momentum does not provide the moment arm for a rotation.
thus separating the orbit and the spin into two motions makes no sense physically as the two motions of the moon’s particles cannot coexist. And you know that to be true yet your refuse to recognize it.
Gill puts once again his foot in his mouth:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6284439/
If Gaslighing Graham had any integrity &c.
How does representing a capacity mean you have to have to actually exert a torque for a moment arm to exist? Indeed you could exert a force on the moon away from the earth but to slow the moon’s fall it would have to exceed the force of gravity so as to ‘break’ the moment arm, which is what beams do when they are overloaded.
The moment arm of the skaters has to exist for an angular momentum to exist.
But a moment arm doesn’t require a torque to exist. Indeed for a cantilevered beam of large dimensions and a high modulus of elasticity it can resist a lot of torque. . .but torque isn’t necessary for a rotation. . .its only necessary when there is a resistance to the rotation.
In the case of the moon there is no resistance to a planet going into rotation but a rotation needs a moment arm and you guys are trying desperately and unsuccessfully to figure out a way that the moment arm doesn’t exist.
For the moon an existing spin represents a resistance to the object going into full rotation. And the torque provided is small as everybody agrees and it may take geological time for the object to make its rotation fully visible to the viewer. . .but its always there as per DREMT as that extra sidereal rotation.
Gill asks a very good question:
Indeed, why cranks not be allowed to represent gravity using a model of the moment of force while denying that the moment of force is called a torque when gravity does not involve that moment of force and when “torque” and “moment of force” are synonyms?
Archimedes ought to be laughing is ass off right now!
Willard says:
How does representing a capacity mean you have to have to actually exert a torque for a moment arm to exist?
Indeed, why cranks not be allowed to represent gravity using a model of the moment of force while denying that the moment of force is called a torque when gravity does not involve that moment of force and when torque and moment of force are synonyms?
Archimedes ought to be laughing is ass off right now!
—————
I think he must be laughing at you.
I was talking about moment arms. You are analogizing a moment to torque. As I said the moment arm exists. You may or may not apply some torque or a moment to it.
So as soon as you realize that a moment arm isn’t a moment; then maybe you can figure out a different argument that at least has the correct premises.
I think he must be laughing at you. I was talking about moment arms. You are analogizing a moment to torque. As I said the moment arm exists. You may or may not apply some torque or a moment to it. So as soon as you realize that a moment arm isnt a moment; then maybe you can figure out a different argument that at least has the correct premises.
bobdroege says:
”Moment arm, we dont need no stinkin moment arm.”
bob is having some trouble staying on topic. He seems to be getting frustrated and may resort to violence.
Gill, Gill,
You’ll never guess how we call “torque” in French:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_d%27une_force
Keep doubling down.
Yes, we have all read your challenge to Tim Folkerts, who was the one that stated “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” does not even exist as a motion. I have spelled out again where you disagree with bob, Little Willy. Readers will be awaiting your challenge.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time trying to deflect when his cowardice is being called out. He purposefully fails to cite where Mighty Tim says what he puts in his mouth.
Besides, Bob already responded:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568031
And I responded to bob.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
Here’s what he “responded”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568035
Astute readers can see that this is an unresponsive reply.
A real POS.
bob was listing objects that move as per the MOTR, as if to say that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTR. It isn’t, he’s wrong, it’s movement as per the MOTL. Hence my response was all that was required.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1570413
Additional comment.
[PUPMAN] If it aint reality, it aint science.
[GILL] science is not reality
*A week goes by*
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Additional comment.
Little Willy’s OCD "last-wording" problem kicks in again.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Gaslighting Graham still has to reconcile his position with Gills.”
If Bill states that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is not equivalent to “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis” then I will dispute that with him. Until then, I dont see that theres a difference in our positions on that matter.
—————————-
OK I hadn’t seen this before. So lets discuss it. According to kinematic experts a translation is a motion where any line drawn between two particles does NOT change orientation.
Madhavi says that when a motion is neither a translation or a rotation its called a general plane motion.
Its clear in OPR you cannot both have the lines between particles in the moon translating and rotating at the same time regardless of which axis the moon is rotating on.
Now the classic example of a general plane motion, neither a rotation nor a translation, is a wheel rolling down the road in a single motion. This can be mathematically equivalent to translation and rotation but in OPR the lines between particles cannot be both changing orientation and not changing orientation at the same time ruling out the two simultaneous motions.
madhavi gives an example of planes moving in a straight line while rotating as equivalent to a simultaneous translation and rotation but it must be a single motion known as a general plane motion.
you can only have two rotations on different axes and two translations on different planes. or as i noted a rotation and simultaneous translation on two different planes (the rotating horse on the back of a truck trailer.
so all i am doing is calling out two contradictory motions on a single plane that the spinners have spent years arguing for.
now that is settled in good spirit to help the spinners out now that the rug has been pulled out from under their argument they still have a general plane motion in their pocket.
so now its time for them to reproduce this motion of theirs. dremt has presented the construction details of the non-spinner argument and by being an actual demonstration its at least one real opr possibility.
so the ball is in their court to replicate their motion.
My understanding is that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” (one single motion, “orbit”) is equivalent to “translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis” (two motions, “orbit” and “spin”, one “spin” per “orbit” in the same direction as the “orbit”). However, you raise a good point about general plane motion. Since the latter of those two (which is the “Spinner” perspective) could be called a general plane motion, can they really separate it into two separate motions, “orbit” and “spin”? Or should it just be one single “general plane motion”!?
Also, you should only really class as a general plane motion that which cannot be classed as a rotation or a translation. Since movement of the MOTL can be classed as a rotation, should “Spinners” really be classing it as a general plane motion in the first place!?
The issue of general plane motion tends to cloud the overall understanding somewhat.
DREMT says:
Also, you should only really class as a general plane motion that which cannot be classed as a rotation or a translation. Since movement of the MOTL can be classed as a rotation, should Spinners really be classing it as a general plane motion in the first place!?
The issue of general plane motion tends to cloud the overall understanding somewhat.
———————–
Yes exactly. They are wrong on the combination of a translation and rotation by definition. Newton didn’t define it as such. Just that he avoided matching his calculations to real separate motions by making the ”translation” a point mass that effectively has no particles. And the spinners bit on the math and continue to offer mathematical proof but can’t produce a working model of this as you have effectively stated many times by saying that if the moon did rotate on its own center it would show all sides to the earth.
thats a fact that they cannot overcome with a working model. . .so they stick with math that we know to be SIR and not OPR.
Oh, the “Spinners” could have a working model (though I had to design it for them – lol). You may have heard me refer to the “XY plotter equipment”.
So, take an XY plotter, and mount a little model moon onto the pen with a motor to rotate the model moon about its own internal axis at the push of a button. The XY plotter can be programmed to move the model moon in a circle at the push of another button (this would be the “Spinner” version of “orbit”). With the way the XY plotter works, that “orbit” button would translate the model moon in a circle. The model moon would move as per the MOTR without the “moon spin” motor engaged, just the “orbit” button depressed. Then, if you pressed both buttons, the model moon would translate in a circle whilst also rotating about an internal axis, once per “orbit”, in the same direction as the “orbit”. Then you would have movement as per the MOTL.
The problem for “Spinners” is that there is nothing with this model to reflect a physical connection between the object that is orbiting and the object being orbited. There is nothing to represent gravity, in other words! It’s as if, with this model, that “Spinners” believe there is some giant cosmic hand moving the orbiting object around the orbited object.
Back up to the long thread, here we go.
Take a piece of coat hanger wire, or any kind of wire that is stiff and straight.
Put it in a drill or other device that can rotate it nice and slowly.
All will agree that it is only rotating around an internal axis, right? Or will some disagree?
Now put two bends in the wire, without stopping the rotation, such that the far end is now revolving around, and is parallel to the end in the drill.
You can attach a paper Moon if you like, you will notice that the paper Moon keeps its face towards the inside of the orbit.
Is it now rotating on an external axis with no rotation on an internal axis, when you did not stop the rotation around the internal axis while you bent the wire?
Now unbend the two bends so the wire is as straight as possible.
Is it now only rotating on an internal axis?
Or has is always been rotating on both an internal axis and an external axis the whole time?
Put your thinking caps on guys, unless you sold them for crack.
DREMT says:
”There is nothing to represent gravity, in other words! Its as if, with this model, that Spinners believe there is some giant cosmic hand moving the orbiting object around the orbited object.”
————————
Yes they do have the hand of Newton whom they have elevated to deity creator of the universe status.
The way bob confuses himself is comical. The whole piece of wire is rotating. If you attached a model moon as you outlined, that model moon would be rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis, yes. It would have one axis of rotation, external to the moon itself, at the point where the drill is rotating the piece of wire. How can you still not understand that?
Remove the model moon and straighten out the piece of wire. All parts of that piece of wire have only one axis of rotation, at the point where the drill is rotating the piece of wire. The parts of the piece of wire are not all rotating about their own separate little imaginary axes of rotation as well, bob.
Gaslighting Graham almost gets it:
But then he drops Bob’s point again, i.e. the wire rotate in both his hands.
One piece. Two hands.
Not the same thing.
Hence why the CSA Truther cancels an inner rotation that exists.
It wasn’t that hard, now, was it?
Yep this is getting as comical as that public blog a number of CAWG scientists put together. The deal was the public could read the blog but to get posting rights you had to send in your degree credentials to show that you are a qualified scientist.
The motivation of the blog was to formulate a reply to Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s paper: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
Dr. Leif Svaalgard was one of the participants.
the blog only lasted a short time as it was quickly revealed that pro-AWG scientists on their greatest mission in their life to save the world from climate change couldn’t reach agreement on how the GHE actually worked. Kind of like in here.
Well looks like DREMT has this well in hand. I am off.
Gill is off in more than one way as is his wont.
Unbelievably, Little Willy is still confused by the CSAItruth demonstration, which is one of the simplest demonstrations I have ever seen.
You missed the point drempty
If the wire is rotating on an internal axis, and then you bend it so it’s rotating on an external axis too, it is still rotating on an internal axis, because Newton’s first law.
You guys keep referring to Madhavi as your authority on this stuff.
Except when she clearly and definitively defines ROTATION of a rigid body around an external axis as ‘all parts of the body move in concentric circles around the external axis’.
Then you guys shamelessly ignore her definition and include non-circular motions as rotations!
Why?
“The problem for Spinners is that there is nothing with this model to reflect a physical connection between the object that is orbiting and the object being orbited. There is nothing to represent gravity, in other words! Its as if, with this model, that Spinners believe there is some giant cosmic hand moving the orbiting object around the orbited object.”
For the dozenth time, because some people are incredibly dense, all these tabletop devices are designed to depict the MOTION of the planets.
They are NOT intended to accurately represent the MECHANISM, eg gravity, with its inverse square law, and how it interacts with the inertia of bodies operating in a vacuum.
So an arm attached to the Moon in a model cannot accurately model how the force of gravity works, which would be rather difficult.
Anyone who thinks gravity works remotely like a rigid arm, is being quite silly.
bob has his axes the wrong way around, amongst other confusion. There is no way to get through to him.
Unbelievably, Gaslighting Graham is still confused by Bob’s simple point, and he still is confused by the notion of equivalence!
🤦
Nate says:
”Then you guys shamelessly ignore her definition and include non-circular motions as rotations!”
Shamelessly? ROTFLMAO!
1) definitions of words are not physical laws.
2) no law excludes elliptical motion,
3) circles and ellipses only become an issue in astrophysics. what we do there falls well short of the actual design and construction of a gravity motor to produce an elliptical rotation and as such ellipses don’t need to be included to teach kinematics.
4)none of madhavi examples singles out elliptical motion as any other kind of motion emphasizing its lack of utility in mechanics.
5)she defines rotations and translation in ways that actually eliminates by physical laws the spinner thinking on the topic.
no doubt there are more reasons.
“bob has his axes the wrong way around, amongst other confusion. There is no way to get through to him.”
drempty, how do I have the axes the wrong way round?
I have just proven that orbital motion without axial rotation is not possible.
Except for a few man made objects.
Right after he took his leave, Gill returns:
Gaslighting Graham will remind him that he took his leave any minute now.
bob has proven how confused he is. Little Willy applauds, of course.
Gaslighting Graham still ignores that equivalence is a logical notion. He still ignores Gill’s infelicity. Meanwhile, he applauds Gill’s suggestion that kinematics, which comes from celestial mechanics, does not really apply to celestial mechanics!
No wonder our two buffoons can’t come up with a physical explanation as to why the Moon should not be spinning!
Little Willy and bob disagree on the transformation combos that they believe are equivalent. They should really discuss that, but everyone can see that they are not going to.
Nate says:
”Anyone who thinks gravity works remotely like a rigid arm, is being quite silly.”
Since when is a string a rigid arm Nate?
Its not your job to just complain about analogies, its to explain why its such a poor analogy and why such an analogy would suggest a different answer. If you don’t do both you are losing ground and not gaining it. And by doing neither you may as well concede the argument.
Unable to provide a physical explanation as to why the Moon would not spin, incapable to challenge Gill’s crap, Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
Exactly, Bill. It’s not about these analogies being perfect, far from it. It’s just about what is preferable. We have the “Spinners” analogy of the XY plotter equipment, in which the object that is orbiting is moved as if by some giant cosmic hand. There is nothing to represent the physical connection of gravity between the orbiting object and the orbited object at all. Then we have the “Non-Spinners” analogy of the CSAItruth equipment. Is gravity exactly like some rigid arm connecting the two? Of course not! But, is it preferable to there being no connection at all between them? Of course!
drempty just doesn’t want to address my arguments, just claims I am confused.
That’s illogical.
Please address my argument instead of hurling ad hominems.
Now that I have proven that orbital motion without axial rotation is impossible for non man made objects, perhaps one or more persons will challenge that proof with a logical argument.
I got all day.
The whole piece of wire is rotating about one single axis. Mount the model moon and the model moon is rotating about that one single axis, that is external to the model moon. You have claimed that the one single axis is the internal axis, but it is external to the model moon. That is why I said you had your axes the wrong way around.
Remove the model moon but keep the wire bent. The piece of the wire that was where the model moon was, is still not rotating on its own internal axis, it is still just rotating about that one single axis, which is external to that piece of the wire. Never is any piece of that wire rotating about more than one axis.
Not sure how you get yourself so confused, bob.
Bill again asserts that Madhavi’s definition of rotation can be ignored, without offering a shred of evidence! While in all else defers to her authority.
Her definition is not a law of physics, true, it comes from geometry and Kinematics, and is universally accepted. But Bill offers no law of physics either, no alternative definition that agrees with him, and no source that agrees with him.
It is basically his usual ‘I’m right because I feel like I’m right’.
“Its not your job to just complain about analogies, its to explain why its such a poor analogy and why such an analogy would suggest a different answer.”
Did it. Done. Thoroughly explained. Go back and read my post and try to refute it for real this time.
“Is gravity exactly like some rigid arm connecting the two? Of course not! But, is it preferable to there being no connection at all between them? Of course!”
An analogy that efficiently misleads people (and themselves) is always preferred by the LUNATIC TEAM.
An arm’s rigidity differs very much from gravity, which lacks rigidity.
That KEY difference misleads people into believing that orbit and orientation should be rigidly linked.
In reality they are not.
Thus planets orientations are, in general, changing independently from orbital motion.
drempty,
“Remove the model moon but keep the wire bent. The piece of the wire that was where the model moon was, is still not rotating on its own internal axis, it is still just rotating about that one single axis, which is external to that piece of the wire.”
The thing is, that I started rotating the wire before I bent it, and the motor is rotating the wire around an internal axis.
Since I didn’t put a force to stop the rotation when I bent it, it is still rotating around an internal axis, and since it is bent, it is now also rotating around an external axis.
You have a disagreement with Newton, I say he’s right and you are wrong.
bob, never is any piece of that wire rotating about more than one axis. It does not matter when you start it rotating, or when you bend the wire.
drempty,
It is spinning on an internal axis when I bend it. Where is the force or torque that stops the internal rotation?
If you hold the end while it is rotating on an external axis, you can feel it rotate on an internal axis.
Hold the end of the wire and try to stop it from rotating on an internal axis.
That’s all you get for today.
Never is any piece of that wire rotating about more than one axis. It does not matter when you start it rotating, or when you bend the wire.
Nate says:
Its not your job to just complain about analogies, its to explain why its such a poor analogy and why such an analogy would suggest a different answer.
Did it. Done. Thoroughly explained. Go back and read my post and try to refute it for real this time.
————————
nate when caught just lies to get out of the web of ignorance he has woven to insert his head into.
we will not move on until nate fully explains why the motion he imagines for the moon is not compliant with newton’s own laws of motion. an object cannot be going in two directions at one time. newton never claimed anything anywhere near to as ignorant as that. all you did was assume it to be true by viewing how newton dealt with a complex motion mathematically. he knew the moon isn’t a point mass dummy.
so madhavi and all qualified teachers of kinematics define basic motions. four of them in fact. two basic and two complex. you have spent five years effectively arguing that an object can be both rotating and not rotating simultaneously. the more you insist an object can do that all that is going to come out of this is evidence you are senile and unteachable.
Gill might notice how Gaslighting Graham still continues to dodge the definition of spin with Bob’s kungfu death grip.
He won’t call out his dodge.
Seems to me Willard its more important to note Bob’s confusion about how the energy of rotation on an internal axis is inevitably consumed by any rotation of that object around an external axis and by twisting the wire with the force of his hands he just accelerates the process.
Its good to have a powerful drill so it doesn’t stall in the process.
As far as spin is concerned. Well I usually call rotating a ball on a string over your head spinning a ball on a string over my head.
Are you trying to make the case that by using the word spin always specifies where the axis is? Seems to be just an attempt to control language by an authoritarian to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with real science.
Another stream-of-consciousness comment from Gill that ignores what is being said.
Funny that he insists on invoking toy examples but always seems to forget how a spinning top wobbles. A bit like the Moon, come to think of it.
Gill and Gaslighting Graham seem to spin really fast in their self-referential gyrations!
All that’s left is for bob and Little Willy to settle their massive differences. Oh, and Nate can chip in against bob if he hasn’t already.
“Never is any piece of that wire rotating about more than one axis. It does not matter when you start it rotating, or when you bend the wire.”
drempty,
Why do you hate Newton’s Laws?
The Moon is like the Earth both are revolving around an external axis while rotating around an internal axis.
My little wire demonstration proves that.
bob, there is absolutely no violation of Newton’s laws. Never is any piece of that wire rotating about more than one axis. It does not matter when you start it rotating, or when you bend the wire.
"Since I didn’t put a force to stop the rotation when I bent it, it is still rotating around an internal axis, and since it is bent, it is now also rotating around an external axis."
This is where you confuse yourself. It doesn’t matter that you bend the wire. It most definitely does not generate an additional axis of rotation. Before you bend the wire, the wire has one single axis of rotation. After you bend the wire, the wire still has one single axis of rotation. All parts of the wire are rotating about that one single axis of rotation. Attach a model moon, it too is now rotating about that one single axis of rotation. No part of the wire, or the model moon, are rotating about more than one axis of rotation.
“we will not move on until nate fully explains why the motion he imagines for the moon is not compliant with newtons own laws of motion.”
Not my claim, so nothing to explain.
“an object cannot be going in two directions at one time. newton never claimed anything anywhere near to as ignorant as that.”
Not my claim, no need to explain.
“so madhavi and all qualified teachers of kinematics define basic motions. four of them in fact. two basic and two complex. you have spent five years effectively arguing that an object can be both rotating and not rotating simultaneously.”
Again, not my claim. No quotes, No credit…
Bill continues to show that cannot rebut my actual arguments, and this frustrates the hell out of him, thus he keeps making up FAKE arguments for me.
And things that I have stated agree with Madhavi:
“2.0 Types of Motions”
“3. General plane motion”
“A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
drempty,
“This is where you confuse yourself. It doesnt matter that you bend the wire. It most definitely does not generate an additional axis of rotation. Before you bend the wire, the wire has one single axis of rotation. After you bend the wire, the wire still has one single axis of rotation.”
How does my bending the wire transform a rotation about an internal axis into a rotation about an external axis?
If you hold the end of the wire in your hand, does it twist?
bob, bending the wire changes nothing at all. The real question is, why on Earth do you think it would!? Why do you think bending a piece of rotating wire magically generates an additional axis of rotation!?
There is one axis of rotation for the wire before you bend it. There is one axis of rotation for the wire afterwards.
"If you hold the end of the wire in your hand, does it twist?"
It’s "twisting" because the entire piece of wire is rotating. About one axis, and one axis only.
drempty
“Why do you think bending a piece of rotating wire magically generates an additional axis of rotation!?”
No I don’t think that, but why do you think bending the wire eliminates one axis of rotation.
Maybe you should get a drill and a piece of stiff wire. After all experimental evidence trumps all.
Rotate the wire with the drill.
Then try it with a less stiff piece of wire.
Maybe then you will get where I am going.
The Moon is like the Earth, both are rotating on two axes, at least.
So is the wire in the drill, bent or perfectly straight.
By the way drempty, I got you again, welcome to the spinners club.
[Bob] “How does my bending the wire transform a rotation about an internal axis into a rotation about an external axis?”
[drempty] bob, bending the wire changes nothing at all.
So the wire is still rotating around an internal axis.
Conclusion: The Moon rotates around its axis, so does the CSItruther machine, so does the ball on a string, etc.
“No I don’t think that, but why do you think bending the wire eliminates one axis of rotation.”
I don’t, bob. Again, for about the fifth time, bending the wire changes nothing. There is one axis of rotation for the wire prior to bending it. There is still only one axis of rotation for the wire after bending it. No part of the wire is ever rotating about two axes of rotation.
So after bending the wire, it is still rotating on an internal axis.
Is that what you are saying, or are you contradicting yourself?
Nate says:
December 11, 2023 at 10:43 AM
And things that I have stated agree with Madhavi:
”2.0 Types of Motions”
”3. General plane motion”
”A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
—————————
well if thats the case then you are not in conflict with the non-spinners.
Where we were taking issue was in calling an orbit one motion and a rotation on the moon’s axis another motion.
If its one motion we have no disagreement except whether its a general plane motion or just a rotation.
that seems to be a facts and circumstances within mechanics question not a question of the definition of a rotation vs a translation.
Our concern arises out of the moon as a general plane motion in calculating all its energies changes from a moon to a point mass which is a huge error in the moon’s actual shape.
So how to resolve that problem. Use the moon’s shape consistently and you find that the moon’s motion doesn’t add up via all the physics or mechanics. In Madhavis example some particles of a general plane motion are moving in a straight line.
And you can’t just cherry pick the parts of Madhavi you want. You have to include her caveat as well.
”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles, while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.
In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction, whereas in the second case, point O remains fixed.
bob, what I am saying is, there is only one axis of rotation for the wire, or any part of the wire, both before and after bending it. Never two axes of rotation.
“A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.
well if thats the case then you are not in conflict with the non-spinners.
Where we were taking issue was in calling an orbit one motion and a rotation on the moons axis another motion.”
Sure, if you are fine with calling the Moon’s motion a ‘general plane motion’.
Which consists of a translation and a rotation.
But that seems inconsistent with your previous claims…
“bob, what I am saying is, there is only one axis of rotation for the wire, or any part of the wire, both before and after bending it. Never two axes of rotation.”
So it’s an internal axis before bending and an external axis after bending, which violates Newton’s first law.
Also there is an axis or revolution around the Earth, around the Sun, and around the galactic center, so there is always more than one axis of revolution.
Or, since there is no external axis of rotation ever, because the Moon orbits in an ellipse, there is always only an internal axis of rotation.
Wrong again!
"So it’s an internal axis before bending and an external axis after bending, which violates Newton’s first law."
No, bob. There is one axis of rotation before bending, and one axis of rotation after bending, which violates none of Newton’s laws. It doesn’t matter what you want to call the axis of rotation, though obviously when you have the model moon in place, the one single axis of rotation is external to the model moon, but internal to the entire piece of wire.
Think of the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. The one single axis of rotation there (which is located in the centre of the merry-go-round) is external to the wooden horse, but internal to the merry-go-round itself. It’s still just one single axis of rotation, though. There are never two axes of rotation.
Sorry drempty,
But I have already proven the horsie is rotating on both an internal axis as well as an external axis.
Tie a rope to one of the horsies ears, then loop the rope through an eye hook in the ceiling, then tie the rope to the horsies other ear.
Now as the merry go round rotates the rope will twist up, indicating an internal rotation.
Your mind is rusted shut.
You lose again, and stop telling me what to think.
"Tie a rope to one of the horsies ears, then loop the rope through an eye hook in the ceiling, then tie the rope to the horsies other ear. Now as the merry go round rotates the rope will twist up, indicating an internal rotation."
No, bob, it indicates only that the merry-go-round is rotating, and that the horse is rotating about that one single axis of rotation in the centre of the merry-go-round.
"Your mind is rusted shut."
No, bob, I just understand rotation. You don’t.
"You lose again, and stop telling me what to think."
I’ve won every exchange we’ve ever had, and I’m not telling you what to think. There’s no point trying to tell you anything, because your ignorance is invincible.
OK then,
Put a frictionless bearing under the horsie so that it maintains an orientation on the gold ring.
With the rope tied to its ears and through the eye bolt.
Now the horsie is still rotating around the merry go round, but the rope doesn’t twist up, indicating only one axis of rotation.
But without the frictionless bearing it is rotating about two axes of rotation, just like the Earth is rotating about two axes, one of rotation and one for revolving.
By the way, the rope with the horsie bolted to the merry go round indicates that the axis of rotation is not through the center of the merry go round, instead it is through the horsies head.
Still beating you like a drum.
You just confuse a change in orientation of an object for rotation about an internal axis. You simply can’t learn, so spend the rest of your life being wrong. I know I am correct, so there is nothing more to say.
bobdroege says:
OK then,
Put a frictionless bearing under the horsie so that it maintains an orientation on the gold ring.
With the rope tied to its ears and through the eye bolt.
Now the horsie is still rotating around the merry go round, but the rope doesnt twist up, indicating only one axis of rotation.
—————————-
Yes I see a pattern here. As usual as soon as you demonstrate this you will make me a believer Bob.
What we have here is a invocation of Symbolic idealistic representation, SIR that has been inculcated into all the spinners in the room
We also have Nate and Eli claiming to have refuted G&T. Given nothing interferes they claim then the earth will warm with more greenhouse gases. And they base their claims on an idealist representation of the analytical tools at their disposal.
Along comes G&T and says you can’t set conduction and convection at zero because you can’t warm a gas without triggering this.
Upon which they juice up a reply like Bob has done here with the Merry Go Round. . .and try to make it go away with the wave of the hand and a denial of reality.
Bob dreams up motions subject to friction as frictionless.
Eli dreams up warming of gases without any conduction or convection in that gas. And they refute G&T by the wave of a hand.
so how are the models supposed to suppress convection. They invent a hotspot within the atmosphere that nobody has ever seen. Nate sends me a reference of the work that applies the hotspot as instructed and claims that proves the hotspot.
Nate takes a shot at denying all rotations on external axes by trying to invoke reference frames against them.
So all these arguments begin on a premise that denies reality. And they agonize over why they aren’t convincing anybody.
I do have to say sincerely, this site is a real gas!!! A great example of the new school policies of leaving no child behind.
Genuine entertainment!
Bill,
[Bill]”Yes I see a pattern here. As usual as soon as you demonstrate this you will make me a believer Bob.”
Are you old enough to have a turntable. If so, do you also have a paper clip, some glue and some string? Then you could do an experiment and replicate my results.
[Bill]”What we have here is a invocation of Symbolic idealistic representation, SIR that has been inculcated into all the spinners in the room”
Yeah, right.
[Bill]”We also have Nate and Eli claiming to have refuted G&T. Given nothing interferes they claim then the earth will warm with more greenhouse gases. And they base their claims on an idealist representation of the analytical tools at their disposal.”
Seriously, have you read Gin and Tonic? I have, it’s unreadable.
[Bill}”Along comes G&T and says you cant set conduction and convection at zero because you cant warm a gas without triggering this.”
Yes you can, heat can only leave the Earth by conduction or convection,
[Bill]”Upon which they juice up a reply like Bob has done here with the Merry Go Round. . .and try to make it go away with the wave of the hand and a denial of reality.”
Try and experiment, stop waving your hands.
[Bill]Bob dreams up motions subject to friction as frictionless.
If you don’t like frictionless bearings, or nearly so, use an iron bar to keep the horsie from rotating.
[Bill]”Eli dreams up warming of gases without any conduction or convection in that gas. And they refute G&T by the wave of a hand.”
Time to invoke lasers, or some other method of heat transfer, namely radiation.
[Bill]”so how are the models supposed to suppress convection. They invent a hotspot within the atmosphere that nobody has ever seen. Nate sends me a reference of the work that applies the hotspot as instructed and claims that proves the hotspot.”
You know you can’t see temperature. The hotspot is hard to detect, but it has been observed. You would have to go to Real Climate for the link.
bobdroege says:
”Then you could do an experiment and replicate my results.”
————————-
If you want credibility for your experiment Bob. Get it peer reviewed and published. It could be earth shaking and win you a Nobel Prize.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”You know you cant see temperature. The hotspot is hard to detect, but it has been observed. You would have to go to Real Climate for the link.”
I went to real climate and searched on hot spot and it came up with youtube videos on how to set my phone up as a hot spot. Obviously they don’t even know what a hot spot is and they don’t have any expertise in determining if there is one or not. . .like you.
Here is a couple of articles by an expert on atmospheric temperatures that sees no hot spot. Enough said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
Pretty pitiful to try to pass of the random releases of latent heat in the atmosphere as a lasting hotspot proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bill, if you mounted the wooden horse on a frictionless axle, it would indeed move as per the MOTR. bob is right up to that point, but he goes majorly off the rails when he comes to describe that movement. The OPR is that the wooden horse would then be rotating about both an external and an internal axis, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation, in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation.
The reason that’s the OPR is, we know that if the wooden horse is physically incapable of rotating on its own internal axis (i.e. when it’s bolted to the floor of the merry-go-round), it moves as per the MOTL. Since putting the wooden horse on the merry-go-round on a frictionless axle, so that it’s physically capable of rotating on its own internal axis, makes it move as per the MOTR, we know that motion like MOTR must involve rotation about an internal axis.
To make it even clearer, picture starting the movement of the wooden horse with the frictionless axle, moving like the MOTR, and then imagine you could add more and more friction to the axle until the point that it was fully locked, and thus incapable of rotating on its own internal axis. It would start off moving like the MOTR, and finish up moving like the MOTL. Thus, the status of both motions is absolutely clear, MOTR involves rotation about an internal axis, MOTL involves no rotation about an internal axis.
Most "Spinners" would try to claim that when moving like the MOTR, the wooden horse would be purely translating. bob, on the other hand, tries to claim that it would be rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. That’s because he doesn’t understand rotation, or the difference between translation and rotation.
Bill,
“If you want credibility for your experiment Bob. Get it peer reviewed and published. It could be earth shaking and win you a Nobel Prize.”
The Swedes don’t give prizes for eighth grade science projects. Any qualified peer would say we have known that for over 300 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Look here sir, the rotational axis of the Moon is tilted at an angle other than 90 degrees from the axis of the Moons revolving around the Earth.
This is an observed fact about the Moon’s orbit and rotation.
It should be the end of the story, but we go on and on and on.
…that’s because he doesn’t understand rotation, or the difference between translation and rotation.
“We also have Nate and Eli claiming to have refuted G&T.”
OMG, Bill has grievances about all his losing arguments!
He thinks mixing them all up together with politics and conspiracy theories in a great big crank stew is a winning strategy!
It ain’t.
It just shows that he cannot win any of these arguments on the relevant facts.
Nate says:
We also have Nate and Eli claiming to have refuted G&T.
OMG, Bill has grievances about all his losing arguments!
He thinks mixing them all up together with politics and conspiracy theories in a great big crank stew is a winning strategy!
It aint.
It just shows that he cannot win any of these arguments on the relevant facts.
—————————-
Crank stew? Thats what you call G&Ts paper? Hmmm, well that should be easy for you to refute by simply providing the mathematical blueprint of how CO2 warms the surface. But there haven’t been any such calculations in any claimed refutation. All you get is bubbleheads calling those asking for those calculations manufacturing up crank stews. Sheeesh!
Do you actually think you are helping your cause with such drivel?
bobdroege says:
Look here sir, the rotational axis of the Moon is tilted at an angle other than 90 degrees from the axis of the Moons revolving around the Earth.
This is an observed fact about the Moons orbit and rotation.
It should be the end of the story, but we go on and on and on.
———————-
Bob you should know that the only reason the moon’s axis is tilted is because the moon and earth are not the only two objects in the universe. Fact is every rotation on an external axis is affected to some degree by gravity of the objects in the universe. So thats not a reason to change the characterization of a motion.
“simply providing the mathematical blueprint of how CO2 warms the surface. ”
Bill makes my case that he has no facts to win THIS argument, so he distracts us by going way off topic…
Bill,
[Bill] “Bob you should know that the only reason the moons axis is tilted is because the moon and earth are not the only two objects in the universe. Fact is every rotation on an external axis is affected to some degree by gravity of the objects in the universe. So thats not a reason to change the characterization of a motion.”
That’s not the reason the Moon’s axes are tilted, neither one of them. Those axes are not affected by gravity from other objects in the universe. Or they would be changing, the axes are fairly stable, to the extent we can predict eclipses.
Maybe you, as an engineer, can show some calculations as to how gravity affects the angles of these axes.
And I am not the one changing the characterization of a motion, you are claiming there is only one rotation for the motion of the Moon.
You get the motion of the Moon from observations, and observations show there is an orbital axes of revolution and an internal axis of rotation.
Observations hold the trump cards.
> So thats not a reason to change the characterization of a motion.
It actually is, for then the motion is complex and involves multiple axes of rotation in multiple planes. And even if one applies Euler’s theorem it’s not a ball-on-string anymore, let alone a ball on a string {1}.
If Gill was serious about his CAD diversions he’d know all of this.
{1} A ball-on-string and a ball on a string are two very different models, BTW.
The ball on a string is not a model of the moon’s exact motion, it was never meant to be. It’s just a model of "orbit without spin".
… as observed from the string.
What is being proposed is that “orbit without spin” is movement like the ball on a string. Not as observed from the string. As observed from outside the orbit. You keep insisting that we are saying something that we’re not even saying. And, you can’t learn.
… just as observed from the string.
…and, you can’t learn.
… anything that is obviously incorrect.
OK, one response per day.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
With this statement, DREMPTY continues to ignore all evidence that his position on his very own 2).
“bob acts like its a surprise that “Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. He keeps that entertainment coming, and I remain correct on point 2), as always.”
He’s gaslighting because he says we think “orbit without spin” is something.
When all we have to do is read the caption to his precious gif which agrees with the position that something that is not rotating on an internal axis is the MOTR.
And he still won’t define what it means to spin on an internal axis.
Just won’t do it, wouldn’t be prudent.
ROTFLMAO
Bob continues to argue by declaration like an authoritarian. for all we know Bob you inserted the wiki gif. that not an argument.
"When all we have to do is read the caption to his precious gif which agrees with the position that something that is not rotating on an internal axis is the MOTR."
By which they’ll mean the MOTR is translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis. They certainly won’t mean "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". The caption to the GIF is irrelevant, bob, as I already explained. Keep up the entertainment, though.
> Hes gaslighting because he says we think orbit without spin is something.
Exactly. Thank you.
bob says:
"So orbiting without rotation is the MOTR."
Then whines:
"He’s gaslighting because he says we think “orbit without spin” is something."
Ridiculous.
> And he still wont define what it means to spin on an internal axis.
Exactly. Thank you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1569190
Gaslighting Graham, taking a break from his random (!?) demands, almost answers Bob:
Astute readers might doubt this is very responsive.
First, Gaslighting Graham forgot to say if he accepts it.
Second, and more importantly, Gaslighting Graham forgets to state that a part is missing.
Third, that missing part undermines his silly trull bridge, especially (3).
No response from bob? Guess the discussion is over, then.
“If that definition is good enough for his lover, its surely good enough for me.”
DREMPTY accepts the definition of rotation about an internal axis is that spin is motion of a celestial object around itself.
Well then, good enough for me.
DREMPTY admits the Moon rotates on its axis.
That’s all I have been trying to show since whenever.
Welcome DREMPTY to the spinners club.
That is his response. For some reason Little Willy worships the guy!
Hilarious.
For all we know, Bill doesn’t know how to find out who makes changes to Wikipedia.
It’s easy to do, even I can do that.
Yeah, because I beat you like a drum DREMPTY.
When!?
All day long.
All week long.
For the last 5 years.
On the second law, on the green plate effect, on the greenhouse effect, and on the stewpid Moon.
We’ll never know about the moon, bob. We can’t get on to discussing it because the “Spinners” won’t agree that points 1) – 4) are correct, even though they obviously are, regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue. You have certainly lost on point 2), which has been our main point of disagreement over the last five years, re the moon. So, I’m very happy with that.
The other subjects mainly come down to the GHE. I’m fairly confident that within my lifetime it will become accepted physics that there’s no GHE, but we’ll see, I guess. That certainly isn’t settled at the moment.
Keep on claiming victory though, bob, it’s most amusing.
Great entertainment.
bobdroege says:
For all we know, Bill doesnt know how to find out who makes changes to Wikipedia.
Its easy to do, even I can do that.
———————————-
ok who posted the gif for the moon?
You don’t know, Gill?
It was added in 2103.
Quite an auditor we have there!
“You have certainly lost on point 2), which has been our main point of disagreement over the last five years, re the moon. So, Im very happy with that.”
Look at the MOTL again, it’s obviously rotating on its axis because it does not keep its face pointed in the same direction as the Moon orbits.
It’s obvious. Especially since your point 4 says rotation and orbiting are independent.
“Well never know about the moon, bob.”
You may never know, but I am sure, as Astronomers since Cassini have known that the Moon is tidally locked, which means it rotates on its axis with the same period that it orbits.
bob, point 2) mentions that there is another way of describing the movement of the MOTL. That way would be translating in a circle plus rotating about an internal axis. It’s just that the movement of the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. That is all you are being asked to agree with. Sheesh.
> Look at the [GIF representing the actual Moon] again, it’s obviously rotating on its axis because it does not keep its face pointed in the same direction as the Moon orbits.
That’s because you think like a physicist, Bob.
If you were a silly Moon Dragon crank like Gaslighting Graham, you’d rather waste five years of your life trying to bait people about how we could reinterpret “orbit without spin” as a mere geometric transformation. And even then you’d have to misread every single geometry book you read to come up with the silliest toll bridge known to human kind.
You and Gaslighting Graham are not the same.
“Its just that the movement of the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. That is all you are being asked to agree with. Sheesh.”
Sheesh, I don’t agree with it for two reasons.
One: The Moon is not rotating around an external axis, it is orbiting the Earth in an ellipse.
Two: The Moon is rotating on its internal axis because it does not face the same direction over time, it continuously changes its orientation as it orbits.
Unless you can agree to points one and two, there is no reason to continue to argue with you.
I agree that our real moon moves in an ellipse, and I agree that it changes its orientation. See how easy it is to agree to things, bob?
Now, back to the MOTL, which is not our real moon…
…the MOTL moves in a circle. Not an ellipse. So, it can be described as rotating about an external axis, without any controversy whatsoever. It can be correctly 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.
No more dodging, bob. Those are the facts. Just accept it.
Unfortunately, these two points are contradictory, so one of them is wrong.
“a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.”
for the following reasons
Rotation about an external axis does not specify rotation about an internal axis because point 4, orbit and spin are independent motions.
So we just look at the gif and determine if it is rotating or not.
Inspection show that the MOTL is obviously rotating on an internal axis.
So a) is internally inconsistent, so all we are left is b)
So we can conclude that MOTL is rotating on an internal axis as b) states.
” regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue.”
DREMT is not. And he seems to realize it is a lost cause.
So he focuses on other pedantic semantic issues.
If,
“I agree that our real moon moves in an ellipse, and I agree that it changes its orientation.”
You agree that the Moon changes its orientation, that means to me, that you agree that the Moon rotates on an internal axis.
Then we can be done.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
“The mathematical formula for rotating that triangle about its own axis (90 degrees) and about an external (90 degrees) would be as follows”
So both a rotation about an internal axis as well as a rotation about an external axis.
Are you really trying to deny that a change in orientation can occur without a rotation about an internal axis?
Try to post a reference that supports your case, this last one does not.
Are you really that intellectually dishonest, bob, or did you just not read the whole comment? Of course it supports my case.
He rotates the triangle about both an external and an internal axis. It does not move as per the MOTL. The only way he can get it to move as per the MOTL is by removing the internal axis rotation, so that it is just rotating about the external axis.
Completely proving me correct. Mathematically.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
…and, anyone is welcome to read through the following exchanges, of course. Nobody refutes Ftop_t, and in fact one well-known "Spinner" claims that: "I think most of us agree with what you show. We understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And we understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles."
That "Spinner" is welcome to speak up and correct bob any time he likes. Of course, it would require some integrity.
Astute readers are more than welcome to read back MikeR’s destruction of Flop’s trick, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
They might also let go of any hope that Gaslighting Graham will ever stop conflating transformation and motion.
bob’s gone very quiet, and his little gnome has popped up to try to cover for him, as usual. Weird, though, since his little gnome actually disagrees with him, anyway.
It really is just "try to contradict anything DREMT says, regardless of whether he’s right or wrong, or whether we in fact agree with him in any case".
Where’s Gill?
Looks like he’s doing all in his power to evade the fact that gravity pulls inward on orbiting objects, which is what keeps them in orbit.
A bit like Gaslighting Graham evades the fact that “object around itself” is not well-defined, which kinda defeats his toll bridge.
[LITTLE WILLY] Team Science have a fairly robust concepts of orbit and spin…
[ALSO LITTLE WILLY] Not well-defined…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1569771
Just waiting to hear from bob.
DREMPTY,
“Are you really that intellectually dishonest, bob, or did you just not read the whole comment? Of course it supports my case.”
If you can prove you have taken a college level course in Matrix Algebra, you might be able to convince me that you understand what ftop is doing.
Since you don’t and haven’t, then you don’t understand who is intellectually dishonest and who isn’t.
CV please.
Noting that I have already provided my credentials on this forum.
Even tries to gaslight Wikepedia.
“By which theyll mean the MOTR is translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis. They certainly wont mean “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.”
Gaslighters gonna gas gas gas gas gas
OK, bob, if you can’t be honest, the discussion is over.
DREMPTY,
You don’t even realize that you are the dishonest and lying one.
You have lost the argument again.
But just one comment I have saved for last.
All the points on the Moon on the left transcribe two sets of concentric circles.
One set centered on the center of the Earth,
and one set centered on the center of the Moon.
Checkmate.
No, bob, all particles of the MOTL are moving in concentric circles about the centre of the Earth. Which is what satisfies the criteria for “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. You are just a dumb, confused old man. Ftop_t’s comment proves me right, and you wrong, on point 2). Along with all the other evidence over the years. Get over it and move on.
They are also moving in concentric circles around the center of the Moon.
No, bob. They are not. Are you on drugs again?
“well-known “Spinner” claims that: “I think most of us agree with what ybelieve was to point out tou show. We understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And we understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles.”
I see the full quote, with the context is not given.
The point was that elliptical orbits are not ROTATIONS, since they do not involve concentric circles.
And also to point out that such motion can ALSO be described with a translation plus an internal rotation.
Take a hard stiff wire, like a straight piece of a coat hanger.
Bend one third of it 90 degrees, bend the last third also 90 degrees so it is parallel to the first third.
Hold it between your two hands and move it such that one end rotates around the other end.
You will notice you can’t do this without feeling the wire rotate in both your hands.
Orbiting and spinning at the same time.
I assume that Nate is aware there is a dispute between me and bob that has been going on for about five years, where bob thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTR, and I keep trying to tell him it’s actually movement as per the MOTL. I know, from back when I used to read his comments, that Nate agrees with me and disagrees with bob.
My guess is that Nate will have just had a sudden attack of integrity, and decided to set bob straight, once and for all. There’s no way anyone could be such a piece of shit that they would say anything else. Surely?
DREMPTY,
Are you OK?
Are you begging Nate to intercede on your behalf.
Sounds to me like you are losing it.
” You are just a dumb, confused old man.”
” Are you on drugs again?”
“Theres no way anyone could be such a piece of shit that they would say anything else. Surely?”
Come to Misery USA and bong up, it’s legal here.
It would be nice if someone you might listen to would talk some sense into you, but I won’t hold my breath. You just carry on being wrong for the rest of your life. Keep responding indefinitely, too..even if we are here for the rest of your life, I’ll be having the last word.
Willard says:
You dont know, Gill?
It was added in 2103.
Quite an auditor we have there!
—————————–
I didn’t ask when Willard. I asked who. bob said it was easy and since you looked it up you can answer for him.
I’ll listen to NASA, but not you.
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/#:~:text=Does%20the%20Moon%20spin%20on,Moon%20always%20faces%20our%20planet.
You won’t listen to anyone, bob. Even if someone from NASA told you that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was motion as per the MOTL, you wouldn’t accept it. It’s just a fact about rotation that you’ll never accept.
“You wont listen to anyone, bob. Even if someone from NASA told you that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was motion as per the MOTL, you wouldnt accept it. Its just a fact about rotation that youll never accept.”
If you can get a scientist from NASA to tell me rotation about an external axis with on rotation about an internal axis was motion like the Moon on the left, then I will admit you are right.
Till then you are wrong about that fact about rotation.
I’m right. Always have been, always will be.
Gill plays dumb once more:
Telling him when should make him realize that I can answer his silly sammich request.
With no support, here is another that disagrees with you.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
No disagreement on point 2) there, bob.
Yeah right, your point two has the Moon not rotating.
My cite has the Moon rotating.
That’s the only question I am interested in, does the Moon rotate or not?
No, my point 2) is not about our real moon.
It shows a picture of the real Moon, so it must be about the real Moon.
It’s either about the real Moon, or it’s about your side jism.
Or it’s about nothing, because the Moon does not rotate about an external axis.
My point 2) is not about our real moon, bob. The GIF could show a picture of a tennis ball, or some dumbbells, or even a cat. Point 2) is just a simple fact about rotation. How it all relates back to the moon issue will be made apparent once all agree on points 1) – 4). It will not be what anyone expects.
Willard says:
”Telling him when should make him realize that I can answer his silly sammich request.”
No it doesn’t. Much of Wiki is edited by anonymous posters. bob and you are claiming its easy so freaking do it and don’t lie about being able to do it without doing it.
> No it doesnt.
Yes it does.
What proves that Gill is using his real name, and how many people have the same name with which he undersigns the stuff he spouts daily?
“My point 2) is not about our real moon, bob. The GIF could show a picture of a tennis ball, or some dumbbells, or even a cat. Point 2) is just a simple fact about rotation. How it all relates back to the moon issue will be made apparent once all agree on points 1) 4). It will not be what anyone expects.”
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
The caption of the gif does not call it a rotation about an external axis.
It’s about the fact that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth and rotates on its own axis in the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
Well you just made my point. One doesn’t know who posts stuff on Wiki. Bob claimed we do and that it was easy to find out who it is and you defended him. And here you are right there right above saying it might all be BS.
The original purpose of the GIF is completely and utterly irrelevant to my point, bob.
Bob says:
Its about the fact that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth and rotates on its own axis in the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
——————————–
It is locked by the moment arm provided by the COM of the earth which is the OPR of a rotation on an external axis. We said we don’t care if you want to view it as a synchronous rotation by convenience, convention, or fiat. Science is only designed to closely approximate reality not be reality.
And synchronous rotation currently satisfies all engineering needs. So thats why we don’t complain about it. Why you complain isn’t clear at all.
Moon Dragon cranks with integrity ought to challenge Gill’s new pet talking point. Those with more flexible standards should at the very least distance themselves from it.
No, they let it slide.
Willard lacking any argument and seeing how inept the other non-spinner arguments are now makes an appeal to non-spinners to please take up the spinner cause. ROTFLMAO!!!
Well at least we should recognize Willard for recognizing who is competent and who is not. Thanks Willard.
“My guess is that Nate will have just had a sudden attack of integrity, ”
Yes indeed.
But DREMT needs to take his own advice and correct all the ridiculous things that Bill and Clint get wrong.
When can we expect that??
> argument
Gill once again uses a concept he does not understand very well.
(qltm.)
three years of study in metaphysics, epistemology, and logic at a top level university would argue for the contrary.
and BTW I think throwing it over to DREMT to judge as all of you are suggesting makes a lot of sense. So I agree with you guys on that. Pretty insightful. Have to give credit where credit is due.
Moment arm, we don’t need no stinkin moment arm.
And in fact, there isn’t one.
“It is locked by the moment arm provided by the COM of the earth which is the OPR of a rotation on an external axis.”
If you tell me who built this moment arm, I’ll tell you who posted the gif.
Gee Bob you are starting to ask some pretty deep questions. How about you pick between God or the Big Bang.
> three years of study in metaphysics, epistemology, and logic at a top level university
Gill has done everything.
Everything, except providing one single receipt.
As if it’s supposed to be impressive anyway.
I see Nate commented again. I will assume he was setting bob straight.
No need to assume that Gaslighting Graham did not put Gill straight.
Astute readers can read that he did not.
Astute readers can just scroll down to where I explain myself, perfectly clearly.
Astute readers can see when Gaslighting Graham tries to armwave his way out of a situation in which his lack of integrity is on full display.
No, I gave a full and honest account of myself.
Readers will be fully aware that Little Willy disagrees with bob, and doesn’t have the integrity to even say so, let alone argue against the guy.
“The original purpose of the GIF is completely and utterly irrelevant to my point, bob.”
Of course you would say that drempty, everything that blows your point out of the water is irrelevant.
[ME] No need to assume that Gaslighting Graham did not put Gill straight.
[GG] I gave a full and honest account of myself.
Every single time.
No integrity.
Your failure to understand my point is not my concern, bob. The caption to the GIF, the original purpose of the GIF, is completely irrelevant to my point 2), since my point 2) is just a simple fact about rotation. It’s nothing to do with "tidal locking" or our real moon. It’s just a point about rotating objects. The objects could be anything.
> Your failure to understand
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. He does not have the integrity to acknowledge that he won’t challenge Gill’s absurdities. He’s been caught at least twice washing his hands over them in this thread alone.
Speaking of failure to understand, perhaps he ought to meditate on that:
To explain why this happens should be easy for him to explain using his “orbit without spin” trick.
Little Willy has written enough comments now that show agreement with my point 2), and disagreement with bob, that readers will not take him seriously any more until he challenges bob.
Gaslighting Graham has written enough comments to clearly show he really has no idea what equivalence means.
And he won’t challenge Gill.
No integrity. No shame.
When Little Willy challenges bob on point 2), readers might consider taking him seriously again.
drempty,
You will have to show where Willard disagrees with me, as he just fully quoted me.
Take a straight piece of wire, spin it with your hands, and bend it like a dog’s leg, by the conservation of angular momentum, the opposite end of the wire from your hand is still spinning.
This is a cheaper version of the CSI truther experiment.
And proves your point 2 false.
Readers can just scroll up and find where the disagreement between bob and Little Willy was explained in full. bob has stated he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” are equivalent. Little Willy has stated that he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis” are equivalent.
Readers don’t need to scroll up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1568004
I kept telling him that I found his trull bridge absurd, he keeps telling me I agree with him about his silly trull bridge.
No integrity. No shame. A real piece of shit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1570795
drempty,
Perhaps you could link to Willard’s statement where he said this
“Little Willy has stated that he thinks rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis and translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis are equivalent.”
With a value of zero for rotation, the statements are equivalent.
Since your “quote” doesn’t specify the amount of rotation, you got nothing.
What I got are two spineless pieces of shit who keep trying to wriggle out of their disagreement.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1570806
Gaslighting Graham is a real piece of shit.
Your dispute is with bob, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham keeps playing you-and-him-fight games that he himself ignores with his fellow Moon Dragon cranks, especially Gill in this page. His excuses to stall are obvious:
The only thing there is a silly macguffin.
Again – your dispute is with bob, Little Willy.
Astute readers can recognize when Gaslighting Graham is on his phone and completely disconnected from what is being said.
For the third time your dispute is with bob, Little Willy.
For the second time, astute readers can recognize when Gaslighting Graham is on his phone and completely disconnected from what is being said.
Bill,
The big bang is God.
Or
God is the big bang.
I can’t remember which.
bob, just a reminder that you and Little Willy disagree with each other. You might want to settle your dispute.
For the second time, Gaslighting Graham keeps playing you-and-him-fight games that he himself ignores with his fellow Moon Dragon cranks, especially Gill in this page. His excuses to stall are obvious:
The only thing there is a silly macguffin.
Little Willy carries on playing his silly "you-and-him-fight" games whilst ignoring the glaring, utterly fundamental disagreement he has with bob, and has had for about the last two to three years. What a miserable little argument-losing failure.
For the third time, Gaslighting Graham keeps playing you-and-him-fight games that he himself ignores with his fellow Moon Dragon cranks, especially Gill in this page. His excuses to stall are obvious:
The only thing there is a silly macguffin.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1570975
Willard says:
”For the second time, Gaslighting Graham keeps playing you-and-him-fight games that he himself ignores with his fellow Moon Dragon cranks, especially Gill in this page.”
I have no idea of what you are talking about. i don’t read half of what either you or dremt posts as i have jobs and other interests.
DREMT has outlined 4 points. i agree with all 4 points. i might add 5) that the moons particles can not both rotate and not rotate around themselves in two separate motions at the same time.
Gill plays dumb again:
There are 12 occurences of “shape or form” on this page!
Little Willy, has it ever occurred to you that when people say they have no idea what you are talking about, they might not actually be lying?
CTRL-F “shape or form”:
In any event, he knows that Gaslighting Graham disagrees with his claim that an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation but they wont hash it out.
***
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If Gill states that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is not equivalent to translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis then I will dispute that with him.
[GILL] an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
***
Maybe the Moon does not spin. Scientific institutions could be wrong. Space exploration could rest on mirages. Numerical models within minutes of accuracy could be all wrong.
Who knows?
Meanwhile, Gill holds that “an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation,” Bordo believes that the Moon translates, Pupman believes that REALITY speaks through him, and Gaslighting Graham just keeps repeating his crap about orbit without spin while ripping off his shirt.
***
> an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
A translation and an internal rotation, Gill.
Soon youll get there.
***
[GILL] an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM]…
***
Gill insanely hopes that “insanely hopes” isn’t insulting or that it will help distract astute readers from his divergence of opinions with Gaslighting Graham about his belief that an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation.
***
Kids these days. No attention span.
Yes, and “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is in no way equivalent to “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”. As you agree, Little Willy. So, if that is what Bill meant (and I have no reason to assume otherwise), then I agree with him, and you agree with him. The only person who disagrees with him would be bob. Meaning that you, me and Bill disagree with bob.
If Bill meant something else, he has had plenty of opportunity to let us know.
“Yes, and rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is in no way equivalent to translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
It is for a point rotating around an external axis or translating in a circle.
That’s one way!
“We said we dont care if you want to view it as a synchronous rotation by convenience, convention, or fiat. Science is only designed to closely approximate reality not be reality.”
“And synchronous rotation currently satisfies all engineering needs. So thats why we dont complain about it. Why you complain isnt clear at all.”
Ummm, I beg to differ…
The word synchronous means two or more motions are correlated.
Thus far you guys have always rejected that notion.
“for a point…”
[rolls eyes]
It’s settled that Gaslighting Graham disagrees with Gill about the relationship between translation and rotation.
Gaslighting Graham has had ample opportunity to present his physical explanation as to why the Moon should not be spinning. The fact that he chooses not to can only mean that he doesn’t think he can provide one.
I’m glad we sorted that.
“for a point
[rolls eyes]”
That’s all you got?
Bill and I are discussing it upthread, Little Willy. It seems like there is not much disagreement between us. If any. When will you discuss your colossal disagreement with bob?
Also…does a point have an internal axis about which it can rotate?
Neither Gaslighting Graham nor Gill came up with a physical explanation that would support their contention.
Thus we can put the Moon Dragon cranks’ myth to rest.
Sure, do what you like. It will certainly be a better and more honest debate without your involvement. Cheerio, then.
Pity Gaslighting Graham can’t move forward on his issue now that he admitted not having a physical explanation as to why the Moon should not be spinning.
It only leaves him two other bridges for his trulling, and they’re already quite shaky.
Why is Little Willy still commenting?
Why is Gaslighting Graham still commenting?
I’m not the one who just claimed the discussion was over. If you think it’s over, there is no reason for you to continue to comment.
“Alsodoes a point have an internal axis about which it can rotate?”
No, of course not, it is dimensionless, has no sides, no faces, no top, no bottom, no length, no width, no height, etc.
Well, there you go then, bob. That’s why it’s silly to be talking about points “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, or “translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”. That’s why I rolled my eyes.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Im not the one who just claimed the discussion was over.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Its settled
I was saying one tiny part of the overall debate was settled. You were saying the entire debate was settled.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Now that the main issue is settled in favor of Team Science and that we all agree that the Moon spins, I can deal with all the spurious details Moon Dragon cranks threw Team Science’s way.
You are living in a dream world.
Gaslighting Graham really has trouble escaping his own traps.
One has to wonder why.
One has to wonder why you make up so much crap.
“Thats why its silly to be talking about points rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, or translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis. Thats why I rolled my eyes.”
No, there is a point, you missed it drempty.
Gill’s confusion is quite obvious when we put both claims side by side:
(C1) an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation (see madhavi)
(C2) such a concept is likely impossible without an additional power source engineered into the system to overcome friction in the system.
Either A is in no way shape or form B, or it’s possible that it is.
The fact that concepts are not bound by friction.
Meanwhile, Gaslighting Graham continues to gaslight, trying to pretend that his “but but but general motion” has anything to do with C1 or C2.
No, bob, you definitely missed my point.
Little Willy writes another mini-essay to be ignored.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1572155
Another link for readers to ignore.
https://tinyurl.com/why-the-gif-is-indeterminate
Ditto.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1569852
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“I have mathematically proven that one can look at the moon as having a spin on its internal axis but to do so you need to ignore the rotation of the moon around the earth as linear momentum does not provide the moment arm for a rotation.”
No you didnt. Gobbledegook is not something proven mathematically.
You keep misusing physics words and combining them in ways that make no sense at all.
You still can’t do the simple math to show L = rxp for the skater is constant.
“I learned about torque in high school physics.”
Sure, Bill. If so. then you should realize that the MIT article was describing torque.
But you lose your shit anyway and say:
“Now Nate retreats to his lying ways.
There is not a single mention of torque in the entire lecture Nate.”
Torque is just an element to rotation if and only if there is a resistance to that rotation.
For a moon with an existing spin that is a resistance to full rotation and thus since the torque is very small it can take geologic eras to go into full rotation and eliminate the existing spin sucking its energy into an increased r value for the rotation.
You are just confused and in over your head because you can’t see the that the words rotation, orbit, and spin are all analogous.
(i.e. rotations on external axes, and rotations on interior axes)
Gill continues to rewrite physics:
When will Moon Dragon cranks reprobate him?
Prolly never.
No integrity.
Little Willy, two points:
1) “Non-Spinners” have shown that they will debate “Non-Spinners”. I have disagreed with Clint R about tidal locking, and have discussed it with him. Clint R is regularly quite scathing of Gordon. “Spinner”, on the other hand, will never argue against “Spinner”. Despite their many disagreements amongst themselves.
2) I always thought that torque was a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. I also thought that angular momentum was the rotational analogue of linear momentum. However, I was informed that although the force from the cannon does generate a torque about the external axis, it does not lead to a rotation about that external axis, even though the cannonball moves around the Earth in a circle. And, angular momentum apparently exists in an object that is moving in a straight line, or translating in a circle. So, since these concepts apparently don’t mean what they are defined as meaning, as far as I’m concerned Bill (and anyone else) can say whatever they like about them.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
His first point is false, and his second point is his usual deflection toward the silly cannonball.
No integrity.
I’m not gaslighting. The first point is correct, and so is the second one. Most people would have just said, "fair enough"…but Little Willy has to try and gaslight.
Gaslighting Graham still gaslights.
His first point is obviously false, besides being tangential to what it is meant to respond.
He also silently drops his second point.
No integrity.
I fully stand by both points, and drop nothing. The first point is obviously correct. Readers will have seen Clint R berating Gordon plenty of times. They may recall the time Clint R and I discussed tidal locking. Times, actually, it’s happened more than once. The second point is of course correct, also. Bill (and anyone else) can say whatever they like re torque or angular momentum, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve been told that neither term means what it is defined to mean, so why should I care?
When "Spinners" start to debate honestly, maybe I’ll start to take their whining more seriously.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Where he stands on his point is the lesser of what is of concern here. He is not challenging Gill’s ridiculous distinction between torque and moment of force. He is trying to deflect from the fact of the matter out of cowardice.
No integrity.
Bill can say what he likes about torque, as can anyone else, as I explained.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Bill can say what he likes about torque, as can anyone else, as I explained.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Little Willy has written enough comments now that show agreement with my point 2), and disagreement with bob, that readers will not take him seriously any more until he challenges bob.
No integrity. No shame.
Readers patiently await Little Willy challenging bob.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting, and astute readers are still awaiting him to challenge Gill.
Astute readers will have read my explanation as to why I am not challenging Bill. Where is your explanation as to why you are not challenging bob?
Astute readers can see that Gaslighting Graham has cheap excuse for failing to correct Gill on two very basic mistakes on this page.
They also know that I already explained multiple times why I hold that his (2) is absurd and thus has nothing to do with the point I have been making.
Gaslighting Graham keeps making you-and-him-fights instead of acknowledging that he’s using that to stall the exchange. That way he’ll never take responsibility for the fact that Moon Dragon cranks have no physical explanation behind their claim that the Moon does not spin.
No shame. No integrity. A real POS.
“For a moon with an existing spin that is a resistance to full rotation”
Spin is a resistance? Huh?
“and thus since the torque is very small it can take geologic eras to go into full rotation and ”
As I have been arguing, no gravitational torque is required to keep the Moon in orbit, and the tidal torque is teeny tiny relatively speaking.
“and eliminate the existing spin sucking its energy into an increased r value for the rotation.”
It does not eliminate it. A 1-1 spin-orbit resonance has a spin rate that matches the (average) orbital rate.
"They also know that I already explained multiple times why I hold that his (2) is absurd and thus has nothing to do with the point I have been making."
That’s just a feeble excuse, Little Willy. The meat and potatoes of point 2) is, "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. You know that. However, because I recently added a few words about how it "exists as a motion", since Tim Folkerts asserted that it does not even exist as a motion, you have taken that as a way to try and assert that my point 2) is "absurd", rather than deal with the "meat and potatoes" of it. It’s just despicable, really.
Here are the facts:
1) Little Willy agrees with me that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTL, not the MOTR.
2) Little Willy disagrees with bob, on that point.
3) bob knows that Little Willy disagrees with him.
4) Little Willy and bob are just playing a game, to attempt to irritate me. They’re not succeeding, and are just making themselves look worse and worse.
Here are the facts:
1. Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
2. Gaslighting Graham does not understand what equivalence means.
3. Gaslighting Graham misunderstands what Bob and me are saying.
4. Gaslighting Graham has yet to confront Gill on two fairly basic points on this page.
5. Gaslighting Graham is a POS.
And FYI this is an earlier comment of yours, Bill.
“Fact is Nate if you remove Lspin from the MOTL you have broken the torque arm that forces the moon to bend the moon around the earth.”
where you talked about ‘torque arm’ whatever that is, and were clearly thinking that torque was required to make the Moon orbit.
It isn’t!
It illustrates that you have been very confused and all over the place on these issues of torque, moment arms, orbit and spin.
You need to review physics, and get your story straight in your mind before telling us what it is!
"1. Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again."
Standard nonsense from Little Willy.
"2. Gaslighting Graham does not understand what equivalence means."
An absurd and obviously false statement that Little Willy likes to bandy about, as if it gets him out of trouble.
"3. Gaslighting Graham misunderstands what Bob and me are saying."
No, I don’t, Little Willy. It really is as simple as bob saying that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTR, when that’s wrong. There’s nothing more to it than that.
"4. Gaslighting Graham has yet to confront Gill on two fairly basic points on this page."
Why don’t you explain what those points are exactly, then Bill can confirm if you are misrepresenting him, or not. Because, you do tend to misrepresent people quite a lot, Little Willy.
"5. Gaslighting Graham is a POS."
I’m a better person than you are, in just about every measurable quantity.
“Standard nonsense”
Standard quote fest from Gaslighting Graham.
“An absurd and obviously false statement”
A true and almost trivial statement Gaslighting Graham will have problems refuting.
“No, I dont”
Yes, Gaslighting Graham does.
“It really is as simple as bob saying that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTR, when thats wrong.”
So simple. It rolls off the tongue, really.
Everybody can understand the first time they read it.
There’s absolutely no ambiguity in that statement.
“Why dont you explain what those points are exactly”
More sealioning from Gaslighting Graham.
“you do tend to misrepresent people quite a lot”
More gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham, which I’m sure he will try to prove any second now.
“Im a better person than you are, in just about every measurable quantity.”
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
He could have moved on years ago.
Here he is again, still playing his silly you-and-him-fight games instead of entertaining astute readers about how his silly and false points are related to the contention that the Moon does not spin.
"A true and almost trivial statement Gaslighting Graham will have problems refuting."
Little Willy attempts to shift the burden of proof. It’s most definitely on you to prove such a ridiculous statement is true, not for me to prove it false.
"Yes, Gaslighting Graham does".
Incorrect.
"So simple. It rolls off the tongue, really. Everybody can understand the first time they read it. There’s absolutely no ambiguity in that statement."
I presume you’re being sarcastic, but in fact all that is perfectly correct. To anyone of reasonable intelligence.
"More sealioning from Gaslighting Graham."
Like most normal people, I don’t even know what "sealioning" means.
"More gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham, which I’m sure he will try to prove any second now."
People can just read through our long exchanges. You misrepresent me constantly.
"Here he is again, still playing his silly you-and-him-fight games instead of entertaining astute readers about how his silly and false points are related to the contention that the Moon does not spin."
Points 1) – 4) are correct, and you even agree with me on point 2).
Nate says:
”It illustrates that you have been very confused and all over the place on these issues of torque, moment arms, orbit and spin.”
i am just talking the common language of a mechanic rather than the narrow dictionary of physics. since moment is the same force as torque, except that torque is exclusively used in an actual rotation and a moment can be occur without rotation. why can’t even a pea-sized brain figure out what i am talking about. . .seriously!
More quote fest by Gaslighting Graham:
“shift the burden of proof”
False. Gaslighting Graham simply plays dumb about what has already been established.
“Incorrect.”
False.
“To anyone of reasonable intelligence.”
Anyone of reasonable intelligence would not rely on a silly GIF that disproves their position as some kind of mental model nobody by Moon Dragon cranks care about.
“Like most normal people”
Gaslighting Graham denies the greenhouse effect and that the Moon spins.
Let that sink in.
“People can just read through our long exchanges.”
Handwaving again.
“Points 1) 4) are correct”
False.
“you even agree with me on point 2)”
Gaslighting Graham earns his nickname once more.
“and eliminate the existing spin sucking its energy into an increased r value for the rotation.”
A larger orbit has less energy, so no sucking of energy needed. The orbital angular momentum increases, however, at the expense of some spin angular momentum.
Nate says:
December 7, 2023 at 12:15 PM
For a moon with an existing spin that is a resistance to full rotation
Spin is a resistance? Huh?
———————-
Sure it was theorized as a resistance against the rotation of the moon around the earth reaching a stable state with a higher ”r” value for mvr of the moon around the earth. Some of that energy was held in a gradually diminishing spin on the moon’s central axis in a separate rotation.
the math shows this to be the case. Why can’t you wrap your brain around that? Too inculcated by your daddies?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nate says:
” ”and thus since the torque is very small it can take geologic eras to go into full rotation and ”
As I have been arguing, no gravitational torque is required to keep the Moon in orbit, and the tidal torque is teeny tiny relatively speaking.
—————————-
well we have come to agreement on that when we started the spinners were claiming that gravity couldn’t exert any torque on the moon. but the torque is far from tiny. even the moon’s torque on the earth moves massive quantities of air and water. and its a lot weaker than the earth’s torque on the moon that removed the spin on the moon’s axis.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nate says:
” ”and eliminate the existing spin sucking its energy into an increased r value for the rotation.”
It does not eliminate it. A 1-1 spin-orbit resonance has a spin rate that matches the (average) orbital rate.”
——————————-
well i understand that some people can walk and chew gum at the same time. but its rare to run into people so inculcated in their beliefs that they think the moon can rotate on its own axis at the same time that its not. kind of like thinking people can walk forwards and backwards at the same time.
> the words rotation, orbit, and spin are all analogous.
Gaslighting Graham disagrees with you, Gill, but he won’t challenge you over it because he’s a coward and a POS.
Willard says:
”Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Where he stands on his point is the lesser of what is of concern here. He is not challenging Gills ridiculous distinction between torque and moment of force. He is trying to deflect from the fact of the matter out of cowardice.”
willard just doesn’t understand the subtle SIR difference. both are the same in physics but aren’t in mechanics. in mechanics torque is a turning force and a moment is a static force.
Gill says “the subtle SIR difference” as if it’s supposed to mean something.
In any event, he knows that Gaslighting Graham disagrees with his claim that “an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation” but they won’t hash it out.
No integrity. No shame. No honor.
willard says:
”Here he is again, still playing his silly you-and-him-fight games instead of entertaining astute readers about how his silly and false points are related to the contention that the Moon does not spin.”
—————————-
Willard continues to insanely hope that he wins this mechanical argument via insults.
Gill insanely hopes that “insanely hopes” isn’t insulting or that it will help distract astute readers from his divergence of opinions with Gaslighting Graham about his belief that “an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation.”
"False. Gaslighting Graham simply plays dumb about what has already been established."
Lol. It has not been "established" that I don’t understand equivalence. Sheesh. Do you hear yourself?
"False."
Incorrect.
"Anyone of reasonable intelligence would not rely on a silly GIF that disproves their position as some kind of mental model nobody by Moon Dragon cranks care about."
Little Willy just says stuff. None of it’s true.
"Handwaving again."
No, I’m truth-waving again.
"False."
Incorrect, Little Willy. Points 1) – 4) are all correct.
"Gaslighting Graham earns his nickname once more."
I know that you agree with me on point 2). Lol. Deny it all you want. Your statements on geometry show that you agree.
More quote fest by Gaslighting Graham:
“Lol.”
Another melt down.
“It has not been “established””
Yes it has. Readers just have to read years of exchange with Bob.
“Sheesh.”
More evidence of a melt down.
“Do you hear yourself?
More gaslighting.
“Incorrect.”
False.
“just says stuff.”
Incorrect.
“None of its true.”
False.
“Im truth-waving again.”
Does Gaslighting Graham hear himself?
“Incorrect”
False. Gaslighting Graham’s silly trull bridge is incorrect.
“I know that you agree with me”
More gaslighting.
“Lol.”
More meltdown.
“Deny it”
More gaslighting.
“Your statements on geometry show that you agree.”
False.
Little Willy, let’s just settle this.
If you think that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTR, as bob thinks, say so now.
You have no reason not to say so, if you agree with him. So, if you try to avoid this, in any way, I and anyone reading will assume you actually disagree with bob, as all your statements on geometry indicate.
And, my points 1) – 4) are all correct. Keep on denying!
We get it Bill, you are insecure about your ignorance of some of the topics. Anybody who is educated and actually knows what they are talking has to be taken down a notch, thus they are labelled ‘inculcated’.
Here’s a simpler way to settle “this” –
Let Gaslighting Graham admit that he has no physical explanation as to why the actual Moon should not be seen as spinning and that all he had for going about it for five years is a silly macguffin.
Only then could we able to revisit every single extraneous detail.
As expected, Little Willy evades. Thus, we can safely conclude that he disagrees with bob, on point 2), and agrees with me, as all his statements on geometry suggest.
Settled.
Unless and until Moon Dragon cranks come up with a physical explanation as to why the actual Moon should not be seen as spinning, there’s no progress possible on the issue.
I mean, srsly. Astute readers should not need to think about it for long.
Gaslighting Graham’s latest round of browbeating has nothing to do with anything.
Willard says:
”Gill insanely hopes that ”insanely hopes” isnt insulting or that it will help distract astute readers from his divergence of opinions with Gaslighting Graham about his belief that ”an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation.”
——————–
well actually i am not sure we do disagree.
my view is it is ok to view the moon as rotating on its central axis for most purposes. we can understand how to build a rotation on an external axis with or without spin on its central axis. but maybe you can explain a way to build your view of an object rotating on an external axis with a motor running on its internal turning the moon while it holds one face toward the earth while that moon either rotates on an external axis or even if it doesn’t rotate around the external axis. dremts video clearly demonstrated his and my viewpoint. why don’t you guys build your version and show that csitruther left something out?
actually what is really happening here is a lesson in why the scientific method and experimentation is a requirement for good science.
spinners are not going to accept a statistical argument here and they probably shouldn’t despite it being an easy and almost intuitive statistical argument as there is at least one possible exception to any statistically formulated rule.
It’s settled that Little Willy agrees with me, and disagrees with bob, on my point 2).
Little Willy has had ample opportunity to state if he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTR. The fact that he chooses not to can only mean that he doesn’t think that’s the case. Which would tie in with all his statements on geometry, for example his “Fact 1” and “Fact 2”.
I’m glad we sorted that.
Gill goes for his usual deflection:
Too easy –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562412
Still no physical explanation by our Moon Dragon cranks.
Which means they have none.
That’s settled.
Despite it being beyond the scope of points 1) – 4), I put forward the beginnings of a physical argument as to why the “Non-Spinner” view might be preferable, a couple of times. Each time Little Willy religiously evaded responding to it.
Since there’s no physical explanation forthcoming by Moon Dragon cranks, we can safely put the Moon debate to rest.
At long last!
Sure, do what you like. It will certainly be a better and more honest debate without your involvement. Cheerio, then.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If Gill states that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is not equivalent to translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis then I will dispute that with him.
[GILL] an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Yes, and rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is in no way equivalent to translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
False summary.
Cheerio, then.
Whatever happens to the two trull bridges left in Gaslighting Graham’s playbook, he can always resort to gaslighting.
Why is Little Willy still commenting?
Why is Gaslighting Graham still here if he does not have a physical explanation of why the Moon should not be orbiting?
Willard says:
”Gill goes for his usual deflection:
maybe you can explain a way to build your view of an object rotating on an external axis with a motor running on its internal [etc, followed by more gibberish]
Too easy
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1562412
Still no physical explanation by our Moon Dragon cranks.
Which means they have none.
Thats settled.”
willard waves his arms and expects it to all disappear.
1) I said mathematically its equivalent. And you offer a numberical model to agree with me.
2) I said the ball in your court is to design a physical model that works. DREMT already provided one that provides mechanical explanations of the motions of both the MOTL and the MOTR.
Now its your turn. No deflections allowed.
Gill goes for the mumbo-jumbo once again:
What is equivalent with what, again?
Here’s what is not equivalent in Gill’s universe:
[GILL] an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation
He won’t fight with Gaslighting Graham, who believes that an external rotation is in some way or some form a translation.
We are currently discussing that, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1571492
When are you going to discuss your disagreement with bob?
Gaslighting Graham once again plays the Toastmaster.
I was responding to Gill, whose mumbo-jumbo he won’t discuss.
And here’s something that should interest him:
[GILL] my view is it is ok to view the moon as rotating on its central axis for most purposes
Looks like we got a crypto-spinner among us!
Little Willy wanted me and Bill to discuss a supposed difference of opinion on translation and rotation. We discussed it. There was no real difference of opinion. I link to the discussion. Little Willy tells me I haven’t discussed it with Bill. Just weird denial of reality!
And, it is OK to view the moon as spinning. What difference does it really make? People can look at it that way if they so wish.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He feigned to address the fact that Gill clearly said that an external rotation is in no way shape or form a translation. Gill clearly failed to address the point of contention.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham simply has difficulties with basic pragmatic. But most probably he is simply gaslighting.
Could be both.
I wonder if Willard has always had a problem with paying attention in class.
No need to wonder why Gill would rubberstamp Gaslighting Graham when he says that you raise a point about general motion here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1567554
Perhaps when you were referring to intelligent design you did, but not there. You were only riffing on your crappy concept of torque-without-torque-because-it-is-frictionless-or-something.
Care to try again, this time without paying lip service to Newton?
No need to hint at the Second Law of Motion to characterize a rotation the way Gaslighting Graham tries to do right now.
Nobody has a clue what his problem is, Bill.
When is Little Willy going to discuss his disagreement with bob?
yep, imagine being his parents and the amount of food he threw at the walls.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1571995
When is Little Willy going to discuss his disagreement with bob?
When will Gaslighting Graham provide a physical explanation as to why the Moon should not be spinning?
#2
When is Little Willy going to discuss his disagreement with bob?
When Gaslighting Graham will provide a physical explanation as to why the Moon should not be spinning, Gaslighting Graham will be able to make any sammich request he wants.
thats simple. willard has not yet found the paper that identifies a force to make it spin. as it stands science has identified an anti-spin force from the earth’s gravity that keeps it tidal locked in one spot in relationship to earth so that only one side faces earth as the moon spins around the earth. so yeah the moon is spinning just that its only seen as spinning on its own axis due to it spinning around earth and being able to see all its sides from any star.
“so yeah the moon is spinning just that its only seen as spinning on its own axis due to it spinning around earth and being able to see all its sides from any star.”
Once in while, your arguments inadvertently get at the key facts, Bill. In this instance it is that the Moon’s spin is all about reference frames.
Suppose each night at midnight, a person aligns their head to look straight at the Moon. To do that, their head has to turn slightly each night, and makes a full rotation once in 27 days, wrt the stars.
Thus looking at the Moon from Earth is looking from a ROTATING REFERENCE FRAME. And in that frame the Moon is NOT spinning.
Whilst an observer looking at the Moon from a fixed place among the stars, a non-rotating reference frame, sees that the Moon is spinning.
So the whole TMDNS is not OPR at all, since it is reference frame dependent.
Gill is the dad Gaslighting Graham never had:
All we need now is his seal of approval.
#3
When is Little Willy going to discuss his disagreement with bob?
When will you address my two proofs that you are wrong on your point 2.
Maybe then Willard and I can split some hairs.
But you have the Grand Canyon to leap over our disagreements with your point 1-3. Point 4 is fine.
My points 1) – 4) are correct. That will never change.
drempty,
I have proven point 2 wrong two ways.
Sorry for your loss.
No more arguments unless you address those two proofs.
The wire thing is just an example of you confusing yourself. What else is there to address?
Gaslighting Graham has written enough comments now that show agreement with Bob. Astute readers will not take him seriously any more until he challenges Gill.
Nate says:
”Whilst an observer looking at the Moon from a fixed place among the stars, a non-rotating reference frame, sees that the Moon is spinning.”
yes thats correct. the moon can be seen as rotating/spinning around the earth nate.
now if you will as sensibly admit you are wrong about the moons motion involves the moon’s particles simultaneously going in two different direction from two different simultaneous motions is totally impossible we will be making remarkable progress toward correctly categorizing the moon’s actual motion.
Nate says:
so yeah the moon is spinning just that its only seen as spinning on its own axis due to it spinning around earth and being able to see all its sides from any star.
Once in while, your arguments inadvertently get at the key facts, Bill. In this instance it is that the Moons spin is all about reference frames.
———————–
Nope the phony baloney argument about reference frames merely comes from you and your other spinners being ignorant about references frames making a difference in this case, which is fed entirely by your lack of vision and thus ignorance that it makes no difference.
Objects rotating on an external axis looks identical (if you ignore the external axis) to a spin on an internal axis from a distant star.
But if you spend 5 seconds thinking about it, if you are capable of that. You would realize that the particles of the surface of the moon would look the same as a ball on a string when viewed from an internal axis.
Thus references frames have absolute no ability to differentiate between the spinner position and the non-spinner position from any identical view point.
When is Gaslighting Graham going to really discuss his disagreement with Gill?
#4
When is Little Willy going to discuss his disagreement with bob?
When are Moon Dragon cranks going to present a physical explanation as to why the Moon should not be spinning?
Various physical explanations have been presented repeatedly over the last five or six years. You must not have been paying attention. Now, when are you going to discuss your disagreement with bob?
Gaslighting Graham waves his hands toward the infinite.
Hush, child.
” only seen as spinning on its own axis due to it spinning around earth and being able to see all its sides from any star.”
Bill, you are the one highlighting the reference frame issue here, by noting that ‘from any star’ which means from the inertial reference frame of the stars.
In that frame, indeed the observer can ‘see all sides’.
Seeing all sides is a clear signature that a body is spinning (rotating).
But not from the Earth, which is not the inertial frame, it is a rotating frame, the observer is on the inside and also rotating with the Moon’s orbit.
And thus the observer does not see all sides. And thus by the logic of ‘if an object is spinning I see all sides of it’, the Moon is NOT SPINNING.
That is the ENTIRE basis of the whole TMDNS religion.
BTW, you using the phrase “it is spinning around earth” disagrees with the whole TMDNS OPR.
Nate says:
”But not from the Earth, which is not the inertial frame, it is a rotating frame, the observer is on the inside and also rotating with the Moons orbit.”
OK little Nate. take it slowly. The if you are standing on earth you AREN’T rotating with the moon’s orbit. So try to get that straight first.
then if you succeed, what I said is changing reference frames doesn’t change anything. thats true for all rotations either on a local axis or an external axis.
If you are standing in the middle of the spinning earth the earth’s individual chunks and particles rotate around you while showing only one side. In effect these chunks and particles are not spinning on their own axis they are rotating on an external axis.
Thus your reference frames have zero application in this case as every rotation can be broken down in the same way.
Of course if you were at all consistent in this claim you would be running around telling everybody viewing the earth from the inside that they were mistaken in thinking those particles and chunks were rotating around the COM of the earth.
You would endlessly insist that they all were rotating on their own COMs.
And you would be insulting everybody seeing the particles and chunks of the earth rotating around the COM of the earth that they are ignorant and using the wrong reference frame.
So you are just confused about when its appropriate to use reference frames and when its not.
I mean DREMT has been right all along on this that you can view this in different ways and you continue to insist you cannot you have to adopt the correct reference frame. . . which if applied consistently means there is no such thing as a rotation around an external axis. . .while the astute readers know there is.
“If you are standing in the middle of the spinning earth the earths individual chunks and particles rotate around you while showing only one side”
And thus for many centuries people did not believe the Earth was spinning. Only after Foucaults pendulum was there proof.
“The if you are standing on earth you ARENT rotating with the moons orbit.”
Nor did I claim that. I explained that in order to look at the Moon from Earth, each night, the observers orientation must change at the rate that the moon orbits.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1572530
"If you are standing in the middle of the spinning earth the earth’s individual chunks and particles rotate around you while showing only one side. In effect these chunks and particles are not spinning on their own axis they are rotating on an external axis."
Exactly, Bill…and it’s the same story if you view them from outside the Earth. Nobody here is going to be silly enough to claim that Mount Everest is rotating on its own internal axis, or that every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is rotating on its own internal axis, just because the Earth is spinning. They are all rotating about only an external axis, and switching reference frames doesn’t change that reality.
I don’t understand why anyone would still be claiming that reference frames resolve the moon issue when they know that rotation about an external axis exists. It’s weird that my point 3) isn’t Universally accepted by now.
> If you are standing in the middle of the spinning earth the earths individual chunks and particles rotate around you while showing only one side.
Depends on what the individual chunks and particles actually are doing. And it depends first and foremost on what the “spinning earth” actually does, e.g.:
https://youtu.be/0jHsq36_NTU?si=zp-D4HQ_eXfyXEQ2
The Moon Dragon cranks absolutely learned nothing over the last five years.
Poor “Spinners”. The existence of “rotation about an external axis” really destroys their arguments.
False, the Moon’s motion is clearly not compatible with a rotation on an external axis.
You guys defer to Madhavi, then contradict Madhavi when you insist the Moon is a rotation on an external axis.
…“Spinners”. The existence of “rotation about an external axis” really destroys their arguments.
Poor Moon Dragon cranks,
Forced to admit that it makes a lot of sense to say that the Moon spins and unable to provide a physical explanation of why it should not be spinning.
Willard I said that in the first comment section I ever posted into on this topic.
If you want to deal with the moon’s motion for example from an orbit around the moon it makes a lot of sense to use the mathematical reduction term of spin to do that. If you want to deal with the entire motion you should treat it as a rotation on an external axis.
Being able to break concepts down about single motions using mathematical reduction makes perfect sense in millions of examples.
For instance a simple reduction would be 2 forces acting on an object with different vectors. If you want the object to go in the direction of one of the vectors you apply an opposing and equal force to the other vector. But you guys appear to think an object with two forces acting on it goes in two different directions at the same time. Obviously you guys didn’t attend all your classes. Maybe thats why you are unemployed and spend all your time in here and trying to construct your own blog that understandably nobody is interested in.
Nate says:
False, the Moons motion is clearly not compatible with a rotation on an external axis.
You guys defer to Madhavi, then contradict Madhavi when you insist the Moon is a rotation on an external axis.
———————-
Well you are the pot calling the kettle black Nate. You argue that the moon’s motions is two motions a spin on the moons local axis combined with a translation.
Since the translation is curved its a curvilinear translation and Madhavi says:
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel CIRCLES, while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation.
So it seems that you have the same problem. Obviously Madhavi doesn’t bring up ellipses at all because astronomy perfers to use the mathematical reduction of the spin motion and only uses the angular momentum of rotation on an external axis for its angular momentum.
And we do know that any kind of curved path needs a cause and you guys know what it is but are in denial of that fact.
> parallel CIRCLES
Gill is still confused about curvilinear translation.
Figure 2a is not figure 2b.
At least it’s not the confusion about the concept of a rigid body, so progress.
“So it seems that you have the same problem.”
You didnt show any problem for spinners, who agree with an orbit being curvilinear translation.
“Obviously Madhavi doesnt bring up ellipses at all because”
she is describing the general definitions.
Left to readers to recognize that an ellipse is curvilinear translation.
“And we do know that any kind of curved path needs a cause and you guys know what it is but are in denial of that fact”
She is describing motion, that is the first required step (as Kepler did) then a cause can be determined (as Newton did).
“Nobody here is going to be silly enough to claim that Mount Everest is rotating on its own internal axis, or that every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is rotating on its own internal axis, just because the Earth is spinning.”
Nor would we need to claim that a part of the Earth is spinning independently!
The Moon, however is clearly not part of the Earth, and thus we can and we must talk about its motion as independent.
"Forced to admit that it makes a lot of sense to say that the Moon spins and unable to provide a physical explanation of why it should not be spinning."
Little Willy is at the flat out lying stage. Mind you, he never really leaves that stage.
Instead of admitting defeat like an honorable man would do, Gaslighting Graham continues to gaslight.
Perhaps one day he’ll learn about polard coordinates.
Defeat on what? I’m correct on points 1) – 4), and that’s all that matters to me.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther’s contraption clearly makes orbit and spin interdependent. That refutes his (4).
The only way to determine if something rotates or translates is by choosing a frame of reference, which usually implies a coordinate system. That refutes his (3).
There is no coherent way by which Gaslighting Graham can transpose his silly ball-on-string model because he confuses it with a model with a ball and with a string. That refutes his (2).
Let astute readers try to recall what was his (1). It’s also wrong, for even more obvious reasons.
Points 1) – 4) are correct. I feel no need to repeat the debunking of the points you keep endlessly repeating. You are wrong, I am right. Forever.
After having redefined what “to orbit” means, after having redefined what “to determine” means, and after failing to transpose geometrical concepts into a silly GIF that refutes Moon Dragon cranks, Gaslighting Graham declares victory.
I was victorious long before we discussed the points in depth, Little Willy. Points 1) – 4) have been correct for the last five or six years. Nothing can ever change that. Sorry if that upsets you, but that is just how it is.
And, your comments on geometry reveal that you agree with me on point 2), and disagree with bob. Whether you are man enough to openly admit that, or not.
Gaslighting Graham lost on all counts.
He soldiers on.
Sorry for your loss, Little Willy.
Not that it matters much in the grand scheme of things.
Gaslighting Graham’s actual defeat does not even mean anything regarding the Moon issue, which he has forfeited many moons ago.
I’m correct on points 1) – 4), and you agree with me on 2).
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The CSA Truther can “undo” a rotation whose existence is denied by Gaslighting Graham.
I prefer to believe that we can “undo” a rotation that exists.
In that sense me and Bob agree.
Your “Fact 1” and “Fact 2” show complete agreement with me on 2), and abject disagreement with bob. bob even said your “Fact 1” was incorrect. Your failure to admit that you two disagree is your own problem. You seem to have some deep-rooted inability to challenge those you look up to.
What Gaslighting Graham calls “my” Fact 1 and 2 are actually two facts that belong to geometry.
He still fails to mention that from these facts his interpretation of (2) does not obtain.
Of course it does. If “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was movement like the MOTR, neither your “Fact 1” or “Fact 2” would be correct.
Gaslighting Graham displays his reverse logic once again. When we say that B follows from A, we are saying that A implies B. Not the other way around.
Gaslighting Graham’s (2) does not follow from geometry facts alone. He injects a peculiar interpretation of these facts. One that leads him to deny the existence of a rotation that the CSA Truther can cancel, no less!
Willard is beyond confused. The only way to cancel a motion is to stop it Willard. Obviously the only thing canceled is something that happened along time ago, namely Willard’s ability to see how the inside of the Truther device works.
“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.”
If “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” were movement like the MOTR, then “one external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet” would be equivalent to a translation superposed with no internal rotation.
Gill displays the full extent of his studies in logic and epistemology, and Gaslighting Graham uses the magic word – “if.”
Yes, I used the word “if”…
…and, since “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, and not the MOTR, then one external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
And it takes Gaslighting Graham only a few minutes to go from “if” to “since.”
No rebuttal to what I’m saying other than to weirdly criticise my word choices? Then I’m afraid you concede the point. Your comments on geometry show that you agree with me on 2), and disagree with bob.
Nate says:
December 14, 2023 at 10:59 AM
”Nobody here is going to be silly enough to claim that Mount Everest is rotating on its own internal axis, or that every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is rotating on its own internal axis, just because the Earth is spinning.”
Nor would we need to claim that a part of the Earth is spinning independently!
The Moon, however is clearly not part of the Earth, and thus we can and we must talk about its motion as independent.
——————————–
Finally I get Nate to answer the question I have been trying to get him to answer.
The question was why do we place the energies of a boulder on the surface of the earth to be around the COM of the earth but when he give it a slight boost above the surface some of those energies magically become energies around the boulder’s center of mass.
And now we have Nate’s answer. His daddy arbitrarily determined that gravity does not constitute a connection and invented an unwritten law of physics that requires some of the energies of the boulder mass has magically migrated from around the earth’s COM to around its own COM. Does your daddy have that law in peer review yet?
Seems that Nate is still grasping blindly at the difference between symbolic idealistic representation and object physical reality.
How about the ball attached by a string Nate is that enough of a connection?
While Gaslighting Graham denies the obvious (i.e. is jump from “if” to “since” is invalid) and Gill for goes crappy metaphysics:
which is actually false!
Instead of admitting defeat like an honourable man would do, Little Willy continues to gaslight.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, oblivious to the fact that he keeps misrepresenting logical equivalence.
When A is equivalent to B, it is always so.
An equivalence is not a choice between A or B, say as descriptions.
It’s both. At the same time. Instantaneously. Forever.
Or more precisely, eternally.
Logical statements are eternal claims.
Hence why the CSA Truther can cancel his inner rotation.
It’s always there. Always has been. Gaslighting Graham tries to turn a geometry claim into a physics claim because he has nothing else.
Absolutely nothing else but a silly equivocation.
“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.”
If “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” were movement like the MOTR, then “one external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet” would be equivalent to a translation superposed with no internal rotation…
…and, since “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, and not the MOTR, then one external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
Note that nowhere am I “misrepresenting logical equivalence”. Little Willy is an intellectually dishonest sack of human garbage.
“Hence why the CSA Truther can cancel his inner rotation. It’s always there. Always has been.”
Physically, the CSAItruth equipment, when recreating movement like the MOTR, is rotating the model moon about an external axis in one direction whilst rotating the model moon about an internal axis in the opposite direction, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation. Both those motions exist, and no motion has been “cancelled”. That’s the OPR for that equipment. Don’t worry, nobody expects you to understand.
Right! Right the two motors are both running. One cannot cancel angular momentum except by applying a direct force to stall the motor as angular momentum is never negative.
but I agree Willard isn’t at all likely to understand any of that.
So when Gaslighting Graham is caught another time with his logic pants down, he tries to flee under the hood of the CSA Truther’s contraption. As if geometry could care less about contraptions. And of course Gill will hide behind daddy with this other gem:
He could offer his services to AI gibberish generators, but first he’d need to remove the obvious falsities. Perhaps he should try his hand at passing the Turing Test over there:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/357128/intuition-for-conservation-of-angular-momentum-of-a-group-of-particles
None of this matter for the geometry point being discussed. That should go without saying. When Gill is around, lots of irrelevant stuff surfaces.
There is nothing wrong with my logic, you lying POS.
Poor Gaslighting Graham,
Forced to endure the elucubrations of Gill just because he sucks up to him.
An equivalence is a mutual implication. When A is equivalent to B, A implies B, and B implies A.
According to Gaslighting Graham, either there is 2+2 or there is 4. Cannot be both.
Little Willy continues to invent a position for me, instead of challenging my actual words
That means I win, again.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more.
He knows that Gill is utterly wrong when he tries to invoke angular momentum in a geometry fight. He refuses to correct him. Presumably because Gill drank the Relative but Objective Reality kook-aid.
What an abject human being!
You kept mentioning the CSAItruth equipment, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
I mention the CSA Truther to explain Gaslighting Graham’s logical mistake. He riffs on the CSA Truther to evade that logical point. These are not the same.
Gaslighting Graham’s misunderstanding is quite easy to spot:
An outer rotation is equivalent to an inner rotation and a translation. It is not equivalent to an outer rotation plus something else. More so when that something else contradicts the fact that an outer rotation is equivalent to an inner rotation and a translation!
A = B + C is not equivalent to A – C = B + C
A – C equals B.
All of Gaslighting Graham’s misunderstanding stems from the fact that he misinterprets what “with no internal rotation” means!
“An outer rotation is equivalent to an inner rotation and a translation.“
Thus you agree with me, and disagree with bob, on point 2).
Is Gaslighting Graham taking drugs again?
Just stating a fact. Every time you repeat your “Fact 1” or “Fact 2”, you tacitly agree with me on point 2), and disagree with bob. It’s OK, I won’t expect you to understand.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1574963
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, and once again he armwaves to his silly talking points instead of addressing his misunderstanding of “without an internal rotation.”
The very same misunderstanding that makes the CSA Truther pretends that the Moon would need an additional change orientation to be spinning!
Poor Graham. His “without an internal rotation” leads him to another algebraic mistake. Not unlike when he tried and failed to balance energy using one single equation.
No mistakes here, just effortless, eternal victory.
Willard says:
And of course Gill will hide behind daddy with this other gem:
One cannot cancel angular momentum except by applying a direct force to stall the motor as angular momentum is never negative.
——————————
willard failed to note the exception. subtleties seem to fly over his head. since the angular momentum of any rotation is positive no matter the direction of the rotation (clockwise or counterclockwise)
the only time that a rotation can be considered a negative is when another rotation collides head on with the first. (direct force).
in the case of the device with two motors on different axes you have two positive angular momentums in opposite directions that are not affecting each other. put two motors on the same axis of different power to axle ratings running in opposite directions and the result will be a positive angular momentums in the direction of the more powerful motor. make the motors of equal power on the same axle in opposite directions and you get zero angular momentum. so negative angular momentum effectively doesn’t exist without the exception.
Gill still tries to bring angular momentum in a geometry fight, Gaslighting Graham still refuses to correct him, and both bozos still fumble over a simple equivalence.
Little Willy is such a sore loser.
Gaslighting Graham can’t suck that much at basic algebra.
He can only be a piece of shit.
Every time you repeat your “Fact 1” or “Fact 2”, you tacitly agree with me on point 2), and disagree with bob. It’s OK, I won’t expect you to understand.
Every time Gaslighting Graham gaslights astute readers with his misinterpretation of “with no rotation about an internal axis” he’s acting like a piece of shit. Let’s abbreviate:
I =df Internal Rotation
E =df External Rotation
T =df Translation
Fact 1 reads:
(F1) E = I + T
Adding “with no rotation about an internal axis” reads:
(GG) E – I = I + T
These reduce to this a very Weird Geometry:
(WG) E = T
We can also convert into the CSA Truther’s TRICK:
(TRICK) E = E – I
From there just about anything goes.
Lol…Little Willy reads “with no rotation about an internal axis” as “with negative rotation about an internal axis” and actually starts subtracting internal axis rotations!
I knew you were confused, but I never knew you were this confused!
Very funny. Thanks for the entertainment.
Here is the reality:
(F1) E = I + T
Adding “with no rotation about an internal axis” reads (because you are adding zero internal rotations, not subtracting an internal rotation):
(GG) E = I + T
Now, let’s look at what happens when “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTR:
(WG) E = T
See why you agree with me, and disagree with bob?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
In “E = I + T” there is an I. “With no rotation on an inner axis” is thus impossible, and his (2) is refuted.
Bob was right all along, and Gaslighting Graham should stop taking drugs.
Little Willy doubles down on what has to be the most ridiculous argument he has ever made. Truly comical.
So now he thinks bob was right all along, in which case:
E = T
😂
Astute readers already know that E = T when I equals zero.
Just like Bob said, in at least two different ways.
Gaslighting Graham needs to stop doing drugs.
So, bob is correct, is he? Which means that when he said your “Fact 1” was incorrect, he was right.
In which case:
E = I + T
is wrong.
Oh dear, this isn’t going very well for you, Little Willy!
Too much drugs and not enough work makes Gaslighting Graham a dull boy. Come to think of it, E = T is a perfect encapsulation of the legend from his pet GIF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
But perhaps the most beautiful part is this little point that Gaslighting Graham keeps dancing around: E is not equivalent to I and T in physical terms. A Moon that is truly swung around like a ball-on-string would behave very differently than our actual Moon. On that too Bob is correct.
Little Willy obviously cannot decide if he thinks E = T, or if he thinks E = I + T!
The comedy continues.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham has a very tough time trying to misunderstand that E = T + 0 equals E = T.
What drugs can do to the mind of Moon Dragon cranks is just awful.
OK, so let us assume you are being serious.
You think that an external axis rotation is equal to a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis. OK, no problems so far.
Now, set that internal axis rotation to zero. There is no longer a rotation about an internal axis.
You now think an external axis rotation is equal to a translation in a circle.
And, you do not see the problem!
Astute readers may realize by now that Gaslighting Graham really struggles to realize that what he is trying to refer to with his inside baseball jargon is the notion of addition.
An external rotation with an additional inner rotation. An additional one, that is one that is non-zero.
And here’s the kicker: “additional” means there’s already one.
Just like Bob keeps saying, and what he proved in so many ways.
“An external rotation with an additional inner rotation”
What is? Your E in E = I + T?
So you are saying it is actually:
E + I = I + T?
Don’t be silly, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham is really struggling for no good reason.
In E = I + T, there’s an I. If the I equals zero, you get a pure translation, just like his pet GIF. If the I equals non-zero, you get a translation AND an inner rotation, just like Bob keeps saying.
It is impossible to have a pure external rotation without having an inner translation somewhere. That’s just how the concepts are mutually defined!
* * *
Astute readers might imagine how it could be otherwise. Let them assume an object centered on Z. Let a line go from Z to A, and assume that A is the center of another object. Rotate ZA 90 degrees. Has the circle centered on A changed orientation? Answer: we can’t tell until we adopt a coordinate system.
Hence why Bordo keeps repeating that the Moon actually translates around the Earth. That means he is assuming some kind of polar coordinates, a bit like here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system#/media/File:Cartesian_to_polar.gif
Anyway. Gaslighting Graham should let the drugs subside before continuing. He won’t.
OK, so let us assume, again, that you are being serious.
You think that an external axis rotation is equal to a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis. OK, no problems so far.
Now, set that internal axis rotation to zero. There is no longer a rotation about an internal axis.
You now think an external axis rotation is equal to a translation in a circle.
And, you do not see the problem!
Let’s assume that maybe Little Willy can not see what the problem is. Let’s make it even clearer for him.
"Looks like Gaslighting Graham has a very tough time trying to misunderstand that E = T + 0 equals E = T."
If we can set I to zero, then we can set T to zero.
E = I + T
becomes
E = I + 0
becomes
E = I
Or, to write it out in full, as before:
You think that an external axis rotation is equal to a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis. OK, no problems so far.
Now, set that translation in a circle to zero. There is no longer a translation in a circle.
You now think an external axis rotation is equal to an internal axis rotation.
And, you do not see the problem!
I see that Gaslighting Graham’s drugs are still going strong.
Now that the simple “E = I + T” has been adopted, we can represent the CSA Truther’s trick the following way.
1. His claim that the Moon cannot be spinning without showing all of its sides rests on the demonstration according to which he joins an additional (and positive) inner rotation J:
(DEMO) E = T + I + J
2. His claim that the Moon could be seen as translating when the change of orientation (i.e. I) is cancelled can be obtained:
(CANCEL) E = T + I – I
The cancelling is expressed via subtraction.
The CSA Truther’s con should be obvious when transposed into rudimentary algebra. At least to astute readers, whom are not abusing drugs like Gaslighting Graham.
Little Willy, I just absolutely annihilated your entire argument. Why are you continuing to embarrass yourself?
Gaslighting Graham is on drugs again:
Has anyone argued that an external rotation was an internal rotation without any translation at all?
OMG. That was just to make the problem even clearer, Little Willy. You cannot set T to zero, or I to zero, and expect to get any meaningful result. It just doesn’t work that way.
E = I + T
but that does not mean that you can set I to zero and expect E = T! Any more that you can set T to zero and expect E = I!
Just because you can do something mathematically, does not mean that what it represents outside of the algebra is necessarily correct!
All you have to do is actually think for a moment…just take a beat and think…
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again:
He’s the one who claims something about an external rotation without an internal rotation!
Besides, how the hell can the CSA Truther cancel the inner rotation if he does not reduce it to zero?
Still, his discovery that his own position is utterly absurd amounts a small victory.
"He’s the one who claims something about an external rotation without an internal rotation!"
So does bob. I claim, correctly, that it’s movement like the MOTL, bob claims, incorrectly, that it’s movement like the MOTR. Try to keep up.
"Besides, how the hell can the CSA Truther cancel the inner rotation if he does not reduce it to zero?"
The CSAItruth equipment does not cancel a rotation on an internal axis. It rotates a model moon about an external axis in one direction, and rotates it about an internal axis in the opposite direction, once per external axis rotation.
"He’s the one who claims something about an external rotation without an internal rotation!"
A "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is the E in E = I + T.
Notice how it’s not, for example, E + I = I + T.
That’s because it’s with no rotation about an internal axis. So it’s just E = I + T.
E on its own = with no rotation about an internal axis.
Gaslighting Graham confirms that the claim he keeps asserting is absurd. I can live with that.
The CSA Truther inadvertently proves Bob right when he shows what happens when the inner rotation is cancelled. (Hint: a translation.) Will Gaslighting Graham come after the CSA Truther?
And of course Gaslighting Graham will dig deeper and deeper:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it’s with no rotation about an internal axis.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] So it’s just E = I + T.
Astute readers may wonder if he’ll realize what equivalence means when the drugs will wear off.
The claim I’ve proven a dozen times over, that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL, and not the MOTR, is not at all absurd. It’s correct. The CSAItruth equipment of course confirms that I’m correct, and that bob is incorrect.
Now that his silly “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” has been completely annihilated, Gaslighting Graham declares victory.
I know what equivalence means, Little Willy. I also know that "with no rotation about an internal axis" does not mean "subtract rotation about an internal axis". Which is the mistake that you keep making, over and over again.
"Now that his silly “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” has been completely annihilated…"
…try telling that to bob. He apparently thinks the concept is perfectly acceptable, he just thinks it’s movement like the MOTR, not the MOTL.
Everyone seems to understand the concept of "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" just fine. Except you. I wonder why that is?
Gaslighting Graham’s morning hit must be subsiding, so he returns to his usual gaslighting.
If he know what equivalence means, he would know that in E = I + T, E can be replaced by I + T and vice versa.
Which means that every time he mentions external rotation, we can replace it with an internal rotation and a translation.
Which in turns implies that “external rotation without and internal rotation etc” is completely absurd. Not because it’s impossible to express what it is, but because his own interpretation is pure bullshit. Here’s how we can express an external rotation without an internal rotation:
(F2) E – I = T
That’s it. That’s also what the CSA Truther proved. And that’s what Gaslighting Graham’s pet GIF asserts in terms of spin.
Hence why Bob is right: when we remove the inner rotation to an outer rotation, we get a translation!
To Little Willy, if 2 + 2 = 4, that means I’m not allowed to express that 4 – zero still equals 4.
The only reason I add the "with no rotation about an internal axis" to "rotation about an external axis" is so people will understand that movement like the MOTL can be described as involving no rotation about an internal axis.
That is what bob disagrees with…and that’s why he’s wrong. bob does not accept that movement like the MOTL can be described as involving no rotation about an internal axis. He thinks only movement like the MOTR can be described that way.
The rest of Little Willy’s post is repeating the same mistake again of thinking that "with no rotation about an internal axis" means "subtract rotation about an internal axis".
It just gets boring correcting him.
And, by the way:
"Here’s how we can express an external rotation without an internal rotation:
(F2) E – I = T"
That’s actually a rotation about an external axis with a rotation about an internal axis. The rotation about an internal axis is in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation, at a rate of once per external axis rotation.
So, you’re wrong again, in another way.
We could thus say that movement like the MOTR always involves a rotation about an internal axis, using your logic.
Gaslighting Graham forgets his high school algebra lesson:
Gaslighting Graham claims that “4 – 0 = 4” can’t be expressed.
Pure genius.
Somehow the words, "To Little Willy…" got cut out of his quote…
DREMT, good lord you talk about my patience!
Somehow Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
The long and the short of it is that an outer rotation contains, by definition, an inner rotation and a translation. Therefore Bob was right all along, and the CSA Truther’s proof that the Moon cannot rotate on its axis while showing the Man on the Moon facing the Earth is simply wrong. Gaslighting Graham’s “external rotation without internal rotation” shenanigans can’t do anything about this.
The whole idea that we need to choose between two descriptions for the actual motion of the Moon based on geometric intuition is utterly misguided. The choice is a matter of physics. We know which description is the most successful. It’s not Moon Dragon cranks’.
With Little Willy, I think he may have actually gone a bit crazy, after all. Not because of my supposed "gaslighting", but because he’s so determined that everything I say must be wrong, and everything bob says must be right, that he’s gone into some sort of fantasy world where he’s concocted all these elaborate strawmen about what I must be saying and what bob must be saying, and none of it actually matches anything in reality any more. He’s just sort of…lost touch with reality. So we have these long back and forths and at first, today, I was amused, but as it goes on, I just sort of get a bit depressed for him.
It doesn’t really try my patience, since I know I’m right, but it is eventually just a bit of a downer.
"The long and the short of it is that an outer rotation contains, by definition, an inner rotation and a translation. Therefore Bob was right all along"
You see, this is a good example of his fantasy world. bob actually said that Little Willy’s "Fact 1" was incorrect. So the reality is the exact opposite of what Little Willy just claimed there. An external axis rotation being equivalent to an internal axis rotation plus a translation in a circle is not something that bob agrees with. Obviously! Since bob has claimed an external axis rotation is equivalent to a translation in a circle!
I mean…the mental gymnastics that Little Willy has to do to try to keep all his strawmen in line must be nothing short of astounding. Why he can’t put just a little cognitive effort into actually seeing things for what they are is beyond me.
Gaslighting Graham will keep gaslighting forever.
You see, in the Moon Dragon crank universe, “external rotation with no internal rotation” is clearer. Not because “walk without chewing gum” is just a clearer way of saying “walk,” as mentioned earlier. But because Gaslighting Graham suggests that “walk without moving your legs” is clearer than “walk” simpliciter.
He also forgets that Bob took issue with the mention of “planet” in Fact 1. Since this fact is unrelated to a real planet but is a mere geometric fact, Gaslighting Graham’s omission only leg to more gaslighting.
Bob’s claim that E = I + T contains two rotations should be obvious to anyone. There is E, and there is I.
> only leg to more gaslighting.
Only led, of course.
It’s still a little funny that a simple equation involving three elementary concepts refutes Gaslighting Graham’s silly trull bridge and the CSA Truther’s con.
Just more of the same. Little Willy is lost forever in his fantasy world.
bob has claimed that movement like the MOTL can be seen as a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis. Putting that into the terminology Little Willy has been using, that would be:
E = E + I
Obviously wrong. Painfully obviously wrong.
But Little Willy will find some bizarre way to defend it…
Late in the night, Gaslighting Graham gets another high.
An external rotation (E) can be seen as a rotation about an internal axis (I) and a translation (T). Two rotations among others, for the Moon wobbles in more than two dimensions. Therefore Bob is once again correct.
Gaslighting Graham still refuses to concede that his “with no internal rotation” mostly helps confuses himself, but also allows him to try to con astute readers.
By the way, the CSA Truther indeed cancels a rotation with his contraption. It leads him to rediscover Fact 2. Gaslighting Graham pretends he believes Fact 2. Yet he denies that the CSA Truther cancels a rotation.
Perhaps he ought to work on reconciling those two positions after the rush kicks in.
the only thing that the truther model video cancels Willard is your ability to mentally process what is going on.
Gaslighting Graham takes another toke. Goes so well with his morning coffee.
Astute readers might ask themselves – does he not forget that the CSA Truther’s contraption is centered around an Earth that spins? This internal rotation somehow disappeared from Gaslighting Graham’s view. Yet this is presumably what keeps the Moon moving around.
Weird how selective his abstractions can be.
That last comment was Bill, Little Willy.
“An external rotation (E) can be seen as a rotation about an internal axis (I) and a translation (T). Two rotations among others, for the Moon wobbles in more than two dimensions. Therefore Bob is once again correct”
That is two rotations, one from either side of the equation, you complete joke. If bob were correct, they would have to both be on the same side of the equation. Obviously!
Like this:
(F2) E – I = T
Now you have an external axis rotation and an internal axis rotation on the same side of the equation. Only problem is, it’s for movement like the MOTR, not the MOTL!
Oh well.
Keep trying.
Another example of how drugs impair cognition:
If everything is on the same side of that equation, what would be on the other side? In other words, what would an outer rotation plus all the rest equal to? All this tells more about Gaslighting Graham’s inability to manipulate equations than something about Bob.
Astute readers should bear in mind that this equality sign designates an equivalence: we’re talking about transformations right now. Time is not involved.
What will it be when Moon Dragon cranks will have to deal with truly physical processes?
I just gave Little Willy an example, and he still doesn’t understand!
Little Willy, by your logic, we could say that the MOTR is both translating in a circle and rotating about an internal axis!
Gaslighting Graham really should stop doing drugs in the morning.
“E – I” is not an addition.
It is a subtraction.
Perhaps he could try again to misunderstand what is being said?
It’s only a subtraction because the internal axis rotation is in the opposite direction to the external axis rotation, Little Willy. You could think of it as a "negative internal axis rotation" which you are adding to the external axis rotation. Whatever way you look at it, movement like the MOTR can be recreated using an external axis rotation and an internal axis rotation.
Gaslighting Graham has a bad trip:
Life must be hard for our Moon Dragon crank. Not only does he need to deny that a translation obtains by cancelling the inner rotation that the outer rotation operates on the Moon, but he needs to hide his denial!
According to Gaslighting Graham’s logic, adding or subtracting amounts to just the same. More coffee may help him get over his bad trip. Perhaps he’d need something stronger.
Whatever way you look at it, movement like the MOTR can be recreated using an external axis rotation and an internal axis rotation.
And, by your logic, we could say that the MOTR is both translating in a circle and rotating about an internal axis!
That settles that.
Gaslighting Graham hallucinates:
When physicists look at the actual motion of the Moon, they don’t simply contemplate it from a geometric point of view.
They want to explain what they are seeing.
What they see is that the Moon needs to spin at the same rate it orbits the Earth to keep the Man on the Moon facing the Earth.
The whole idea that gravity would pull the Moon like a ball-on-string is just ridiculous.
And that settles it.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Meanwhile, every single argument you’ve made has been trashed. So where we’re at is, points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
This can be repeated, once per day, until no response is received.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gaslighting Graham sobers up:
He finally concedes that for more than five years he kept misrepresenting his pet GIF, the CSA Truther, and Bob.
Progress!
When will he concede that his silly trull bridge has been thouroughly annihilated?
DREMT’s point 3) remains incorrect since all motion is relative.
No repeated comments, once per day, until no response is received will alter that physically.
I misrepresented nothing, and nobody.
Meanwhile, every single argument you’ve made has been trashed. So where we’re at is, points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
This can be repeated, once per day, until no response is received.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gaslighting Graham might one day realize what “E – I = T” truly means. Only then will be able to see through CSA Truther’s con. Only then will he be able to realize that his silly trull bridge rests on a silly equivocation.
That day has yet to arrive.
Until then, he will still struggle to see that there is an infinity of ways to look at his pet GIF. They all require that we identify the underlying coordinate system and take its structure seriously. The only ones that matter are those that involve physics.
Nothing? No. DREMT 3:37 pm misrepresents that the next response after 2:11 pm will be tomorrow. DREMT simply can’t help himself from misrepresentation, as is his usual.
No repeated comments, once per day, until no response is received will alter DREMT’s 3) being incorrect since all motion is relative.
You are the one who needs to realise what “E – I = T” means. There is no con, and no equivocation.
Meanwhile, every single argument you’ve made has been trashed. So where we’re at is, points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
This can be repeated, once per day, until no response is received.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
And so Gaslighting Graham returns to his gaslighting program. After a weekend of doing drugs, that must hit the spot.
Astute readers might already have noted that the only way for I in E I = T to equal zero is if E and T are equivalent: E – 0 = T becomes E = T. Just like Bob said. And only if I equals zero would adding or subtracting be equivalent in that equation.
So perhaps Gaslighting Graham should clarify what he means by “with” or “without” in his “with no internal rotation” if the I he has in mind is not equal to zero.
As a matter of consistency, but also as a treat.
Little Willy, I’m not going to bother doing daily updates. You’re clearly still far too confused, and need more urgent attention. Expressing these points algebraically has sent you utterly insane. I already explained to you that "setting I to zero" makes no sense, because then E = T. You agree that E does not equal T, right?
I mean…that’s what bob thinks. bob thinks E equals T. You don’t. You and I think E = I + T.
You and I disagree with bob. This is the first thing you have to understand. Constantly saying "just like bob said", or "that proves bob right" in just about every post when in fact bob never said anything of the sort, and you in fact disagree with him, is a sure sign of your ever-growing insanity.
Please come back down to Earth at some point!
"So perhaps Gaslighting Graham should clarify what he means by “with” or “without” in his “with no internal rotation” if the I he has in mind is not equal to zero."
I’ll clarify again that with:
E = T + I
The "with no rotation about an internal axis" refers to the E. It refers to the left hand side of the equation. You will note that there is no I on the left hand side of the equation.
That whole equation is the same, then, overall, as saying that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is equal to translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis. Yes? The E = "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". The T = "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis". The I = "rotation about an internal axis".
It’s really simple.
"And only if I equals zero would adding or subtracting be equivalent in that equation."
Whether you are adding a positive internal axis rotation (meaning in the same direction as the other motion, be it E or T), or whether you are adding a negative internal axis rotation (meaning in the opposite direction to the other motion, be it E or T), you are still combining an internal axis rotation with the other motion.
So, with E – I = T
that still means you are combining an internal axis rotation with an external axis rotation to get a translation in a circle. It does not mean "with no internal axis rotation". There is an internal axis rotation, on the left hand side of the equation. Both the E and the I have to exist, in order for the left to equal the right.
Gaslighting Graham must be taking speed:
There’s a very simple case where E = T.
And then there’s a less simple one.
The less simple one is still simple.
E = "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
T = "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis"
E does not equal T. In any case.
Gaslighting Graham invents his own private Idaho:
That ain’t it. E is an external rotation, and that’s it.
As for what he claims makes no sense, all he needs is to read again what Bob wrote.
Little Willy, with E – I = T, do you mean "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis", or "translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis"?
Your answer should be the former.
The point is, "with no rotation about an internal axis" needs to be specified. Otherwise, you end up with all sorts of confusion. As you so ably demonstrate.
So, I will repeat:
E = "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
T = "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis".
If you don’t like it, go and play with somebody else.
As for listening to what bob said, you’ve no doubt twisted his words into something completely different to what he actually meant, as you do with everything he says…and as you’ve done with everything I’ve said. You’re living in a fantasy world of your own creation.
Gaslighting Graham keeps repeating irrelevant crap to dodge a very simple point. The point has two parts –
P1. He accepts that E – I = T
P2. He refuses that to subtract an inner rotation, one needs an inner rotation in the first place.
The CSA Truther indeed hides the inner rotation he deems impossible. The only question that remains is whether Gaslighting Graham is a mark or part of the con.
His “without an inner rotation” shenanigans makes me lean toward him being a mark.
Just like with Joe.
For the last time.
Little Willy thinks that because E = I + T, when the CSAItruth equipment recreates movement like the MOTR:
E – I = T
We can substitute in the following for E:
I + T – I = T
and there we have his “cancelling an internal rotation that exists”.
The problem with that is the OPR for the CSAItruth equipment is such that it can only rotate the model moon about an external axis and about an internal axis. Those are the only options, mechanically. So, physically, it is not cancelling an internal axis rotation. It is rotating a model moon about an external axis in one direction, whilst rotating it about an internal axis in the opposite direction, once per external axis rotation. That is the OPR.
Gaslighting Graham goes for the mind probing instead of reading properly.
E – I = T simply follows from moving the I that was on the right side of E = T + I to the left side.
Subtracting an inner rotation to an outer rotation gives a translation.
And the best part is that he agrees with these two equations!
The week will be a long one for him if he only takes drugs during the weekends.
“E – I = T simply follows from moving the I that was on the right side of E = T + I to the left side”
Indeed.
My last comment remains correct, and unrefuted.
Thank you.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
There’s no need to refute his silly and irrelevant mind probing, as I just said I what I meant, and he agrees with it!
The only thing he refuses is that when one substracts an inner rotation, i.e. with -I, then there is a rotation that is cancelled. Gaslighting Graham could accept that obvious point. But then that would mean he finally understands what Bob kept telling him.
And that won’t do, for he’s an Machiavellian prick.
I won the argument (again) with my 6:21 PM comment.
You seem confused, again, Little Willy. Keep reading the comment, again and again, until you understand.
You cannot be cancelling an internal rotation unless you are thinking of it in terms of:
I + T – I = T
but that is not the OPR for the CSAItruth equipment.
Q.E.D
“But then that would mean he finally understands what Bob kept telling him.”
bob has told me that he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTR, not the MOTL. Which means he disagrees with me and you. It means he should disagree with both equations.
bob has been wrong about a simple geometric fact for about five, maybe six years now.
You worship him, anyway. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham argues by assertion:
One actually can:
E – I = T
– I is the thing that Gaslighting Graham tries to evade.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1576837
Gaslighting Graham handwaves to his word play:
He uses “combine” to evade the fact that there is a subtraction that is being made.
That subtraction is applied to the outer rotation.
In other words, the inner rotation comes from that outer rotation.
Just like Bob observed.
Q.E.D.
Only if:
I + T I = T
but that is not the OPR for the CSAItruth equipment.
Q.E.D
Only if Gaslighting Graham denies that
T = T
does he have a point.
Meanwhile, astute readers know what -I refers to the inner rotation he and the CSA Truther claims does not exist.
Is Little Willy just not intelligent enough to understand?
“In other words, the inner rotation comes from that outer rotation.”
You can only think of the inner rotation as coming from that outer rotation if you think of the outer rotation as being I + T.
So, you need to change:
E – I = T
to
I + T – I = T
However, that is not the OPR for the CSAItruth equipment. The CSAItruth equipment only mechanically allows an external axis rotation and an internal axis rotation.
Your point is refuted.
Gosh it gets boring.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting:
No, you don’t.
All one needs is to interpret E – I = T correctly, and astute readers know that the CSA Truther implements that equation direction.
Unless you interpret E – I = T
as
I + T – I = T
there is no initial I to be “cancelled”. So Little Willy is not responding in good faith.
Gaslighting Graham has no idea what “to interpret” means.
The CSA Truther implements an outer rotation. That’s E.
Then he implements a clockwise rotation of the Moon. That’s -I.
He gets a translation. That’s T.
All we need to know are the two facts that Gaslighting Graham already agreed upon.
Q.E.D.
So Little Willy now, finally, agrees that the CSAItruth equipment does not cancel an internal axis rotation.
Good.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He’s simply trying to exploit the fact that the CSA Truther’s contraption is not a true general motion machine.
According to his logic, a yo-yo de-spin is impossible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAM-D_1920x1080.ogv
And he can demonstrate it using the CSA Truther’s contraption!
Is Little Willy trying to say that he does still think the CSAItruth equipment cancels an internal axis rotation? If so, then there would have to be an internal axis rotation for the CSAItruth equipment to cancel, in the first place. Which can only come from the E. So you would have to be replacing the "E" with "I + T" such that:
I + T – I = T
However, the OPR for the CSAItruth equipment is that it can only rotate the model moon about an external axis and an internal axis. So that refutes such a substitution.
Oh well.
According to Gaslighting Graham’s logic, he can’t believe that E = T + I because the CSA Truther can’t implement it.
Q.E.D.
False. The CSAItruth equipment can implement E – I = T.
However, it cannot implement I + T – I = T.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
The CSA Truther cannot implement E = T + I directly. Therefore Gaslighting Graham cannot really believe that fact.
Q.E.D.
Your claim is that the CSAItruth equipment is doing something that it’s physically incapable of doing.
On the other hand, I’m not saying that just because the CSAItruth equipment can’t do E = T + I, there is no such relationship.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
I claim that Gaslighting Graham holds a fact that the CSA Truther can’t implement with his contraption, viz. E = I + T.
In fact the CSA Truther portends to prove that this fact is impossible!
Q.E.D.
So Little Willy finally agrees, again, that the CSAItruth equipment does not cancel an internal axis rotation.
Good.
He has instead moved on to attributing beliefs to others that they do not hold.
Bad.
[GRAHAM] the OPR for the CSAItruth equipment is that it can only rotate the model moon about an external axis and an internal axis.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Im not saying that just because the CSAItruth equipment cant do E = T + I, there is no such relationship.
Both statements correct, and there is no contradiction, inconsistency, or problem.
Every time Gaslighting Graham gets caught special pleading he returns to this kind of proof by assertion.
Astute readers can see that the limitations of the contraption only matter when they support Moon Dragon cranks.
Here come the false accusations.
The tell is in Gaslighting Graham’s double negative:
or is that a triple negative?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Astute readers may wonder: if there is a relationship between an equivalence and a contraption that does not implement complete general motion, why insist on what the contraption can do?
The XY plotter equipment is exactly as limited as the CSAItruth equipment. It can translate, and rotate an object about an internal axis, but it cannot rotate an object about an external axis.
Funny how Little Willy does not seem to realise that.
Gaslighting Graham confirms that the specific implementation of the contraption matters only when it suits him. As if the Moon was a clock or something.
The plotter can emulate *any* motion whatsoever. The contraption *could* do the same, but only if we add truly bidirectional motors.
What matters is *what* is done, not *how*.
The XY plotter equipment is exactly as limited as the CSAItruth equipment. It can translate, and rotate an object about an internal axis, but it cannot rotate an object about an external axis.
The XY plotter can do E = I + T, but it cannot do E – I = T.
The CSAItruth equipment can do E – I = T, but it cannot do E = I + T.
I’m really, really bored of patiently educating a total ingrate who spits in my face and calls me names when I simply tell him the truth and my understanding of it to the best of my ability.
One more "Gaslighting Graham" and the discussion is over.
As specified by the CSA Truther, the contraption does not emulate general motion. It would not need much to turn it into a general motion machine.
The plotter does emulate general motion.
Gaslighting Graham is just being the Machiavellian asshat as he always was. He always will be.
And of course the plotter can emulate E – I = T!
Gaslighting Graham is just outright lying here.
The XY plotter equipment cannot do E – I = T, because it cannot do E as a single motion.
If Little Willy won’t be educated, we’re done.
ark…there are a couple of things wrong with the presumption of you six points.
1)it excludes the possibility that another cause exists for the current warming. That’s the fundamental flaw in the approach of the IPCC, who have a mandate to find only evidence to support the anthropogenic theory.
The irony is their full acknowledgement of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the first assessment of 1990 and their subsequent denial of both as having global consequences. Nowhere do they explain how temperatures in Europe could drop by 1 to 2C over 100s of years while the rest of the planet remained normal. They mentioned nothing of that conundrum in the 1990 assessment and raised it only when it became glaringly obvious that such a mini ice age could explain the current warming as a recovery from it.
2)none of your six points prove that CO2, as a trace gas, is causing warming and/or climate change. It is a presumption, not a proof. In fact, the IPCC offer no proof anywhere that CO2 has that ability in its present concentration in the atmosphere.
The IPCC talk only in likelihoods which are based on a mysterious scale created by the IPCC.
3)the scientific method which you are trying to describe requires proof and to overturn the laws of physics, absolute proofs are required. The GHE/AGW theories are based on unproved science, the GHE in particular, being based on an incorrect theory regarding how a real greenhouse heats.
There are two flagrant violations of the scientific method in the GHE theory alone.
a)it is presumed, with no proof, that a real greenhouse warms by trapping infrared energy. That faulty theory has been extended to allow CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to trap IR much like the glass in a real greenhouse. However, no one has proved that trapped IR can cause the extent of warming claimed by the atmospheric GHE theory.
b)the AGW theory, an extension of the GHE, further contradicts basic physics. It claims that cooler gases in the atmosphere can transfer heat back to the surface to raise its temperature to a higher level than the surface is heated by solar energy. That is a direct contravention of the 2nd law and it bothers me that many skeptics defend it.
They defend it based on a blatantly obvious error in the contradictory theory. The reasoning goes, from alarmists, that if an ‘energy’ balance between outgoing radiation and back radiation is positive, then the 2nd law is not contradicted.
The main problem with that theory is that the 2nd law is about a heat balance not a radiation balance. The 2nd law was developed by Clausius to correct the inference by Carnot that no heat was lost in a cyclical process in a heat engine. Clausius only stated the obvious, that in any system where energy is transferred between bodies, the energy flow can only be from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential.
The alarmist theory, that inferring (not measuring) a radiation balance as being related to a heat exchange, is fundamentally in error. The theory is an anachronism dating back to the mid 19th century when it was believed that heat flowed through air as heat rays. Apparently, many scientists today sill believe that nonsense, even though Bohr proved in 1913 that heat does not flow anywhere, being loss in the conversion of heat as kinetic energy in electrons to electromagnetic energy.
To summarize the last point, alarmists mistakenly claim that radiation between bodies means a heat exchange between bodies. Heat can be transferred only in one direction, even though radiation may be moving in both directions.
Therefore, your six points cannot be applied to the current global warming/climate change theories because there is simply no proof to support them.
TL;DR
”5/ Identify human influence and show that the observed changes exceed what can be attributed to natural climate fluctuations.”
climate science hasn’t accomplished this. one cannot use ignorance to validate science.
–Ken says:
November 29, 2023 at 12:33 PM
If Mars doesnt have an atmosphere in which humans can breath and with temperatures above zero for enough of the time to grow crops then its not habitable.
Itd take millions of years to terraform it into a habitable state; not worth the trouble, even if your condition of minable water is met.–
Mars per square km has more usable sunlight than Earth does.
Mars has 12 hours of useful sunlight and has at best 6 hours of peak solar hours per average day. At locations on Mars surface one get more than 12 hours of useful sunlight.
To terraform Mars, you need to make lakes. On Earth we makes lakes and generally don’t call it, terraforming Earth {some might}.
And Mars settlements need to make a lot water, and a lake holds a lot of water.
I live in desert, without man made lakes, it would not be habitable.
“And Mars settlements need to make a lot water, and a lake holds a lot of water.”
Seems to me that since Mars’ atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth’s, it would be difficult for liquid water to exist in a stable state. At typical Martian surface conditions, water would either freeze or vaporize.
I presume you checked a water PVT diagram before heading down this particular rabbit hole.
A,
It seems to NASA that “NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Todays Mars.”
Either you or NASA are possibly right.
I presume you checked your facts before heading down this particular rabbit hole?
Or did you just depend on the contents of your imagination?
Well the surface of a Mars lake can freeze, now if it’s freshwater the water below it would be 4 C.
If water was saltwater, you can have a solar pond. A solar pond has cooler water or can could ice at the surface, and warmer water below the surface. Or solar pond on Earth has surface temperature of about 20 C and meter below, 80 C.
But, I don’t know much about solar ponds on Mars. Though it’s weaker sunlight, so it won’t be 80 C {unless sunlight is magnified or waste heat heat it]. But without any “help” the water should able to be heated to 20 or 30 C in a earth man made solar pond [they are not very deep. A deeper natural solar pond {Dead Sea} has waters below the surface of around 50 C +. So natural like solar pond [deep lake} might be around 20 C.
An alternate is something constructed on the lake, but I would only do that if the lake had waste heat from a nuclear reactor.
So, I generally think of frozen lake with domes below ice and mainly using water to add pressure. And one travel from dome to dome without a spacesuit/pressure suit. And of course the water provides shielding for radiation. Living quarters greenhouses would normally have Mars dirt on it. Or be in cave or something.
Another aspect about Mars is small space rocks don’t burn up like they do Earth and it seems water would work as well as dirt would.
Useful sunlight isn’t enough.
You need an atmosphere that will keep water from vaporizing, as per Ark’s PVT comment, before you can have lakes.
The roadmap for Terraforming Mars is Bible’s Genesis. So far all you have is a rock hurtling around the sun and experiences day and night. Otherwise you have nothing but a gravity hole.
Ken,
You wrote –
“You need an atmosphere that will keep water from vaporizing, as per Arks PVT comment, before you can have lakes.”
From Nature –
“Water on Mars: discovery of three buried lakes intrigues scientists.”
Maybe you don’t care for lakes not exposed to the atmosphere – like the extensive lake system under several kilometers of ice in Antarctica. More than 400 subglacial lakes.
Who cares, anyway? You?
Maybe we can live in subglacial lakes in Antarctica?
It might be warmer than where I live.
When I was a kid, I didn’t know southern California could be this cold.
Much much later, after watch the Apollo landing on the Moon, I wanted to know why we were on the Moon. That was after watching the first Shuttle explode. Must have been some kind of malfunction or something. I never wanted to go to the Moon, just wondered why it was taking so long.
Anyhow people were arguing about going to the Moon first or going the Mars first. They also arguing robot vs human exploration.
Anyhow I learned it was hard to leave Earth.
I shouldn’t asked, then why have a government do it?
Instead I asked how are they doing it.
There were a lot ways to do it.
At some point I asked, could we have done it, a thousand years ago.
The simple answer is, no. Which I sort of knew, but why couldn’t we do it a thousand years ago? Which was sort of interesting.
If I answer it now, I would say, because we couldn’t fly, a thousand years. We could used balloons, but who wants to do that. It’s form of entertainment, rather than a way to get somewhere.
So flying required an light enough and powerful enough engine. You could glide, but it’s rather dangerous, and again not going anywhere- just another weird type of entertainment.
Anyways a light and powerful engine, a thousand years ago, could useful for many things, back then.
So, needed car racing.
When they had chariot racing, they probably would outlawed cars.
I am interested in the exploration of space and the possibility of migrating to a habitable planet (one that is at least as habitable as is earth).
Mars is a waste of effort. Its not habitable; its not just water, the lack of air and the cold temperatures mean its not worth the candle to try. There is nothing to economically extract. The only value in going to Mars is in developing the engineering that will be required to travel further into space.
“I am interested in the exploration of space and the possibility of migrating to a habitable planet (one that is at least as habitable as is earth).
Mars is a waste of effort.”
It’s the plan of the US government to first explore the lunar polar regions- mainly because water was detected in both polar regions.
And then to have the crewed exploration of Mars- which NASA has already spent tens of billions of dollars exploring with robotic missions over last few decades.
Next year the Falcon heavy is lifting components of the Gateway spacestation which will be in highly elliptical lunar orbit. And several robotic mission will attempt to land in lunar polar regions, and next year or early 2025, SLS will launch crew to orbit the Moon.
And within two years crew will land at the south pole region.
Also many nations are involved in various ways with lunar exploration. Or no major nation isn’t doing this.
But other than China, only US is focused on doing a crew mission to Mars.
I think NASA has delayed too long in regards to testing artificial gravity, but are plans of doing it fairly soon. There is also a private effort to do robotic mission to determine if there is life in the atmosphere of Venus {a low cost effort, and it may not happen soon as planned}.
It does seem to me, that NASA needs to spend a lot time exploring the Moon, but it seems to be that a lot time will be need to explore the planet Mars.
And it seems to me, that Mercury could also possibly be a habitable planet. And if the Moon has mineable water, then exploring with crew become possible {there is robotic mission already on way to Mercury sent by European Space Agency}.
In terms where most people will live in space in the future, I think it will be in Venus orbit. And I think it would be exciting to do crewed mission to the sky of Venus but it will probably require at least, 10 years.
NASA Artemis Programs: Crewed Moon Landing Faces Multiple Challenges
GAO-24-106256 Published: Nov 30, 2023. Publicly Released: Nov 30, 2023.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106256
Linked from http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Rand comments:
“GAO says that Artemis is not going to happen on schedule.”
Well, it’s worth considering.
I don’t get these spacesuit problems. Anyhow GAO:
“NASA and its contractors made progress since our last report on the Artemis missions, but they are still facing challenges with developing the lunar lander and space suits. For example, some flight tests have been delayed, which could affect the timing of subsequent tests. And a significant amount of complex work remains. As a result, we found that the lunar landing mission is unlikely to occur in 2025 as planned.”
…
“An ambitious schedule: The Human Landing System program is aiming to complete its developmentfrom project start to launchin 79 months, which is 13 months shorter than the average for NASA major projects. The complexity of human spaceflight suggests that it is unrealistic to expect the program to complete development more than a year faster than the average for NASA major projects, the majority of which are not human spaceflight projects. GAO found that if development took as long as the average for NASA major projects, the Artemis III mission would likely occur in early 2027.”
Well, it seems it’s like guessing when next Starship test launch will happen. Some say, months, I still think it could happen before this year ends.
“You need an atmosphere that will keep water from vaporizing, as per Arks PVT comment, before you can have lakes.”
What you need is about 4″ pipe having water pumped thru it into some smallish crater you have selected.
How you do that, is related where and whether Mars has mineable water.
Before this you might prepared the crater floor in various ways, one aspect could include building foundational “anchors” to hold down domes and things which will be held under the water. The force to hold them down is about 1/3rd what you would need on Earth, so your anchor cable strength is .38 what is needed on Earth.
A simple answer to evaporation is the lake would have 1/2 meter frozen water at the surface. And could want some areas to have ice which very transparent so as allow sunlight shine into the lake, and one could have the top part of transparent domes being above the .5 meter thick ice. And you have entrances {with airlocks} which you drive vehicle over ice and enter the settlement thru this ice.
And you could entrances coming from sides of the lake which might prepare before filling the lake.
My predictions for the Vancouver, Canada region in the next UAH temperature series for November is no change. Our weather will be the same cold, dreary November weather we always experience.
Even when the Sun shines, one must remain bundled up because walking into the shade produce an instant chill. Walking in direct sunlight produces a mild warming sensation but no one can dress in only a tee shirt since they’d die of hypothermia.
I am happy for those experiencing the exhilarating 0.2C warming claimed as a record but we are sadly experiencing none of it here.
–END OF AN ERA: Henry Kissinger, Americas most famous diplomat, dies at 100.
To be honest, I think he was overrated as a diplomat and foreign policy expert.
Posted at 9:04 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
Compared to who?
I read his book, and I laughed like a madman.
Kerry is only funny in how he looks- though Lurch was a lot better.
Since climate change science denial is a lost cause, might as well discuss Mars exploration…
Gbaikie wrote:
“Well the surface of a Mars lake can freeze…
…
But, I don’t know much about solar ponds on Mars. …”
If you look at a phase diagram of water you will see that the triple point lies at 0 C and 6.1 millibars. The average surface temperatures (-63 C) and atmospheric pressures (6.4 millibars) on Mars are too low for liquid water to exist stably, and thus the water molecule exists only as ice on or just under the surface and as vapor in the atmosphere.
The saline gradient is a gravity gradient, I don’t much about solar pond in world without 1 gee Earth gravity- such as Mars or Moon.
In terms of Moon, one make thin walled domes, with less than 1 psi pressure. Or with 1 atm or 1/2 atm pressure you need a strong dome- if it large though with Moon you have micrometeorites- so thin, doubled walled dome.
And thing about Mars, is one make glass from both CO2 and H20- they may not last a long time, but it’s “disposal glass panes”. Also CO2 and H20 as general construction material. And due to cheapest of CO2- you are mining sky for nitrogen {and would get a lot CO2} you could pave roads with CO2.
And I wouldn’t worry much about loss of H20 due to evaporation- you want to sell real estate in and around the lake, and if land real estate has H2O snow on it, it’s more valuable real estate.
Call your city, Christmas.
Your ideas fall into the realm of scientific speculation and conceptual brainstorming and their practical implementation is largely theoretical or experimental. Some would say “pie in the sky.”
It’s crucial to distinguish between conceptual spitballing and practical, tested solutions.
As I said we don’t know if Mars has mineable water.
And I defined Mars mineable water as water which can bought at $1000 per ton. In comparison, lunar water needs to be able to bought at $500,000 per ton {or $500 per kg}. Lunar water at $500 per kg is cheap water and will allow rocket fuel to made on the Moon.
Water on Mars at $500 kg is far too expensive. It’s too expensive to live and too expensive to farm. And if can grow food on Mars at low enough price, Mars isn’t habitable. Of course any govt could throw money at it, but they won’t and they shouldn’t.
What money is being thrown at Mars is for Mars exploration, for purposes of crewed exploration if NASA only pays $1000 per kg, that’s cheap and they will probably spend more per kg than that- they paying more for water shipped to ISS and Mars is further away.
One of NASA plans is to get water from the Mars sky, but that would probably end up costing more than $1000 per kg. But NASA can also use the CO2 to make fuel, and if paying more $1000 for water, you getting the CO2 for free. Or you say paying $500 per kg for the CO2 and getting the water for almost free.
But with Mars settlement, CO2 will cheaper than Earth CO2, and getting water that is way is expensive.
But to make water at $1 per kg, is mine a lot water and sell a lot of Water. Get more water from ground in day than it’s reasonable to get from the sky in a year. Though I think in total there is about 5 billion tons of water in the entire Mars atmosphere. Well, there is 25 trillion tons of CO2 in atmosphere {might be say 10 trillion tons of CO2 on Mars ground] and there is 210 ppm of water in Mars atmosphere- you can do the math. Oh if going to do math 25 trillion in entire atmosphere and something like 95% is CO2. So 95% of about 25 is about 23.75 trillion tons of CO2.
NASA will say there are trillion of tons of water on Mars surface, but what need hundreds of billions of tons of water which is mineable. Which might drilled for wells or some other way of mining it.
–Its crucial to distinguish between conceptual spitballing and practical, tested solutions.–
Well we tested solar energy on Earth, and it didn’t work, I am interested what kind of spitballing could you suggest which might make it work?
Here an example of spitballing:
Will Starlink monthly cost go down?
by Marcin Frąckiewiczin *HE, *RO, Artificial intelligence, News, Satellite Internet, Starlinkon 12 October 2023
The Potential Decrease in Starlinks Monthly Cost
Will Starlink monthly cost go down?
–SpaceXs Starlink satellite internet service has been making waves in the telecommunications industry since its launch in 2018. With its promise of high-speed internet access to even the most remote areas of the world, Starlink has garnered a significant amount of attention and interest. However, one question that has been on the minds of many potential customers is whether the monthly cost of Starlink will go down in the future.
Currently, Starlinks monthly cost stands at $99, which includes the equipment needed to connect to the satellite network. While this price may seem steep compared to traditional internet service providers, it is important to consider the unique nature of Starlinks offering. Traditional ISPs rely on physical infrastructure, such as cables and towers, which can be costly to install and maintain. In contrast, Starlink utilizes a constellation of satellites in low Earth orbit, eliminating the need for extensive ground infrastructure.
Despite the initial high cost, there are several factors that suggest the monthly cost of Starlink could decrease in the future. —
https://ts2.space/en/will-starlink-monthly-cost-go-down/#gsc.tab=0
Or then again maybe it will simply go up due to inflation or if account for the high inflation, it’s actually gone down a little bit.
A,
Goes to show you just can’t trust the journal “nature” –
Water on Mars: discovery of three buried lakes intrigues scientists.
And here is my climate copium contribution to COP28: https://youtu.be/Ja9I5bBlU3k
The best thing for the common good is good ol’ reality. Hopefully we’ll get some from COP28.
Maybe your funeral music is for the death of the GHE nonsense.
Long overdue….
P.s.:
The Chauvet Cave in Southern France, also known as the Cave of Forgotten Dreams, has some of the oldest human-made images ever found. Some of them were painted around 32,000 years ago.
” . . . has some of the oldest human-made images ever found.”
Are the others older?
That’s really exciting – can you say nothing at all even more vehemently?
> Are the others older?
Please don’t speak of Keith Richards like that, Mike.
Mars gets more solar energy than Earth.
On average, Mars gets 12 hours, Earth at best gets 6 hours, and the Moon gets “12 hours” in average day” which a month long.
Mars gets 600 watts times 12 = 7200. Earth gets 6 times 800 = 4800
And Moon gets 12 times 1360 watts = 16320.
But near polar regions, both Mars and Moon get a big advantage compared to Earth. And on Earth near polar region are worse places to harvest solar energy, or rather Earth average of 4800 it’s about 1/2 as much: 2400.
So lunar polar region can get 80% rather than 59% outside of polar region, due to topographical features. which don’t get in lower latitudes. You could get in lower latitudes something like 55% to perhaps 60% rather than 50%.
But big advantage Moon is it’s small and very short distance to get solar energy from different time zone, so you have solar electrical grid getting solar energy all the time. Mars bigger so in polar regions it’s short distance rather than very short distance to get electrical power 100% of the time.
Of course in L-1 of Venus, you solar energy 100% in any one location and 2,647 to 2,576 watts or almost twice the Earth distance or Moon.
Solar wind
speed: 530.6 km/sec
density: 11.48 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 92
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.10×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.9% Low
48-hr change: -2.9%
Well, Dec starting like it could be 100 sunspot number or less.
It’s got 7 sunspot numbers, don’t see spots coming from farside, and
spot is going to farside. And in three day four are going to farside.
Nov number was: 105.4 significantly higher than below the curved line which was predicted to be 90.6. Predicted for curved line for Dec is 93.2 and it seems to me it could get below 93.2 for Dec, but seems like it could go as high as 110 for Dec. It seems it would surprising
or dramatic if went as high as 120 or a low as 60. Some could be expecting it to be more than 120 and predicting this should happen.
I am expecting the trend for next 6 months to be below 100. And within a year lots of months at 60 or less.
I was trying to predict when it will drop below the curved line, and 6 month, or by April the predicted curved line is 101.4 and in Dec 2024, 112.3.
And some think it’s going to much higher than 112 somewhere around Dec of 2024.
Now double peak guess might suggest 112 or much higher by Dec 2025.